According to the founder of the Belarusan National Platform, if civil society won’t use the instrument as intended Belarusan regime will certainly do that.

On the eve of the conference of the Belarusan National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF) “Belarus’ civil society: challenges of standstill and governmentalisation of the third sector” Uladzimir Matskevich, the head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus“, shared his thoughts about the current situation around this formation with the EuroBelarus Information Service.

Forestalling the talk, Uladzimir Matskevich emphasizes a number of circumstances that allow to give assessments that might seem too categorical. “It is an opinion of a person, who planned to create a national platform, has been creating it, and has been trying to strengthen it and govern it throughout the years of its existence,” he said.

Uladzimir Matskevich recalls that “the National Platform was created as a very complicated instrument, a means that is required for the full-fledge cooperation between Belarus and the EU at the level of civil societies and through this instrument — influence of the civil society on the big politics.”

Clearly, “all complicated instruments require high competence and high level of training of those who use them.” On the one hand, notes Matskevich, it is “a dangerous thing; on the other — without due qualification, skills, and ambitions there can be no such people, who can use it for the full-fledge work.” According to him, the National Platform is appropriate for active civil society that “isn’t ready to submit to some decrees and resolve tasks assigned from abroad; it is useful for the civil society that knows what it should do, set goals and tasks by its own, relies on its won instruments, its own power and its own resources.”

“I think that we might have hurried up with this project — our civil society isn’t ready to use the national platform in the way we created it. There are only two precedents when the National Platform of the Civil Society managed to work for its own benefit. When we stopped the government’s and the Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei’s attempt to subdue the civil society to the state in 2009-2010. We were able to oppose it, and that is where we observed the highest solidarity of the civil society representatives,” notes Uladzimir Matskevich. “That is when the third sector demonstrated its power; when Ales Bialiatski was still at large, when there were no conflicts and discord between the major Belarusan NGOs — that is when we were able to do that. Second precedent took place when the Bologna Committee was able to use us when calling for the official Minsk to consider and use the Great charter of European universities and principles of the Bologna process. At that time the National Platform was also used as intended — as an instrument for solving major international and national tasks. There were no other cases.”

Situation in the region has also changed: “By our country’s example National Platforms were also created in other countries-participants of the Eastern Partnership program. It was our idea at the first Civil Society Forum in Brussels in 2009 — and they got extended to all the remaining countries. Now these National Platforms are evolving and developing differently. Some have been lacking behind the Belarusan National Platform but now are leaving it behind; some have chosen a different path of development. But nevertheless, except for Azerbaijan, they have developed to this or that degree and surpassed us. We have stuck in our development; we witness a serious standstill.”

But this standstill shouldn’t be viewed as objective: “It has an absolutely subjective nature. National Platform experienced purposeful fight; those, who understood the meaning and significance of such good, serious instrument and also those who were intimidated and didn’t understand it. The following slogans were used for intimidation in non-state opposition media: Matskevich seems to establish some kind of authoritarian regime, politicize the platform so as to substitute the existing political parties, unions, and coalitions with it. A very intolerant environment and intolerant situation against the platform were created. At that time we could close the national platform since nobody needed it in this role. But we didn’t do it back then; we were trying to preserve it.”

Now, notes Uladzimir Matskevich, the situation has changed — and “European officials, European politicians have better understanding of the role and significance of the national platforms in EaP countries; they understand how to use this instrument and encourage the development of national platforms that are present in their plans.”

“The instrument has started to live its own life, and now it is rather the EU that needs the National Platform, not us. Accordingly, the tone of some leaders of Belarusan NGOs has also changed — since the EU needs it they also seem to need it. But it didn’t raise their competence and qualification; they still don’t know what to do with the National Platform. They are ready to keep it since the EU needs it; but what it is for in Belarus, if we are not mature enough to use this instrument,” says Uladzimir Matskevich. “Understanding all that I also understand that if we won’t be able to use this instrument to the full and will keep it only because the EU needs it, Belarusan regime will get use of that by catching the initiative and the control over the National Platform, by manipulating it; and it will achieve what Makei didn’t manage to achieve in 2009-2010. And that is a real danger. And this danger isn’t invented by me — I just observe how think tanks, expert and some other groups are evolving — we can no longer say that they are a part of the civil society, since they are no longer independent and do what the regime orders them to do. We can clearly see that in the process of unsuccessful organization of European dialog on modernization that was disrupted because of the crazy deeds and stance occupied by the majority of Belarusan participants of this dialog and particularly because of the detrimental stance taken by the head of the EU Delegation to Belarus Maira Mora, as well as in the “Reforum” project.”

That is why, sums up Uladzimir Matskevich, “I think it would be better to dissolve the National Platform so that the Belarusan authorities don’t use its opportunities and so that it isn’t used to the detriment of the Belarusan civil society.”

“But at the same time I understand that my apprehensions don’t have 100% chance of realization. Yes, this might happen; but we can prevent it if the Steering Committee and organizations will be really active; if they start actively using the National Platform as a communication area as well as an instrument in different diplomatic negotiations, relations, etc. My opponents, who are good, intelligent, and responsible people — for example, Andrei Yahorau, Ulad Vialichka — say that we should keep the National Platform and that we have enough power to prevent it from governmentalisation. I will take their opinion in consideration, but I stick to my stance. I won’t be directly insisting on the dissolution of the National Platform, since the only arguments I can refer to are my understanding of the existing situation and my property rights for this instrument. If the conference decides on keeping the Platform, I won’t leave it, but act within the organizations that form the basis of the National Platform. But I am rather in the opposition of the general trend. You can think of me as of the “Right sector” of the Belarusan National Platform.”