Belarus: the Third Republic

Актуальные публикации по английскому языку. История Великобритании и других англоязычных стран. Публикации, книги, статьи, заметки на английском языке.

NEW АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH)


АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH): новые материалы (2024)

Меню для авторов

АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH): экспорт материалов
Скачать бесплатно! Научная работа на тему Belarus: the Third Republic. Аудитория: ученые, педагоги, деятели науки, работники образования, студенты (18-50). Minsk, Belarus. Research paper. Agreement.

Полезные ссылки

BIBLIOTEKA.BY Беларусь - аэрофотосъемка HIT.BY! Звёздная жизнь


Автор(ы):
Публикатор:

Опубликовано в библиотеке: 2014-04-22
Источник: "БЕЛАРУСЬ В МИРЕ" No.001 01-01-97


Belarus, a country which only became independent 5 years ago is now living under the third Republic and under the third constitution. The new constitution was enforced in a very hasty way and restructuring of government institutions happens so fast that after a few months one can note the considerable differences between the second and the third republics in Belarus. The process is far from completion, but one can already identify certain typical features of the new regime from which it becomes clear that the period of the third Republic will not be long and the time will soon come for the fourth.

This article addresses the position of Belarusian statehood in 1997. In analysing this situation we use a deductive method and move from the general to the specific. The situation in Belarus, unique or not, fits easily into the scheme of transition from totalitarian socialism to the democratic forms of public life and state organisation. This article addresses the general problems of transition from socialism to democracy, then - the constitutional crisis in the context of modern democracy, followed by specific features of the present regime in Belarus.

Problems of transition from socialism to democracy. Already in the early 1980s it became obvious that socialist regimes in the industrial countries of Eastern Europe were not able to manage the economy and public life of their countries. The outcome of the competition between the two systems provided such a good evidence of the above that researchers, politicians and government officials gave up the idea of improving the efficiency of socialism. They started inventing acceptable forms of transformation of society towards liberal democracy, and the planned economy - towards the market economy. In the most general forms two options were considered: gradual adaptation of society and economy to the conditions existing world-wide and quick transformation or replacement of the old system by the new one. The first option was open to three countries: Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia - these countries had the least socialism (in their bloc) both in the economy and in public life; moreover, they started thinking about transformation earlier. However, only Hungary managed to stay on this track. Poland and Yugoslavia lost time and at the second stage they had to accept the revolutionary option.

The main problem of transformation is that the restructuring of economy along the lines of a free market economy can be done either through concerted efforts of all strata of population, with the help of the institutions of the civil society provided they exist and work efficiently, or - through "shock therapy" introduced by authoritarian regimes with almost dictatorial powers. In the latter case the transition governments are faced with the problems of restraining ochlocratic and populist resistance. The fSU (former Soviet Union) and Eastern Europe entered such period of drastic transformation almost simultaneously and cultural differences between the countries of the region emerged immediately. These differences condition the development and the success of reforms.

Examples of successful reforms with a soft and gradual transformation based on institutions of civil society can be found in countries with strong Protestant traditions: East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic.

The second group is formed by catholic countries, where economic reforms are carried out by authoritarian regimes in parallel with the formation of institutions of a civil society: Slovenia, Poland, Chroatia, Lithuania, and Slovakia.

The most difficult is the process of transformation in orthodox countries: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Georgia, Armenia as well as in Muslim states of Central Asia, Albania, Bosnia and Azerbaijan. Even if the economic reform process does take place in these countries, it happens without the active participation of institutions of a civil society; there is not even a sign of the social partnership. The range of political systems is fairly wide: from the quasi-democratic in Russia or Moldova to dictatorships. Many of these countries failed to avoid the civil war, regional armed conflicts and serious clashes between social groups and regions. Socialist forms of public organisation are aggravated by religious traditions and cultural stereotypes. Reformers have to break through ideas of statism, paternalism, and collectivism held in the minds of their people. Problems of the transition period are made even more difficult by the need for the "cultural revolution". The cultural factor becomes dominant for these countries at the present stage of transformation. There lies the explanation for the similarity and the difference in the political and economic situations in a number of orthodox European countries (for instance, the events of the winter of 1996-97 in Minsk, Belgrade and Sofia). In 1985-90 all countries of the "second world" were facing common problems. Ten years of experience in resolving them lead to increasing diversity.

Before one could borrow the most positive experience of transformation leaders and adapt it to local conditions. Now countries at the bottom of transformation list have to face up to their problems.

