Civil Society: Hyperactivity with a view to future performance
Inna Fedotova, Vitaly Belovsky

Summary

Belarusian civil society is developing in a somewhat ambivalent manner. On the one hand, many independent third sector organizations appeared to be involved in construction of a quasi-civil society’s “infrastructure”. On the other hand, authentic civil society has made a statement as a social force capable of not only asserting its autonomy or fighting for survival, but also contributing to expansion of civic participation and rendering influence on electoral processes and rapprochement between Belarus and the European Union. Accomplishments of such civil campaigns as Speak the Truth and NGOs’ initiatives in the field of legislative policy and the Eastern Partnership program should be highlighted in this context. These initiatives however have not resulted in appreciable breakthroughs when it comes to civil society development and equitable dialog with the government.

Tendencies:

• Growing domestic and international influence of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum;

• Accelerating efforts of the authorities and pro-governmental public organizations aimed at creation of a vertical model of interaction between the third sector and the state;
• Ignoring of the third sector’s role in the Eastern Partnership program by the government, and then its fruitless attempts to form a Belarusian delegation to the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum of pro-governmental public organizations in the second half of the year;
• Clash of concepts of the vertical and horizontal models of interaction between the third sector and the government resulted in occurrence of new rifts in civil society;
• The presidential election largely contributed to political involvement and consolidation of the pro-democratic segment of civil society and its greater influence on “society at large”;
• Certain consolidation of a considerable part of civil society over the amendments proposed by experts of independent NGOs in response to the authorities’ resistance to the attempts of some third sector organizations to achieve liberalization of the bill on nonprofit organizations.

Overall picture

The third sector – nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations – form the basic structural force of civil society. According to the Ministry of Justice, as of January 1, 2011, Belarus totaled 2,325 registered public associations, 35 trade unions, 25 unions of public associations, and 99 funds. These are just formal parameters outlining the third sector’s institutional framework. As concerns the content, the public sector niche remains a sphere of confrontation of authentic civil society and state-controlled quasi-civil society. The first one is formed of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), civic initiatives, and other mostly grassroots interest groups initiated by citizens. The second one is formed of state-public and public associations patronized by the authorities.
The political regime presents publicly active organizations of the third sector with a thorny dilemma: either to act autonomously, independently, or surrender and fall under strict control of the state. The first strategy strengthens civil society, which emerges spontaneously through self-organization of individuals, displays of their independent grassroots initiatives, and calls for coordination of actions for protection of rights and legitimate interests of stockholders. Such activity however entails a serious risk for NGOs to be brought into direct confrontation with the regime that inevitably leads to political engagement of civil society and probable suppression of disloyal groups.
The second strategy brings the third sector closer to the Soviet “controllable system of interest groups”, where public organizations played the role of “driving belts” channeling public efforts into the courses determined by the one-party state. On the one hand, implementation of this strategy results in elimination of budding groups in civil society. On the other hand, it generates simulated forms of civic engagement providing required numerical strength of NGOs and their numerosity, but renders their authentic content noxious and substitutes independent political engagement with mobilization.
The presence of pro-governmental NGOs secures legitimization of the ruling establishment, political mobilization, control over election processes, and helps to establish cooperation with foreign partners. The fragmentary economic liberalization, image-making attempts, and seeking of Belarus’ wider participation in EU programs stepped up the use of foreign grants by NGOs. Management of some pro-governmental NGOs regard foreign and, likewise, domestic grants for particular projects (alongside with commerce) as a most feasible strategy for transition to self-financing1 .
In 2010, the independent segment of the third sector was still acting under disadvantageous conditions like the preserved procedure of state registration of new NGOs upon approval of the authorities, registration denials, problems that NGOs face when trying to rent office premises, ignoring of NGO’s offers and applications by government agencies, and also preservation of section 193.1 of the Criminal Code, which establishes criminal liability for activities on behalf of unregistered associations. Although the pressure upon independent public organizations and initiatives declined a little, it still was very effective. Leaving aside the December events, the authorities came down hard on the Speak the Truth campaign, the Union of Poles in Belarus, and the Union of Belarusian Writers.
In our opinion, among all events of the year 2010 illustrating the current status of Belarusian civil society, the spotlight should be on the efforts of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum and collision with advocates of the all-nation platform idea; the Speak the Truth civic campaign; NGOs’ involvement in debates on the bill on nonprofit organizations.

