Parliament: An ornamental element of "law-making"
Andrey Kazakevich

Summary:

During 2010, some prominent staff changes were made in the parliament, though initiated by executive bodies rather than by the representative organ itself. In 2010, the parliament had two regular sessions and one extraordinary one. Eventually, more than 180 normative acts were adopted in first and second readings. No bill was rejected by the House of Representatives.
The parliament has no direct influence on Belarus’ foreign policy; it does not take strategic decisions in this sphere. Nevertheless, the parliament and the deputies do represent Belarus in the international arena to some extent. In 2010, parliamentary procedures were used in foreign-policy games (recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is most typical in this aspect).

Tendencies:

• The parliament is losing its political functions;
• The number of deputies representing the national level has dropped significantly, while the amount of local administrations’ functionaries in the parliament is growing;
• Tendencies in the legislation are stable: the parliament considers and amends normative acts passed down by the government or the President.

There is a significant discrepancy between the de jure and de facto political roles of the Belarusian parliament. There is truly a power imbalance written into the Constitution and normative acts, but real parliamentary activity is far from using even these constitutional powers.
It being difficult to define deputies’ functions and powers, we cannot easily assess their decisions, initiatives, public statements and other forms of political and civil activities. There are even more difficulties with the status and role of the upper chamber – the Council of the Republic. It can be regarded as a functionless body. Its existence is stipulated by the Constitution but its role in the state system is formal – it is a forum for informal communication of the ruling elite. That is why we will analyze mainly the lower chamber.  

Parliament’s main features

According to the majority of analysts and researchers, the parliament is steadily losing its political functions. In recent years the number of deputies representing the national level has dropped from 24% in HR I1 to 10% in HR IV. While the number of administration functionaries from the local level is growing.2 The age structure of the deputy corps is changing drastically. Over the past 20 years the number of deputies aged 31-40 and 41-50 dropped respectively from 19.1 to 4.55% and from 47.3 to 25.5%. At the same time, the number of pre-retirement deputies (51-60) has risen significantly: it doubled since 2000 – from 27.3 to 61.8%. Young people below 31 have a stable representation – 1 deputy (0.91%). The same is true about people over 60 (5.45-6.36%) (Table 1).3

Table 1

Therefore, the deputy corps has grown older with pre-retirement deputies dominating. The tables show that a deputy mandate is a kind of honorable retirement for regional ruling elites, while its role in the vertical political mobility is gradually reducing (see Table 1). This tendency reflects the logics of parliament formation rather than the fact that deputies are getting older. The succession between HR II and HR IV is only 3 deputies.
The level of political self-organization and initiative of deputies is also reducing: there are fewer groups, associations and party structures. Party fractions disappeared from the Belarusian parliament after the Supreme Soviet of XIIIth convocation was dismissed (1996); deputy groups that could be called "political" stopped functioning after 2004. Moreover, even non-political groups, such as "Bulgaria’s Friends", "Promotion of Economic Development" in HR II, have disappeared (Table 2).

Table 2
Deputy groups and associations in the House of Representatives, 1996-2010

The same is true for party structures. The issue of establishing "the party of the regime" or a significant political conglomeration of pro-regime political organizations has been raised more than once. Nevertheless, since the moment when the authoritarian regime took shape, the role, representation and number of political parties as well as the number of political deputies in the parliament has dropped (Table 3).

Table 3
Parties in the House of Representatives, 1996-2010

At present, the Belarusian parliament is not an influential political institution. Its membership shows that it is gradually transforming into an organ of honorable retirement for regional elites, providing some assistance in legislation and help with public complaints, as well as representing Belarus in the international arena.  
The deputies show a very low level of political activity and self-organization. Their role in voicing and representing public interests is small, though there is some possibility of lobbying interests of business structures, some regional or district groups. As a result, parties have a marginal character, since 2004 deputy groups have not been established. Moreover, a deputy mandate is not a step towards higher state positions (examples are very rare). The role of the parliament as a tool of vertical political mobility is constantly reducing. Therefore, when evaluating the parliamentary activities we should focus on two directions: legislation and foreign policy.

Staff changes in 2010

During 2010, some prominent staff changes were made in the parliament, though initiated by executive bodies rather than by the activity of the representative organ itself. On May 20, 2010, Boris Batura, Chairperson of the Council of the Republic, was appointed Chairperson of Minsk regional executive council, substituting Leonid Krupets. One person is not allowed to occupy both positions, so Anatoly Rubinov became a new Chairperson of the Council of the Republic. Boris Batura, just as two previous chairpersons of executive councils appointed in 2010, became an ordinary member of the upper chamber. New regional executives, Semyon Shapiro (Hrodna region) and Nikolay Ladutsko (Minsk), were appointed members of the Council of the Republic within the presidential quota. 
Mikhail Rusy, chairperson of the standing committee on agricultural issues, was appointed Minister of Agriculture instead of Semyon Shapiro, which is a quite rare thing. Earlier, in 2003-2004, Mr. Rusy was already performing these duties.  

