Parliament: A period of legislative activism

Andrei Kazakevich

Summary

In 2018, the Parliament considered and adopted five deputy bills, demonstrating increased legal activism, which can be considered an additional cautious attempt to increase the efficiency of the activities, public and political importance of the Parliament. The results of this activism were, however, mixed. Three laws related to nature protection were signed by the President and acquired legal force. The other two bills of an economic nature were returned by the President to Parliament for revision. The return of the law by the President is an atypical practice for Belarus and even an extraordinary event, demonstrating the limits of parliamentary activism.

In comparison with the very intensive international activities of the Parliament in 2017, when the international parliamentary forums of the OSCE, CEI and CORLEAP were held, the foreign policy activity of the House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic decreased to the usual level. Institutionalized forms of cooperation (sessions, meetings of commissions, parliamentary hearings) remain aimed at Russia and the post-Soviet space (the Union of Belarus and Russia, the CSTO, the CIS) – they account for more than 70% of such events.

In 2018, the activities of the Parliament witness an increase in openness, a more effective communication with society, media, as well as a more active participation of deputies in public discussions.

Trends:

A surge in parliamentary activity in the initiation of bills with a controversial reaction from the executive structures;
A decrease in international activity of the Parliament in comparison with 2017;
The dominance of institutionalized forms of cooperation of Russia and the former Soviet Union; the advantage of bilateral contacts of the parliaments of the countries of Asia;
A more open and intense communication with the society and the media.

Legislative activity

The activities of the House of Representatives of the 6^th convocation have its own characteristics each year. In 2016, the most interesting were the results of the elections, which in many respects differed significantly from the previous ones. In particular, a record number of representatives of political parties were elected (since 2000). For the first time since the elections of 2000, the House of Representatives included deputies from the opposition, and there were other notable differences.1 The 2016 elections were a political “experiment” aimed, if not at increasing the role of Parliament in political decision-making, then at least at expanding its presence in the public space and public discussions, more effective interaction with society and the media, as well as enhancing international representation and cooperation. Relevant trends were noticeable in the activities of the House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic in 2016–2018.

In 2017, there was a significant increase in the international activity of the Belarusian Parliament. International activity has been an important part of the work of the leadership of both Houses of Parliament, but in 2017, for the first time in Belarus, several important international forums were held, which marked the final exit from foreign policy isolation.

In 2018, the main feature of the Parliament was the increase in the activity of the deputies in the legislative process. Calls for activation were repeatedly voiced in the public space, but did not affect the actual activities of the Parliament. A noticeable surge, perhaps a one-off, occurred only in 2018, when the Parliament considered and adopted a record number of bills initiated by the deputies themselves.

Legislative activity is the main activity for the Parliament, however, as in previous years, the House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic remain dependent on the Council of Ministers in their legislative activity. During the 4^th and 5^th2 sessions, the House of Representatives adopted 96 laws proposed in the second session. Of these, 82 (85%) were initiated by the Council of Ministers.

This is partly in line with the practice of the last decade. For the entire period of activity of the National Assembly of the 6^th convocation, the share of bills initiated by the government, depending on the session, was 80–100%. If we take into account the bills that are being worked out in the commissions of the Parliament and require two readings, the share of government projects is less, but still it is much more than half. If we analyze the draft laws adopted by Parliament in one reading only (the bulk of them are interstate treaties and agreements), such documents are almost exclusively submitted by the Council of Ministers – 96% of the total (see Diagram).

Diagram. Activity of subjects of the legislative process in 2018

At the same time, the role of the President, in fact of the Presidential Administration, has decreased over the past decade. The President uses his rights quite rarely and only in certain areas. If in 2008 the President initiated up to 30% of the laws, in 2016–20183 their share fluctuated in the range of 7–14% depending on the session. Among the laws that required two readings, the President initiated an average of 12%, among the laws adopted in one reading – 4%. In 2018, the President sent to the House of Representatives bills related to the execution of the budget, as well as amendments to laws relating to security, taxes and civil procedure legislation.

Since 2004 (election of the National Assembly of the 3^rd convocation), the deputies either did not initiate proposals for laws at all, or proposed a maximum of two bills a year. In particular, in 2016–2017, the House of Representatives did not adopt any law initiated by the deputies. The activity of the Parliament in 2018 is noticeably out of general practice: the deputies considered and adopted five laws in the second reading, which amounted to 10% of the laws adopted in two readings, and 5% of the total number of adopted normative acts.

In October 2017, the leadership of the Permanent Commission on Economic Policy of the House of Representatives initiated two bills at once. Deputies Aliaksei Sokal (Vice-Chairman of the Commission on Economic Policy) and Uladzislau Shchepau (Chairman of the Commission) introduced a bill on amendments and additions to the Law On investments.4 Another bill that provided for changes to the Law On privatization...”5 introduced by Leanid Brych together with Siarhei Ziamchonak (both are Deputy Chairman of the Commission on Economic Policy). The bills were adopted by the House of Representatives and approved by the Council of the Republic in December 2018.

Three more bills were introduced by deputies of the House of Representatives in April and May 2018. The projects concerned legislation in the field of nature management and environmental protection: amendments to the forest code, amendments to the law On flora and the law On areas of nature under special protection. According to the information posted on the website of the House of Representatives, the laws were introduced by a “group of deputies”, without specifying the names of the initiators. All proposed bills were adopted by the House of Representatives and approved by the Council of the Republic in October-November 2018.