National platform vs. “all-national platform”

Involvement of some leading independent NGOs and initiatives of Belarus in the EU Eastern Partnership Program in 2009 gave a strong impetus to development of civil society in Belarus2 . In 2010, this process continued with formation and advancement of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum coalition by pro-European organizations of Belarus as a platform for coordination of actions of civil society entities in relation to the Eastern Partnership and a tool for dialogue and cooperation with the authorities.
The year 2010 began with Belarusian NGOs’ preparation for the second Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (CSF) scheduled for November 18-19 in Berlin. The decision to develop the National Platform was made on January 29 in a meeting between participants in the first Forum and Belarusian civil society stakeholders. A National Platform conference was held in summer (July 5-6). It totaled 150 representatives of 90 public sector organizations. Elaboration of road maps (step-by-step action strategies) for introduction of European standards in the field of the municipal reform, mass media reform, fixed term employment contracts, freedom of conscience, culture, and scientific research was the major point on the agenda. Matters related to education, the youth policy, environmental safety, etc. were added later. Six road maps were completed by the end of 2010.
The right to recommend Belarusian organizations for participation in the second Eastern Partnership CSF in Berlin was exercised during the July conference: 32 out of 88 applicant organizations were put on the final list. The conference suggested the public advisory council (PAC) formed at the Presidential Administration of Belarus in 2009 to consider the Eastern Partnership Program and participation of civil society during one of the next sessions.
In view of the probable socioeconomic benefits of Belarus’ participation in the Eastern Partnership, the Belarusian authorities had to turn regard on the third sector’s appreciable contribution to this initiative which they had stubbornly ignored . At the next session of the public advisory council held in late September 2010, head of Presidential Administration Vladimir Makey said the council had earned enough reputation in Belarusian society to represent its interests at the second Civil Society Forum in Berlin4 . On October 22, members of the public advisory council addressed the CSF steering committee expressing “readiness and profound interest in participation in the Forum” and “entering into cooperation with this institution.” However, the European Commission had already made up the list of Berlin Forum participants. It is not improbable that some members of the public advisory council could have been invited to the Forum if only their application had been made in time.
The OSCE program entitled “Development of the Potential for Interaction Between State And Non-Governmental Organizations” launched in August 2009 jointly with CIVICUS international alliance could be used by the public advisory council as aspringboard for coming up to the European level of civil society cooperation. PAC member Yury Zagumennov, Chairman of the Board of the NGO SCAF Center, acted as the initiator and head of this project. The CIVICUS programmethodology used in more than 100 countries all over the world envisaged a study of the Civil Society Index in Belarus5 and formation of thematic platforms “for consolidation of civil society and interaction with the state, business, and international communities.”6
SCAF offered the following pattern: start with gathering of proposals to be studied by participants in the working groups (platforms) at least twice a year; following the discussions, the working groups are supposed to work out consolidated positions and send all the proposals to the public advisory council at the Presidential Administration and public councils of ministries and agencies. The proposals accepted by consensus should be prioritized.7 Members of PAC and relevant councils will undertake to lobby the packages of proposals developed by the platforms in agencies of state jurisdiction.