Legislation

Tendencies in the legislation are stable: the parliament considers and amends normative acts passed down by the government or the President. Deputies do have powers to significantly amend normative acts, but only when there is no conflict with the fundamental interests of the executive power.  
For example, in 2010 the Council of the Republic of the 4th convocation voted down a bill, which is rather untypical if not extraordinary. The bill concerned amendments to the law on children’s rights and interests. The reason for rejection was a collision of normative acts. The bill could not be called fundamental or important. Deputies usually show no initiative in elaborating new laws. Moreover, such initiatives require total endorsement with the executive bodies.
In 2010, the parliament had two regular sessions and one extraordinary one. Eventually, more than 180 normative acts were adopted in first and second readings. No bill was rejected by the House of Representatives. Among them, the majority of acts were submitted by the government, the rest – by the President, and only one bill was initiated by the deputies of the House of Representatives themselves. These figures are typical for the Belarusian parliament: in 2004-2009 deputies initiated from 0 to 3.5% of the bills. Just as earlier, the parliament took into consideration all decrees issued by the President.
In September 2010, according to the Constitution, the parliament appointed the date for the main political event of the year – the presidential election – for December 19.

Foreign-policy activities

The parliament has no direct influence on Belarus’ external policy; it does not take strategic decisions in this sphere. Nevertheless, both the parliament and the deputy corps are involved in representing Belarus in the international arena. This representation has several established forms.  Firstly, it iswork in inter-parliamentary organizations. Secondly, it is voicing and promoting the official position during formal and informal meetings, visits, conferences, sessions. The deputies generally voice the official position of the Belarusian authorities and comment events, etc. They usually have no powers for conducting real negotiations and making decisions. Thirdly, the deputies promote economic cooperation between countries. And, finally, they provide the executive bodies with tools to use parliamentary procedures for foreign-policy games. The situation with recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a vivid example of this.

Western vector. According to the general policy towards improving relations with the West, inter-parliamentary cooperation and participation in respective regional and international organizations were an important activity in 2010. The Belarusian delegation took part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Eastern partnership (Euronest).
The Assembly includes 120 deputies – 60 EP deputies and 10 deputies of national parliaments from each member state. Since the very beginning the EU has questioned the status of the House of Representatives because of non-democratic elections of 2008. On their part, Belarusian parliamentarians insisted on participation on equal terms.  
During 2010, alternative formulas were suggested: 5+5 (5 deputies of the Belarusian parliament + 5 representatives of the civil society), 0+10 (only representatives of civil society having no suffrage but with the right to speak at meetings). The Belarusian side is peremptorily against any participation of opposition or NGO members in the Assembly. Minsk officials managed to find support among the parliaments of all five Eastern partnership member states. The issue of Belarusian representation did not allow conducting the first Euronest meeting in 2010, which was postponed. In early 2011, European organizations showed preference for a 0+0 formula – no delegation from Belarus at all.
In 2010, the Belarusian parliament attempted establishing contacts with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). After extraordinary hearings in April 2010, PACE passed a resolution condemning the death penalty, oppression of mass media, public organizations and national minorities in Belarus.  Belarusian parliamentarians – for example, Sergey Maskevich, head of the committee for international relations and relations with the CIS – called it non-constructive and inconsistent.  
In August, Sinikka Hurskainen, PACE reporter on Belarus, visited Minsk to meet with Belarusian parliamentarians. During the visit hopes were expressed for further cooperation and Belarus gradually joining the PACE. But it is still unclear, how the fundamental issue of the death penalty will be resolved: abolition or, at least, a moratorium. According to the rules governing political life in Belarus, this issue is not within the competence of the Belarusian parliament.
In 2010, Belarusian deputies commented Belarusian-European relations both in national and foreign media more than once. The majority of them included hopes for broader cooperation, complaints that Europeans are badly informed about the situation in Belarus, calls to respect Belarusian domestic political traditions, etc. For example, these issues were raised by Sergey Maskevich, his deputies Igor Karpenko and Viktor Guminsky; by Alexandr Yushkevich, head of the committee for human rights, nationality relations and mass media, his deputy Anatoly Glaz and others.

Russian-Belarusian relations. In 2010, relations between Belarus and Russia were rather tense, which influenced the work of the parliament. Parliamentary procedures were used in foreign-policy games. Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is the most vivid example of this situation. First raised in 2008, this question was handed over for consideration in the parliament to stall the procedure. It was announced that the parliament would take the final decision. The issue was not put before parliament and was sent back to the President in November 2010.

Similar was the way of stalling the adoption of the Customs Code of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. The issue was postponed several times depending on the negotiations between the Russian and Belarusian presidents. The Code was passed on June 30, 2010, at a closed sitting on the last session day. In June 2010, the parliament ratified the agreement on the Collective Rapid Reaction Force of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

In 2010, Belarusian parliamentarians also came out with statements against the smear campaign launched in Russian media against the Belarusian president. They made denouncing statements in Belarusian media, backing the country’s leader. They urged that Russia show more respect for national interests of Belarus, take into account the long history and strategic importance of bilateral relations, and called for further cooperation.

These statements were made by both heads of committees and rank-and-file deputies (Igor Karpenko; Vladimir Zdanovich, chairperson of the committee on education, culture, science, scientific and technical progress; Sergey Semashko, chairperson of the committee on industry). In October, the House of Representatives issued a statement on Belarusian-Russian relations urging the Russian side to take a more constructive position. But these statements cannot be called influential in this situation.

Other countries. In 2010, the Belarusian parliament maintained some bilateral contacts. For example, Belarusian deputies paid official visits to Syria, Israel, and Armenia. In May, they also visited France. Besides, the House of Representatives ratified an agreement on the state border with Ukraine and agreements on border traffic with Poland and Lithuania.

Meetings with parliamentarians, authorities and businessmen were aimed at promoting political contacts and intensifying economic relations. Assessing their effectiveness is not possible.  

Conclusion

In 2010, the activities of the Belarusian parliament followed the tendency of the previous years.  It remains an institution with auxiliary functions for executive bodies, optimizing legislation and voicing or advocating the officials’ opinion in the international arena.