A special feature of Belarus is that her economic reforms are carried out almost without involvement of the government. None of the governments in power since the declaration of independence was pro-reformist. Moreover, a clear idea for, or a programme of reform, still does not exist. Belarus' cautious steps towards the market economy was nothing but an "import" of economic relations and systems of its neighbours. Belarusian authorities were forced to react to the change of relations concerning the markets of the fSU and to the demands of international trade. One of the reasons for this was the weakness of the Belarusian state systems. Now the situation is completely different. The regime of the third Republic is no longer in a position to conduct economic reform passively, it has to take an active position towards reforms. This position can be either positive or negative. The problem of the present regime is that it came to power with the massive support of the electorate by advertising itself as the enemy of economic reform and having beaten its political opponents - democrats, nationalists and the market-minded. The voters do allow the regime to limit civil freedoms but at the same time they want economic stabilisation and market reform. The present government became the hostage of its own pre-election promises, mass consciousness and its own policy.

The Belarus constitutional crisis of November 1996. Modern forms of democracy and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century had to resolve the same problems, though they found absolutely different solutions. One of such problems was to restrict "the power of the mob" and populism. Totalitarian regimes used the energy of populism to capture power and then suppressed mass public movements by force. Democratic governments addressed this problem through improvements to living standards, stimulation of consumption, development of civil rights and freedoms. This approach proved more effective both in the economic sense, by helping democratic countries to succeed in market competition, and in terms of a social partnership. Modern democracy has a number of efficient tools for the settlement of social and political conflicts, without destroying either of the conflicting partners. Conflicts are resolved through negotiations. The parties agree to accept the point of view of one of them, for the given period of time, and then if it proves inefficient - to try the other version. Alternatively, they may find some form of consensus between the range of different proposals and interests. Such a form of settlement of conflicts is based on the functioning of the institutions of the civil society. In countries where such institutions do not exist, or where their functioning runs counter to cultural traditions and stereotypes conflicts are resolved by the destruction of the opponent. This can be achieved by military operations, "coups d'etat" or by dividing a country into different states. Almost all countries of the third group - orthodox and non- Christian - have been through that. Armed conflicts and wars in the Caucasus, the Balkans, and Moldova. Autocratic coups d'etat in Central Asian republics. Softer forms of civil conflicts in Serbia (Yugoslavia), Bulgaria, and Belarus.

Traditional forms of government which Belarusian politicians tend to follow do not allow for the peaceful co-existence between the ruling party and the opposition. The failure of all attempts to settle the conflict of interests in Belarus under the second Republic (the Constitution of 1994) through negotiations lead both sides to the understanding that it is impossible. In the opposition of executive and legislative powers all "embryo" institutions of the civil society were invalidated.

When the confrontation between the two sides reached its climax all those that could have become a third party or an arbiter, were gone. The third - the judicial power was sitting on the fence up to the actual climax of the conflict. The traditional system of legal proceedings does not work under the conditions of constitutional crisis.

The fourth power - the mass media - was controlled by the conflicting parties with the one in power clearly dominating. Army, riot police and local authorities opted for non-interference simply by refusing to take part in the conflict. Public organisations and movements are too weak and small in numbers to have any influence on the situation. Therefore, the conflicting parties were committed to eliminate each other as political entities.

The presidential team drafted a new version of the Constitution which turns parliament into a presidential office and incorporates the mechanism of referendum democracy without public discussions. In return Parliament drafted its new version of the Constitution according to which the president is superseded and where the government is totally controlled by the parliament. Also the principle of impeachment was envisaged, where the full responsibility was vested in the Constitutional Court, since the parliament was not in a position to secure the appropriate majority of votes of the MPs. A stalemate arose. Neither of the conflicting parties had the resources to ensure victory and democratic tools for the settlement of the conflict through negotiations were not in place. Therefore both parties had to rely on outside support. Russia was prepared to take the role of arbiter, but is had its own interests to defend in Belarus. As a result its position was far from impartial and true arbitration just did not happen.

Thus the constitutional crisis of November 1996 ended up with the overwhelming victory of one party and total destruction of the other. Legal opinions have already been expressed and the reaction of international community is quite uniform: an authoritarian regime seized power in the country. The muted reaction to the state coup in Belarus can be explained by the fact that the event has already taken place, there is no alternative solution and further reaction from the international and internal community will depend on the further actions of the regime.

