The elections to the Coordination Council are approaching, yet the number of those willing to take part is declining. But if some political actors are dissatisfied with the Council in its current form, then participation in the campaign is precisely what should allow them to change the existing balance.
“We Do Not See the Possibility”
Well then, one less. Viktar Babaryka outlined the position of the organizing committee of his Razam party — “after repeated and detailed discussions, a decision has been made for our party not to participate in the spring elections” to the Coordination Council.
Frankly, this looks like a retreat before the general battle has even begun. One cannot shake the feeling that the Razam party was simply afraid of a likely defeat and decided to exit the game in advance.
It is hard not to agree with Yury Hubarevich — the arguments presented on behalf of the Razam party do not appear convincing.
“We believe that before participating in the Coordination Council elections, it is necessary to change the principles of formation and interaction of all institutional bodies of the democratic forces in exile, based on a parliamentary-presidential republic that ensures independence, transparency, and accountability of all these institutions,” Babaryka writes.
“But isn’t it easier to do this by participating in the process? The Coordination Council is one of the three signatories of the OST–OPC–CC Interaction Protocol. Win a significant number of seats in the Council and raise the issue of revising the Protocol. I do not understand how this can be done from the outside,” Hubarevich counters.
This sounds logical. If the current arrangement is unsatisfactory — win the vote and change it. But how can the process be influenced from the outside? By putting spokes in the wheels at every opportunity?
“At present, we do not see the possibility of ensuring the effectiveness of the Coordination Council and, accordingly, the expediency of our activity within it,” Babaryka added.
Let me try to summarize the statement. The general line appears to be this: in its current form, the Coordination Council does not suit Babaryka and his supporters. It needs to be made “proper,” and then they may agree to participate. The clarification “based on a parliamentary-presidential republic” suggests that such a Council should have significantly greater powers and influence over the activities of the Office of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. In other words, something should be reduced there and added here — then everything will be fine.
The Coordination Council Is Worth the Effort
I, too, have many questions about the Coordination Council — about its goals, tasks, and format of work. What is it today? A proto-parliament? A sandbox for the growth of young politicians? A discussion platform?
At the same time, there is an understanding that this structure is important. At the very least, as a kind of arena where representatives of different currents within the Belarusian democratic forces can learn to negotiate and find compromises — within the powers and representation given to them by voters.
One can mock the fact that just over six thousand people voted in the previous Coordination Council elections. But even that is the scale of a significant social survey. And those who chose to take the risk, to vote despite repression and threats from the regime, made their choice. They took a serious risk and cast their votes for political forces whose activities, in their view, reflect their aspirations.
I agree that the Council needs to be “reimagined.” But who should do this? How can it happen without the participation of both leading politicians and the public? It would be excellent if prominent figures took part in the elections. One would like to see Paval Seviarynets, Mikalai Dziadok, Zmitser Dashkevich on the lists. And Viktar Babaryka’s team, and him personally. And Andrei Sannikov, Valery Tsapkala, and many others — so that it becomes clear whom Belarusians actually support. Even if it is those same six thousand most active voters, it would still be indicative. Although the participation of prominent figures itself could increase interest in the campaign. But some are not interested. Some are afraid to lose. You can fill in the names in the columns of the “unwilling” and the “afraid” yourselves. I have my own opinion on this, but I do not intend to impose it on anyone.
Many of those mentioned have different views on strategy and tactics. But participation in the campaign would help determine the leaders — and allow them to influence the current situation if the majority so decides.
Inside Rather Than Outside
A parliamentary-presidential republic is also a plan — perhaps even a good one. What is unclear is who is supposed to create it. Is it assumed that Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya will simply come out and declare that she has too many powers and will transfer them to the Coordination Council because the Razam party does not wish to participate under the current paradigm?
Is this how, in Babaryka’s view, the process of creating a parliamentary-presidential republic should look? Sit on the sidelines and wait until it forms by itself? Until someone creates comfortable conditions for us to step in and lead? Yet the entry into the Council of forces that support such a transformation could make it far more likely.
And what is the result otherwise? The Coordination Council elections will take place one way or another. Some of the six electoral subjects that have submitted applications will receive more votes, some fewer. But those who do not participate will remain on the sidelines — albeit in a comfortable position, able to criticize without bearing responsibility.
But does a refusal to engage in political struggle on the Belarusian political field itself also imply a refusal to compete on the external front? Or not?
This, it seems, is one of the key challenges facing Belarusian democratic forces today. One path is the creation of proto-institutions — balancing the system and each other’s ambitions according to agreed rules, with the Coordination Council as the instrument. On the other pole is the risk of fragmentation into numerous “personalist groups,” leading to unhealthy competition not within Belarus, but on the external, international political stage. This could create an atmosphere of chaos and irreconcilable contradictions in the eyes of foreign politicians who still support Belarusians.
And in the end, this could destroy everyone — not just the Office.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel “Reform.news: The Most Interesting”
***
The author’s views and assessments may not coincide with the position of the Reform.news editorial team