According to SCAF, in autumn 2010, participants in the OSCE project (including representatives of a number of independent NGOs) created twelve thematic civil society platforms for cooperation with the government in the field of education, culture, human rights, social security, business, etc. In order to coordinate actions of the national civil society platforms, it was recommended to create the so-called all-national civil society platform under the auspices of the public advisory council at the earliest opportunity. Speaking of the anticipated benefits of this inter-sector cooperation format, the developers referred to experiences of France where 16 thematic platforms had been acting alongside an all-national civil society platform, a public advisory council communicating with the top echelon, and also councils hosted by relevant ministries and departments.8
However, the third sector organizations, which consolidated around the National Platform, did not like the idea to arrange civil society platforms under the aegis of PAC, which actually means patronage on the part of the Presidential Administration. Members of the National Platform believed it would result in a top-down nature of the government-civil society interaction rather than an equitable dialog. The offered pattern determines superiority of the Presidential Administration and public advisory council over the civil society platforms with all ensuing consequences, like removal of certain topics from the agenda of public discussions and political decisions, formation of a fully controllable third sector, and so on.
Participants in the National Platform believe that in the contemporary context, Belarusian civil society would benefit more from the so-called “Scandinavian” (horizontal) model with the focus on cooperation, partnership, and equitable dialog between society and the state, rather than the “French” model. The process of creation of platforms for communication within civil society and with the state is based on interaction mechanisms, i.e. negotiations and interconnection between the existing networks and platforms. But for this purpose, the framework of the third sector activity, which limits freedom of associations to a considerable extent, should be changed: section 191.1 of the Criminal Code should be abolished; the procedure of registration of NGOs and other nonprofit organizations should be simplified; there should be a regulatory enactment promoting equal cooperation between public associations and the state, etc.
On October 24, 2010, representatives of the National Platform took part in the OSCE project to negotiate fundamentals and approaches to creation of civil society platforms in Belarus. They acted unilaterally for there was no invitation from the organizers. The idea of accelerated generation of a national platform in the current situation stirred up the harshest criticism. In the opinion of the National Platform representatives, the framework conditions for activity of the third sector had not changed. The idea of creation of an all-national platform had no objective grounds. An attempt to actualize it would only reinforce dominancy of the state and, we must add, hierarchical structuring of civil society itself, which just cannot be built up as a vertical intrinsically, as National Coordinator of the Forum on Belarus Vladislav Velichko says.9
Following the meeting, on October 26, it was stated on behalf of the National Platform that the parties reached understanding that civil society platforms can only emerge being guided by the principles of grassroots self-organization, involvement, transparency, publicity, and responsibility for decisions made. “Initiatives, which do not adopt these principles, would be destructive and hollow, and eliminating the very opportunity of a dialogue between the state and civil society.”10 In order to actualize the idea of a national platform “all stakeholders pursuing development of such platform are to go a long and difficult way to come to mutual understanding, respect for common interests, creation of a widest possible institutional base of relevant organizations and initiatives, practicing of delegation of powers and other democratic mechanisms.”11 Representatives of initiatives aimed at creation of civil society platforms supported by the authorities were suggested “to continue the step-by-step discussion and coordination of positions at the expert and public levels.”12
A national conference attended by more than 250 delegates of NGOs was held November 14 as part of the OSCE project “Development of the Potential for Interaction Between State And Non-Governmental Organizations.” Officially, it was arranged to present and review findings of the Civil Society Index research conducted by NOVAK sociological laboratoryrequested by SCAF Center. The preliminary report of SCAF research project prepared for the conference listed propositions on inter-sector cooperation, upgraded interaction between the public advisory council and nongovernmental organizations, and further development of civil society in Belarus. However, following the research assessment, independent experts pointed out methodological inconsistency of the document. They said the conclusions and propositions did not correspond to the results of opinion polls and phrased the requirements supposed to bring the Civil Society Index research in Belarus to conformity with the CIVICUS’ methodology.13
