Pro-Government NGOs: Much ado about nothing

Summary

In 2011, the largest pro-government NGOs (the Federation of Trade unions of Belarus (FTUB), Republican public association “Belaya Rus” and the Belarusian Republican Youth Union (BRYU) in general were acting in their traditional way: monitoring the public sentiment and maximally distracting people from political issues, particularly by organizing cultural events, sport events and other activities. Since the full-scale existence of three NGOs with similar functions in one organization or enterprise is impossible, in a specific enterprise only one of theses NGOs can strengthen its influence at the expense of two others. Partly due to this competition the influence of FTUB, BRYU and “Belaya Rus” among ordinary Belarusians is extremely low and mainly based on administrative resources. On lower levels, these NGOs are closely integrated into state agencies’ and organizations’ administrative systems. On the national level, they are fully subordinated to the Administration of the President of the Republic of Belarus.

The year 2011 was a period of heavy trials for FTUB, BRYU and “Belaya Rus”. While their official goal is to protect above all people’s social and economic interests these NGOs were inactive during the economic crisis. This passivity resulted in their further discrediting among the people. They also were not able to make any serious proposals on strengthening the existing political, social and economic models, which are faced with heavy challenges.

Trends:

The continuing decrease of pro-NGOs’ - especially trade unions’ - influence due to their disability to protect people’s social and economic interests;

The state’s attempts to increase the efficiency of FTUB, BRYU and “Belaya Rus” in strengthening the country’s political system don’t lead to any significant results.

The Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus: marginalization continues

As in previous years, the official trade unions generally don’t have independent power. Being closely integrated to enterprises’ management (the cases when a deputy head of enterprise’s director at the same time is the head of the local trade union organization are quite often in Belarus), the trade unions are mainly engaged in monitoring public sentiment among employees as well as in organizing cultural, sport and other activities. As for protection of employees’ social rights this function is actually carried out by the state with its policy.

However, in 2011 the state’s capabilities in this sphere dramatically decreased, which resulted in tensions at different enterprises and disappointment in trade unions work among ordinary Belarusians. For example, according to one of the independent polls in 2011 about 40% of country’s population didn’t see any necessity in trade unions existing.

The FTUB signed the General Agreement for 2011-2013. Even the independent trade unions admitted that this Agreement significantly guarantees the protection of employees’ rights. Nevertheless all these warranties were broken after beginning of the currency crisis. No reaction followed from the FTUB.

For example, the FTUB ignored the statement of the Ministry of Finances Mr. A. Kharkovets about the necessity of 10-15% job cuts in public sector. The Head of the FTUB Mr. L. Kozik even doubted the statement of the Head of the Statistic Committee Mr. V. Zinovski who announced that currency problems affected the employment of 600.000 Belarusians. The official trade unions did nothing to facilitate employees’ problems and preferred not to notice the crisis in the country.

As a result of the worsening economic situation in Belarus the strikes began at a number of Belarusian enterprises. On May 23 the strike occurred at “Rechitsapivo”, on May 24 – at “Minsk tractor works”, on May 25 calls for a strike occurred in Borisov, on July 1 the workers of a construction department in Slonim refused to start their work, on September 1 a strike was declared by the workers of a construction enterprise in Vitebsk, on September 15 a strike occurred at the Precast concrete products plant in Soligorsk, on October 24 – at enterprise “Zhilyo” (Borisov), in November – at “Belaruskali” (Soligorsk). At the end of December about 600 workers of enterprise “Granit” voluntarily left the FTUB protesting against low salaries and unsatisfied work of the official trade union. More than 200 workers decided to join an independent trade union.

The distinguishing feature of these strikes was the process of their solution: It was carried out by the enterprises’ management and local authorities while the official trade unions didn’t play any significant role in this process. It is noteworthy that in all cases the authorities and enterprises’ management made certain concessions to the strikers. This shows that there are certain reserves for such purposes which, however, official trade unions probably don’t have even credentials to use these resources and to take a significant part in conflict solution process. The call to overcome the crisis and improve the workers’ life was made only by some members of the FTUB.

Being almost absolutely helpless, the leader of the FTUB Mr. L. Kozik began to make all possible efforts in order to get favors from the authorities and personally from the President Mr. A. Lukashenko. It is difficult to evaluate in any other way the proposal to make Mr. Lukashenko a candidate for Nobel Prize in economy which was made by Mr. L. Kozik at the end of July at the peak of the economic crisis in the country. It should be clear that the FTUB is fully controlled by the Administration of the President and was not able to take any real steps in order to protect employees’ interests: the finance deficit and inevitable transformation of the Belarusian social and economic model lead to the dramatic fall of people’s standards of living. The Government is supposed to take responsibility for it and the FTUB fully supported this idea. For example, in May Mr. L. Kozik accused the Government in foot-dragging on the currency crisis, in September – in understatement the crisis, in November – in plot with the independent trade unions in order to worsen the social and economic situation in Belarus. After several days the FTUB proposed to raise the income tax significantly for those who have more than 1000 USD salaries. This proposal was an unambiguous cue to the miners of Soligorsk and caused harsh disturbances at “Belaruskali”, as a result of which Mr. L.Kozik had to disown it.

In general during all year 2011, the marginalization of the official trade unions continued becoming apparent from their disability (due to the policy of the Belarusian authorities) to protect the employees’ interests.

