Vatslau Areshka: “It’s hard to expect that we shall be winners in this ‘parliament’ and would be able to carry out radical reforms”

• 20.05.2008, 16:05

Leaders of oppositional political parties have presented at a press-conference in Minsk today a text of an address of their candidates at the parliamentary “elections”. The main point of the address is in a necessity to establish a “people’s control over the authorities”.

The leader of the United Civil Party Anatol Lyabedzka, a deputy chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front party Vintsuk Vyachorka, a member of the BPF party’s council (Sojm) Vatslau Areshka, one of the leaders of an independent trade union movement Alyaksandr Bukhvostau, a leader of the Belarusian Party of Communists Syarhei Kalyakin have taken part in the press-conference.

The main point of the oppositional parties’ address has been presented in detail by a member of the Belarusian Popular Front party Sojm Vatslau Areshka:

“Earlier at the elections, when the democratic forces addressed the nation, they proceed from a situation which was implicit but clear for them: we are going into the election, we are heading toward to a victory allegedly, and so we promise to change this and that, to reform the authorities and everything else. As a result, when it happened when the election was taking place in a usual fashion, the situation was viewed as a defeat. That is, we promised five steps to a better life, to some extent they were realized by Lukashenka. This time we have decided to proceed from the real situation we have with elections. We all know that it is hard to expect them to be even marginally democratic. It is also hard to expect that even in the best conditions, when a few candidates would be able to be elected to the parliament; we would be able to win in this parliament and would be able to carry out some radical reforms. That is why we were to find something the democratic forces could actually promise their voters. Such a promise is to make control of the society over actions of the authorities as real as possible. Today the situation is that any actions of the regime are not coordinated with the opinion of citizens at all. We know that actions of the authorities — repeal of benefits, contract system, school reform – cause negative response. People are not asked about that. That’s the main message of our address. A dialogue with the regime (which stays in our strategy and which is not abandoned by us) cannot be one-sided. The dialogue should take place with an active participation of the democratic forces, and for that the regime should start to feel our presence, our force and our pressure, thus, the topic of the control over the authorities is a part of the campaign of public pressure. The democratic forces are to implement it in the next few months and in the year or two before the presidential elections,” the politician said.

The leader of the Belarusian party of Communists Syarhei Kalyakin has defined more exactly what the opposition elected into the parliament could do:

“We understand that even if we win sweeping majority in the parliament, even if the vote would be transparent (which is doubtful; our life shows that it is unlikely so far), we won’t be able to change anything, as the president remains. He dominates over the whole system of power in Belarus today. But our coming into the ‘parliament’ would allow to demonstrate what the opposition could do in case of its rising to power. It’s a control over the actions of the authorities. Sometimes our authorities take good decisions, and then mess up their implementation, doing the contrary. So parliamentarians are to show where the money of the nation is leaking, to indicate when decisions are taken by the regime disagree with the existing Constitution. That’s why the main idea is a control over the regime. We want the establishment for the people, and not people for the establishment,” told the chairman of the Belarusian party of Communists.

The leader of the United Democratic Party Anatol Lyabedzka believes that it is important to persuade people today that they are to control the establishment:

“Our message is addressed to the people. Unless citizens of Belarus realize that they are to control the system, no matter how many people with democratic views will get into the parliament, the situation won’t change. Our authorities are speculating on its name of “people’s rule”; that they are doing everything in the name and for the good of the people, and we are to demonstrate that in reality citizens of the Republic of Belarus are ‘scum’, they are people who are not considered at all during the whole decision-making process. And we want to put through to people that they are to control these authorities and that the authorities are to depend on them.

There will be dozens thousands people on the Kastrychnitskaya Square when people will understand that. And then, no matter how many democrats will be in the parliament, they would be able to rest on public opinion. That’s the most important thing. As for our candidates who can be elected into the parliament, it is very important for us that they would come there with a package of concrete initiatives which are to help instituting a control starting from the latest issue, arms trade. If there were several MPs in the parliament, they could suggest an initiative to put arms trade under control. So it won’t be possible for our Finance Minister to say in the parliament that we sell arms, but there is no money in the budget. Then the democratic forces are to become a pillar for implementing a parliamentary control for those who may become MPs,” the politician believes.

According to one of the leaders of the independent trade union movement Alyaksandr Bukhvostau, the main thing for the opposition today is “to come out of isolation”.

“I think that emergence of people with active democratic standing in the parliament would allow to broaden influence of the democratic forces. What the regime is doing today? They are driving the opposition into a borderline space. They isolate it from the society. This isolation must be got over. And emergence of people who would have courage to state their position, who would be supported by the democratic community, and who are to win public support, I think, would give a fresh impetus to our struggle. That’s because it is very hard to destroy a system when you are not inside of the system. And only being a part of the system one could break it in a way that is necessary for a progress and development of a democratic society develop. We are to breach this wall. The words of Lukashenka that he would allow a few oppositionists in the parliament, say that some search of contacts he needs for strengthening his position is taking place. It is very important for one, or two, or three oppositionists to get into the parliament. I believe that it will be a beginning which in the future could lead to a desired result,” Bukhvostau said.

A deputy chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front Party Vintsuk Vyachorka is convinced that the regime won’t allow the opposition to get into the parliament:

“I do not think that somebody would allow anybody there, no matter how many times this or that Ambassador asks about that. Nobody will let anybody there. If the best happened, another Hajdukevich would be appointed. But we are to do everything possible to run this blockade. And the essence is for people who naively think that we have real elections to hear about an alternative from us. So that they could hear from us what pseudo-elections in the country mean. Another thing. We shall ignore antidemocratic, barriers around the election campaign artificially constructed by the regime, all these restrictions, all these pseudo-rules. We shall ignore them. We shall bring truth to people come what may. We won’t fear any withdrawal from the campaign. It’s another matter that we cannot, do not have a right to boycott the election and leave our voters, our people alone with this regime,” Vintsuk Vyachorka said.

The leader of the United Civil Party Anatol Lyabedzka has expressed his opinion on a possible boycott of the parliamentary elections:

“[We] are not interrelated in participation or non-participation in the election campaign. In 2000, a vast majority of the democratic forces’ subjects favoured boycott of the campaign. And certain reasonableness was in that, as until 2000 the Supreme Soviet of the 13th convocation was considered legitimate. It was recognized in the international arena. We were to struggle for maintaining at least some democratic procedures. But not much was achieved by that. Those who were elected MPs of the ‘chamber of representatives’, were recognized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE. They were recognized, despite of the fact that we were boycotting the process. Speaking about the recent election campaign-2004, the PACE hasn’t recognized this vote until now. So there is no direct link between that.

I am not interested at all how many candidates would enter the parliament (one, two, three or four). The most important message is work with people. It cannot be substituted by the procedure of the boycott. As one of the organizers of “Boycott-2000”, I know what it means in practice. In practice it means that one or two percent of active people are doing something, and others think they are boycotting. They are lying on a sofa and ignoring the events. It was like this then, and it would be like this again. People have no motivation. Besides, it is impossible to mobilize people and make them take to streets by a boycott. What will follow? Such informational and PR campaigns will take place when people are to gather in the streets with a banner: “We support boycott”, they are detained, sentenced to 15 days of arrest. Then people can go abroad as heroes as they were in prison. And in everyday life “oppositionists” Hajdukevich and Abramava will work with population at best.

We are to get in touch with people. When people will understand that in fact there is no control over the establishment by people, this would be the most important result. I am really convinced that we should think about 2011 already. And we should do that via an active campaign and community outreach”.