The conference established that the statement on achievement of common understanding regarding the approaches and concept of civil society platforms of October 26 was mistaking the wish for the reality, and the conflict between the two fundamentally opposite viewpoints on interaction between the third sector and the state ran high again. Yury Zagumennov and his supporters reasoned their adherence to the “French model” referring to the lack of time-honored traditions of grassroots initiatives and dialoging in Belarus, which still need to be developed.14 Here comes the question, how they are supposed to evolve without an adequate institutional basis and not involving people in the corresponding practice of civic participation? Mr. Velichko is correct saying that advocates of the “French model” lay stress on what can be done under the present-day conditions, while those who speak for the “Scandinavian model” concentrate on what should be done in the current situation and insist that “the dialogue with the authorities should be established upon proclaimed principles and values.”15
The choice of an adequate model of national platforms buildup provoked a spirited discussion, and the conference organizers finally took the national platform issue off the table. The third sector representatives failed to agree on the principles and mechanisms of interaction and to allay mutual suspicions and accusations, though. On November 15, representatives of the National Platform addressed Stefan Fule, European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy, among other things saying that the model of interaction between civil society and the state offered by the public advisory council would result “not in promotion of the dialogue, marginalization of the already operating civil society associations and coalitions, which adhere but to the principles of self-organization, and their dropping out of international processes and social life inside the country.”16
So, Belarus sees two national civil society platforms largely overlapping functionally. One of them has been evolving since early 2010. It represents interests of most NGOs seeking cooperation with EU. Another one came out with its own approaches in autumn 2010 eager to represent interests of entire civil society. The first one stands up for horizontal (network) cooperation between NGOs and equal partnership between the third sector and the state, while the second one prefers a vertical model under the patronage of government institutions.
In such a way, the national platform idea, which was supposed to consolidate civil society around European values and give an impetus to the further development, actually heated up disputes between organizations of the third sector that exposed the deepened split in Belarusian civil society over the social values and regulatory basics. The hope for an equitable dialogue between the public sector and the state also deflated due to the barriers set up by the authorities, mutual distrust, and the lack of experience needed to establish contacts between independent NGOs and government institutions at the national level.
During the second Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum held November 18-19 in Berlin, Belarus was represented basically by organizations of the National Platform. Among 27 public organizations approved by the European Commission for participation in the Berlin Forum, 26 were recommended by the National Platform that can be regarded as a true acknowledgement of the growing political weight of Belarusian pro-European NGOs in the international arena. That fact that representative of EuroBelarus International Consortium Mr. Velichko, a Belarusian, was elected speaker of the Civil Society Forum this time, speaks for itself.17
The Belarusian idea of road maps offered by nongovernmental organizations to other Eastern Partnership member countries aroused keen interest among participants in the Berlin Forum. However, the 19 December events frustrated the Belarus-EU rapprochement and put the future of the National Platform into question.