However, the activity of deputies became the reason for another unusual situation in the legislative practice. Amendments to the law On investments and On privatization... after the adoption by both Houses of Parliament, were not signed by the President and were returned to the Parliament with “objections”, which were out of the usual norm-setting practice in Belarus and had no precedents for a long time. Thus, the more intensive participation of deputies in the legislative process received conflicting feedback and demonstrated the lack of development and consistency of such practices, which, obviously, will not contribute to the increase of parliamentary activity in the future.

International activity

Compared to 2017, the international activity of the House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic decreased. 2017 was an obvious foreign policy breakthrough for Belarus and the Belarusian Parliament. For the first time in Minsk on July 5–9, a session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was held, where 57 national delegations took part, which finally recorded the completion of foreign policy isolation and restrictions on the formats of cooperation.

From November 2016 to September 2017, Belarus chaired the conference of local and regional authorities of the Eastern Partnership Countries (CORLEAP). In May 2017, with the active participation of the Council of the Republic, a meeting of the Bureau of this organization was also held for the first time in Minsk.

Finally, in 2017, Belarus chaired the Central European initiative (CEI), which hosted a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the parliamentary dimension of the organization in Minsk in May and the CEI Parliamentary Assembly was held in November.

Against this background, the international activity of the Parliament in 2018 was not active. Belarus was not the organizer of important international parliamentary events, and it is impossible to name significant foreign policy actions. The activity of the Parliament entered the usual routine work.

The leadership of the Parliament took part in the work of the Supreme State Council of the Union State (June 2018), the Council of the Republic and personally the Chairman of the Chamber Mikhail Myasnikovich, as before, actively participated in the organization and holding of the Forum of regions of Belarus and Russia (10–12 October in Mahiliou). Belarus was visited by parliamentary delegations of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Egypt, Great Britain and others. The parliamentary delegation of Belarus visited France, Germany, Israel and other states. The parliamentary delegation headed by Mikhail Myasnikovich took part in the inauguration of the President of Turkey.

Part of the visits, in particular the delegation of Uzbekistan to Belarus and the Belarusian delegation to France, took place for the first time. However, according to available information, they cannot be called a breakthrough, or at least the role of the Parliament was not significant, although the deputies made their professional contribution to their organization and conduct.

Despite the declaration of multi-vector and balanced international cooperation, the improvement of relations with the West and the development of contacts with new political and economic centers in the Asian region, the cooperation of the Parliament remains asymmetric and strongly tied to Russia and the post-Soviet space. Cooperation with European countries and supranational structures looks particularly problematic and insufficient. The intensity and depth of contacts in this direction obviously do not correspond to the importance of the European region for the development of Belarus, as well as the level of economic cooperation.

The plan of International parliamentary cooperation of the National Assembly6 for 2018 demonstrates this asymmetry quite well. If we take into account the forms of institutional cooperation – regular sessions, meetings of commissions, parliamentary hearings and so on7 – 57 institutionalized events can be identified in the international activities of the House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic. Of these, cooperation within the post-Soviet inter-parliamentary structures (the Parliamentary Assembly of Belarus and Russia, the CSTO parliamentary Assembly, the inter-parliamentary Assembly of CIS member States) accounted for 41, or more than 70%.

To work within the European institutions (the OSCE parliamentary Assembly, the parliamentary conference of the Baltic sea, parliamentary Assembly of black sea economic cooperation and others) accounted for only 11 (less than 20%), and the remainder goes to the Latin American, Asian structure, and the inter-parliamentary Union. Thus, despite attempts to diversify foreign relations, the international activity of the Parliament remains very much connected with Russia and the post-Soviet space.

The bilateral parliamentary cooperation was dominated by the Asian direction. With approximately 32 contacts (visits, official visits and similar events)8 18 (56%) according to the plan accounted for the countries of East and South Asia as well as the Middle East. The share of European countries accounted for 9 (28%) contacts; the rest was associated with the development of cooperation with post-Soviet countries and Africa.

The openness and overall character of the work

In 2018, as in previous years, the activities of the House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic testify to the positive trends of openness and more effective communication with the society, the media, as well as a more active participation of deputies in public discussions. This was reflected in the holding of parliamentary hearings with the involvement of interested persons, personal reception of representatives of the civil society, political opposition and even unregistered public initiatives.9

At the same time, positive trends cannot be called stable, as they mainly depend on the will of the executive structures. It should also be noted that over the past year, the Parliament has not initiated significant and successful political or socio-economic measures.

Conclusion

The National Assembly of the 6^th convocation continued to demonstrate differences from previous parliaments. The atypical results of the 2016 elections, the increase in the openness of deputies to contacts with the media and society and the expansion of international activity in 2017 were supplemented by a surge of deputy legislative activism in 2018. Parliament has reviewed and passed five laws initiated by MPs, a record since at least 2004.

The foreign policy activity of the deputies after the surge in 2017 entered the traditional routine. At the same time, inter-parliamentary cooperation with Russia and the post-Soviet space (the Union of Belarus and Russia, the CSTO, the CIS) continues to dominate in institutional forms. In bilateral relations between parliaments, priority was given to the countries of East and South Asia as well as the Middle East.

In 2018, we can observe the continuation of certain positive trends in the openness of the Parliament, as well as an increase in the public activity of deputies. However, these trends are not sustainable. Last year, the Parliament did not propose significant and successful political or socio-economic initiatives.