The BRYU: an impulse to nowhere

As the official trade unions the BTYU is mainly responsible for monitoring the public sentiment among young people and distracting them from political issues particularly by organizing cultural events, sport events and other activities. The year 2011 became a period of heavy trials for the Union. The active participation of young people in the electoral campaigns of the opposition candidates at the end of 2010 as well as in “silent” protests in May-June 2011 once again demonstrated that the BRYU hadn’t achieved much success in carrying out its main responsibilities.

It should be clear that the Union received a great impulse from its First Secretary Mr. I. Buzovsky who enjoys substantial support from the Administration of the President, especially from an assistant of the President and the Head of the Chief Ideological Department Mr. V. Yanchevsky. The special place among the most famous BTYU’s projects belongs to the project “100 ideas for Belarus” which was personally approved by Mr. A. Lukashenko. Nevertheless, in spite of all efforts and unprecedented state support (in 2011 the Union received a record amount of money from the state budget – 20,5 billions BYR, but the devaluation of the national currency seriously reduced this amount) the large-scale youth protests could lead to serious personnel changes in the BTYU. They didn’t occur. On December 9th the 41th Congress of the BRYU was held where the Head of the State addressed the meeting. Contrary to the expectations of many experts Mr. A. Lukashenko supported the current Secretariat of the BRYU and its activities in their present form. Moreover the President in a veiled form objected the perennial criticism of the BRYU: the artificial increase of membership number, coercive membership in the Union, passivity of the major part of its members, the formal character of organized activities and unpopularity among a significant part of the Belarusian youth. Basically, in his speech Mr. A. Lukashenko gave a carte-blanche for the BRYU and its re-elected leader Mr. I. Buzovskty to continue their work.

All this looks rather strange especially taking into consideration the scale of youth participation in the “silent” protests and exclusively coercive method of trying to solve this problem. The local influence of the BRYU is usually very limited in spite of their numerous activities inferior to the influence of the official trade unions. It seems that the support of the BRYU from the Head of the State was the result of the relations in the Belarusian public administration system (the strong personal positions of Mr. I. Buzovsky) and authorities’ reluctance to demonstrate the lack of confidence in the one of the largest pro-government organizations in a time when the crisis of the Belarusian model of development is deepening.

“Belaya Rus”: between quasi-party and pseudo-party

In contrary to the official trade unions and BRYU and in spite of the few facts of coercive membership in “Belaya Rus”, this organization continues to be a kind of prototype of an elite pro-government organization aimed at uniting the high ranking and desktop public officials in its ranks. But it is not the first year when the organization continues to be in the status of formation: far from each high ranking official is its member. Nevertheless, in general on the local level the principle of a small cell of people close to a head of an organization / enterprise is kept.

The public activities of the organization also seem to be very moderate, especially in comparison with the numerous activities of the FTUB and BRYU. However, “Belaya Rus” is actively involved into the process of “manually” regulating the social and political processes first of all via the wide network (about 160) of its public offices which function as a kind of branches of the Administration of the President of the Republic of Belarus responsible for monitoring the public sentiment among local people.

In 2011 the positions of “Belaya Rus” were undoubtedly strengthened. Partly, it occurred due to the appointment of its leader Mr. A. Radkov as the first deputy head of the Administration of the President. However the main factor of this strengthening was the beginning of the discussions among the Belarusian establishment about the necessity of reforming the country’s political system. In 2011 the information about the possibility to create in Belarus a full value party system and conducting parliamentary elections in 2012 on party list appeared in the Belarusian mass-media.

It seems that originally ‘Belaya Rus” was supposed to become a “governmental party”, modeled after the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but it couldn’t take this place due to the position of Mr. A. Lukashenko, who was unwilling to have even a purely formal rival. According to the official version the first idea about “Belaya Rus” transformation into the party of people’s unity was expressed in August by the Head of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly Mr. A. Rubinov at his meeting with organization’s activists. This initiative was immediately supported by the provincial organizations of “Belaya Rus”. The same idea was expressed by Mr. A. Radkov as far back as in March at the meeting of the Republican council of the organization, and apparently was delayed to a more suitable moment. In September, Mr. A. Radkov fully supported the “initiative” of Mr. A. Rubinov. The prospects of such a reform seem to be very uncertain. The strengthening of “reforming” rhetoric coincided with the attempts to organize a new dialogue with the West and Mr. A. Lukashenko’s statements about his willingness to sit at “a round table” with the opposition. It seems that the discussions about party system are mainly aimed at the Western-European audience and have very little influence on the present state (and essence) of the republic’s political system. The very possibility of such a reform is seriously limited both by the external circumstances (the problems in dialogue with the West) and by the disability of the Belarusian authorities to use more subtle administration mechanisms which will become necessary in a case of even a merely “decorative” party system.

Conclusion

During the whole of 2011, three leading pro-government organizations – the official trade unions (the FTUB), the BRYU and “Belaya Rus” didn’t approve themselves in the frameworks of the social and economic crisis. This passivity contributed to further discrediting of these organizations among the public. We can say only about certain strengthening of the positions of “Belaya Rus”. Firstly it is connected with the appointment of its leader Mr. A. Radkov as the first deputy head of the Administration of the President and secondly with the discussions among the Belarusian establishment about the necessity of political reforms. In the short-term outlook “Belaya Rus” will try to maintain its position, especially in the frameworks of further marginalization of the FTUB and low efficiency of the BRYU.