Civic initiatives

The degree of political engagement of civil society goes up once in a while in every country. It usually happens during all sorts of election campaigns. In 2010, such engagement was observed in Belarus during the local and presidential elections. Independent NGOs did not render considerable influence on the election processes, although they put forth efforts to get involved through entering election commissions and monitoring the procedures. If one has a look at the composition of polling station commissions, which undoubtedly plays a key role in vote counting, it becomes obvious that most of those who obtained commission mandates were members of NGOs loyal to the president.
Monitoring of the elections by Human Rights Activists For Free Elections produced much more appreciable results. But the observers were still unable to prove election engineering for the benefit of the incumbent president, as they had insufficient powers to come close to any ballot box.
To our opinion, civil society succeeded the most in greater civic participation and publicizing of the authentic presidential election returns owing to the Speak the Truth campaign launched on February 25, 2010 by Dvizheniye Vperyod (Headway) educational-enlightenment movement assisted by distinguished community leaders. The proclaimed goal of the Speak the Truth campaign was to provide the population with truthful information about the real situation in the country. The campaign started with a series of activists’ trips around the country in order to draw attention of the authorities and society to local problems. The activists handed out blank postcards with the Speak the Truth logo. People were invited to use the postcards to address to the Presidential Administration requesting immediate intervention to resolve pressing issues. As a result, the processes of civic self-organization stepped up greatly. For instance, on June 2, Mogilev residents started collecting signatures for renovation of a local automobile road.18 Publication of the work schedule of individual office receptions at local councils was requested on June 10.19 A series of actions took place in June in the cities of Brest, Gorky, Orsha, etc.
Prior to the local elections, leaders of the Speak the Truth campaign sent an analytical bulletin on legal and political problems of the election process to the Central Commission for Elections and Republican Referenda. The bulletin covered amendments to the laws on elections recommended by the European Union and OSCE, and described procedural tricks the authorities resorted to in order to avoid fair and transparent elections. On June 2, near the Zaslavskoye water-storage basin, Speak the Truth leaders arranged a presentation of a collection of articles under the name “100 Faces of Unemployment” focused on the problem of employment in Belarus. The collection tells stories of 100 people, who could not get jobs for a long time.20
On the occasion of the 65th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), Speak the Truth collected signatures for naming of streets in Minsk and Grodno and an underground station in Minsk after writer and former front-line soldier Vasil Bykau. Around 65,000 signatures were collected in the Belarusian capital to eternalize memory of Bykau. A total of nearly 105,000 signatures were submitted to the Minsk city administration on July 12 for renaming a street in the capital after Bykau. On July 16, the Grodno executive committee received a list of propositions including naming of a city street or square after Vasil Bykau, installation of a commemorative tablet on the house where he lived, and renovation of the Vasil Bykau museum in Grodno. Speak the Truth reported 7,414 signatures collected to support those initiatives.21
In the summer, Speak the Truth engaged in politics, turning into the pre-election campaign of its leader, poet and public man Vladimir Neklyaev. On June 2, Neklyaev stated his support for A Million New Jobs For Belarus program announced by Yaroslav Romanchuk, presidential candidate nominated by the United Civic Party (UCP), during the presentation of 100 Faces Of Unemployment collection.22 After that, in a meeting with a private entrepreneur held on July 19, he declared the intention to obtain a delegate’s mandate to attend the IV All-Belarusian National Assembly,23 and then stated his presidential ambitions on September 2 in a live interview on Echo of Moscow FM station.24
By that time, Speak the Truth had already achieved a certain effect. Some apparent shifts in public involvement were observed. By late August 2010, campaign activists organized nearly 80 actions in 33 localities of the country and collected 55,000 signatures to tackle local problems. Over the three months – June through September – the percent of respondents, who answered ‘yes’ to the question “Do you know anything about the Speak the Truth civic campaign?”, was up from 12.5% to 23.5%.25 Besides, as Neklyaev said during a press conference on the intermediate results, a number of local officials took a friendly attitude to towards the Speak the Truth campaign.26