Belarus under the third Republic. One can show two main thrusts in the actions of the Belarus authorities after the November events. The attitude to the country's sove-reignty and integration with Russia on the one hand and choice between a pro-reformist and anti-reformist way of development on the other. The country's development depends on which direction is chosen.

Deeper integration with Russia can lead to a complete loss of sovereignty and then the question about reforms in the economy will simply become a matter for Moscow to address. This scenario is desirable for certain representatives of private business and managers of the state enterprises. It is still difficult to understand the position of the Belarusian regime towards integration with Russia. The populist rhetoric of authorities still goes on in the same way as before, but in softer forms and without obtrusive demonstration of "brotherly love for the big bro- ther". By so doing, President Lukashenko, after the exchange of opinions about the forms deepening the integration process with the Russian authorities, changed his tunes. Integration - but not at the expense of sovereignty. Indeed, why should anyone spend so much effort to gain full power in the country if now it can be lost straight away. Moreover, it became obvious that there is no point in counting on Russian investment into the Belarusian economy or that Russia will open up its markets for expensive and inferior quality products from "brotherly Belarus". All this explains the slight change in Belarusian fo-reign policy; a search for a new type of relations with Ukraine, sending missions to take soundings in certain European countries and attempts to improve relations with private capital outside interstate and intergovernmental relationships. So far there is no reason to talk of a new doctrine in foreign policy. However, it is obvious that foreign policy will have very little to do with what is proclaimed in populist rhetoric and propaganda.

Even less clear is domestic policy. The period from December 1996 to February 1997 witnessed some strange phenomena and trends in the restructuring of the state administration system in accordance with the new Constitution. Both Chambers of the Parliament were formed in a hurry "from improvised materials". The formation of the Parliament did not give the President any headaches, which is not the case with the formation of the Cabinet. In selecting officials to the highest positions in the government, the President is faced not just with the shortage of personnel, but with a complete vacuum. Unclear objectives about what the government has to achieve, uncertainty about the powers it will have, overlapping of executive functions of the Cabinet and the President's Administration - all this turns the government into a purely decorative authority. The economy is managed by three structures independent of each other: the President's Administration, the Cabinet of Ministers, and the Security Council. The lower chamber of the Parliament also tries to have its share of authority and tries to influence economic decision-making, thus bypassing the go-vernment. If this tendency remains the economy will be administered from four sources which will add to the existing chaos. Already it is clear that the Programme for Social and Economic Development up to 2000, adopted by the Cabinet and approved by the President, is ignored by the Security Council, by the President's Administration and by the Chamber of Representatives. The Programme is a guidebook only for the Cabinet of Ministers, and their influence in managing the economy is going down at a very rapid pace.

All the above is a manifestation of the authorities' frantic attempts to find new directions in their home policy. The difficulties of this quest are obvious. The situation inside the country as well as in the CIS and Eastern Europe requires specific actions and political steps. President Lukashenko strengthened his powers using slogans which run counter to what the present situation requires. A change of rhetoric and slogans in relationship to the voters is imminent - it is only a question of time. Far more complicated will be the situation with regard to experts, professionals and governmental officials. All those who are able to carry through the reforms of the economy were forced into the opposition and the opposition itself was forced out of the state administration and out of political process.

Time will show to what extent the legal, legislative, and structural framework of the third Republic will make it possible to cope with the emerging problems. Belarus has good prospects, provided it follows the way of those countries which we in the beginning referred to as the second group, figuratively named catholic, i. e. where economic reforms are carried out by authoritarian regimes in parallel with the formation of institutions of a civil society. If Belarus remains in the third group the crisis may become chronic and typical of the countries of the "third world".

Новые статьи на library.by:
АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH):
Комментируем публикацию: Belarus: the Third Republic

© Vladimir Matskevich, Director of the Agency of Humanitarian Technologies, Minsk () Источник: "БЕЛАРУСЬ В МИРЕ" No.001 01-01-97

Искать похожие?

LIBRARY.BY+ЛибмонстрЯндексGoogle
подняться наверх ↑

ПАРТНЁРЫ БИБЛИОТЕКИ рекомендуем!

подняться наверх ↑

ОБРАТНО В РУБРИКУ?

АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH) НА LIBRARY.BY

Уважаемый читатель! Подписывайтесь на LIBRARY.BY в VKновости, VKтрансляция и Одноклассниках, чтобы быстро узнавать о событиях онлайн библиотеки.