The authorities’ counteraction to Speak the Truth felt even before it entered the political field, means that the movement gathered momentum and exerted strong influence on public opinion. On March 6, law enforcers confiscated 9,000 postcards with the campaign logo from Minsk activists. On March 11, Neklyaev’s online conference hosted by Borisovskiye Novosti (Borisov News)newspaperwas stopped after the telephone line was disconnected. On April 25, the police broke into the private house where Neklyaev was meeting with Mazyr city residents. The police claimed they were chasing after illegal drugs dealers. On May 1, the police detained campaign activists, who handed toy balloons over to passers-by in Victory Square of Minsk.
On May 18, law enforcers came to offices of NGOs and private apartments of Speak the Truth activists all over the country.27 On May 19, the police conducted searches in the office of Dvizheniye Vperyod and 24 offices and apartments of campaign activists in Gomel, Brest, Grodno, Mogilev, Bobruisk, Borisov, Soligorsk, and other settlements.
Head of NOVAK Sociological Laboratory Andrey Vardomatsky, former USSR Soviet member Yury Voronezhtsev, journalist Alexander Ulityonok, and many activists of political parties and public organizations reported searches in their apartments and offices, confiscation of documents, personal computers, data carriers, and printed materials. Personal money saved for medical treatment was confiscated from political scientist Svetlana Naumova who passed away not long ago. Leader of the campaign Vladimir Neklyaev, editor-in-chief of Tovarishch (Comrade) newspaper, member of the Central Bureau of the Fair World party Sergey Voznyak, and international secretary of the United Civic Party Andrei Dmitriev were detained for three days and released on May 21 with no charges pressed against them.
Leaders of the campaign, representatives of dozens of local and foreign public organizations, and a number of European politicians qualified the persecution of Speak the Truth members as being politically charged. This opinion was stated by European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek, Charge d'Affaires ad interim of the United States to Belarus Mark Boschetti, Polish parliamentarian Jacek Protasiewicz, and representatives of the British embassy (Great Britain was performing functions of European Parliament and FIDH presidency). Nevertheless, on July 29, 2010, the economic court of Minsk sustained the claim of the Minsk city executive committee and pronounced the office rent contract between Dvizheniye Vperyod and Tina Vlati Ltd. void. As a result, Dvizheniye Vperyod’s was stripped of registration on October 12. Liquidation of Dvizheniye however did not affect Neklyaev’s election campaign in any way.
Vladimir Neklyaev’s registration as a presidential candidate enabled Speak the Truth to begin a large-scale pre-election campaign. The second wave of reprisals hit campaign activists during and after the 19 December events. Shortly before the polling ended, Neklyaev was heavily beaten by “unidentified persons” on the way to Kastrycnickaja Square, taken to the hospital with brain injury, and then transferred to the KGB pre-trial detention center. Other campaign leaders were held in the KGB jail, under police custody, under home arrest, or released on their own recognizance and indicted later.
Assessing the Speak the Truth campaign, it should be noted that an independent presidential candidate popularized himself by means of a preliminary, mass civil campaign in Belarusian regions for the first time in the history of elections in Belarus, which is an outstanding achievement per se.
The last week and a half of December saw consolidation of the democratic part of the third sector and individuals around the campaign of solidarity with those in detention and victims of reprisals that followed the 19-20 December crackdown on the opposition. Many participants in the protest rally were fined or sentenced to administrative arrests, which entailed a series of pickets and other actions of solidarity. On December 21, the Minsk office of the Belarusian Popular Front started the action on gathering of clothes and food intended for the detained, and fundraising to pay lawyers’ fees and court fines.28 Independent media outlets informed people of the possible ways to help the jailed protesters and gave instructions on how to behave during questioning as witnesses and suspects. Zmagarka blog moderated by Tatsiana Elavaya was used for a civic investigation into the events of December 19.
In spite of the threat of persecution, independent public organizations came out with a principled opinion concerning the authorities’ actions on the election day. On December 24, representatives of 27 human rights, environmental, and educational NGOs signed a joint appeal of the National Platform of the Civil Society Forum to the Eastern Partnership program, in which they condemned the brutality against the protesters on December 19 and urged the authorities to release all former presidential candidates and their supporters from custody and stop politically motivated persecution.29 A similar appeal was addressed to the European Union and the governments of EU member countries on January 6, 2011. Belarusian civil society organizations called on forming an international commission for a transparent and unbiased investigation of the 19-20 December events and bringing the real offenders to responsibility.30

Bill on nonprofit organizations

The Constitution and Civil Code regulate a large variety of activities nongovernmental institutions are engaged in, thus letting them function being guided by the principle “everything which is not forbidden is allowed.” In an effort to bridle undesirable initiatives and reinforce control over public self-organization processes, in early 2010, the president ordered the government to draft a bill on nonprofit organizations by the end of 2010. The Ministry of Justice and the National Centre of Legislation and Legal Research worked on the bill by collaborative efforts. Although the Assembly of Democratic Nongovernmental Organizations attempted to involve community representatives in elaboration of the bill, the developers in charge rejected contribution of independent experts. The general public was only allowed to take part in discussion of the new law at the completion stage.
On December 23, the Ministry of Justice hosted a round table session to discuss the prepared bill. Only around 40 representatives of NGOs selected by the Ministry of Justice were admitted.31 The others were turned down because “the seats were too few.” It was naive to expect profound debates as there was no text of the bill on the table. Nonetheless, government officials cleared up some points. For instance, Viktor Guminsky, Vice Speaker of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly, said the registration-upon-authorization procedure should have been maintained because there were certain “destructive nonprofit organizations.”32 He was seconded by Minister of Justice Igor Tushinsky. Both of them voiced concern over activity of “destructive sects” and “destructive NPOs” and assumed the government’s impregnable position towards nonprofit organizations: registration upon approval, strict control, and no other options.33
In response, on December 27, 2010, the Center for Legal Transformation initiated another round table session for independent NGOs. Participants in the “alternative” session planned joint actions and compiled a list of proposals pursuing interests of various NGOs and NGO associations.
In the opinion of the NGO Assembly working group, the new bill tightens governmental agencies’ control over activities of public organizations. It enshrines the principle of registration upon approval for all nonprofit organizations, including those exempted from this procedure at the time. The bill introduces the notion of a conflict of interests in relation to NPOs and bans creation of establishments by persons, who acted as founders of public associations liquidated through a court proceeding. Expert Y. Chausov says if a public association founder stopped being its member long before liquidation, he or she would be deprived of certain rights anyway regardless of what the founder had done personally.34 Therefore, civil society representatives want the regulatory and restrictive provisions to be replaced with those aimed at improving of conditions for nonprofit organizations. Specifically, they suggest forming public councils in governmental agencies, creation of a social mandate institution, and the status of socially relevant organization.35
The Center for Legal Transformation and the Foundation for Legal Technologies Development addressed the Ministry of Justice of Belarus and the National Centre of Legislation and Legal Research with letters and recommendations produced during expert meetings, round tables, and discussions of the Google Group. Following the debates on the bill held by the expert community and propositions made by a number of organizations, experts of the NGO Assembly and the Center for Legal Transformation worked out a joint address of Belarusian NGOs and call on all Belarusian nonprofit organizations to sign the document.
In a result, the address signed by authorized representative of 110 nonprofit organizations (270,000 people in total) was submitted to the lower chamber of the parliament and the Council of Ministers of Belarus on March 9, 2011. This mass action was definitely an unequalled case of joined efforts to promote the interests of Belarusian NGOs. The organizers hope for future public hearings on the legal regulation of public associations’ activities prior to consideration of the bill in the first reading.

Conclusion

In 2010, Belarusian civil society was developing in an adverse environment withstanding the continuous pressure on the independent third sector and strenuous efforts to push it out to the periphery and replace it with loyal entities. One more attempt of the government to streamline civil society’s undertakings to achieve a desired effect made this time upon the pretext of Belarus’ participation in the EU and OSCE programs was unsuccessful. State-controlled public organizations tried to take advantage of participation in international projects to actualize the vertical model of interaction between the state and civil society, but they encountered determined resistance of independent third sector organizations.
At the same time, activity of the Belarusian third sector in 2010 did not render essential influence on formation of mass civil society. Firstly, a significant part of the Belarusian “big society” was not motivated enough for active civic participation and took little interest in alternative political forces capable of political system democratization. Secondly, state policy – from combating crime and elimination of unemployment to support for sports, young families, and talented youngsters – aims at making citizens dependent on the state as much as possible, and to prevent the societal and political impact that independent civic and political institutions may create.
The NGOs, which advocate the official model of (quasi)civil society, as well as the ideological vertical created in 2003-2004, are supposed to legitimize the measures taken to make the third sector stay where it is. Thirdly, the strategy of behavior offered to promote development of civil society and alternative projects is still not very attractive to many third sector entities.
Although the events observed throughout the year display people’s growing aspiration to self-organization based on the values of freedom and democracy, they did not have an impact on the authoritarian, paternalistic nature of the Belarusian state. Development of the bill on nonprofit organizations intended to tighten the government’s control over the third sector was met with reactive legislative initiatives of independent NGOs, which, however, were put on ice by the authorities.
Involvement of independent NGOs in the Eastern Partnership program did not result in appreciable breakthroughs in development of Belarusian civil society either. The notorious events on the presidential election day and their consequences deepened the split in society and made the chance for its consolidation around the European values much slimmer.