CC BY
11
PARLIAMENT: EXTERNAL IMPACTS AND RUMORED REFORMS
Andrey Kazakevich
Summary
In 2011, the parliament's activities were shaped by external impacts. The crisis in relations with the West changed the scope of its auxiliary functions in foreign policy. The level of contacts with the European Union has dropped significantly; the deputies' key activity became to counterattack the criticism of the Belarusian authorities on all possible levels. They also were developing the "Asian" vector and activities within the EurAsEC.
Legislative activities were performed within the established framework of rules. The deputies initiated only two bills. Others were submitted to the parliament by the government and the president, and all were approved. The public was stirred by a number of controversial normative acts regarding political and civil rights passed by the parliament, which however cannot be seen as an independent institution in making this kind of decisions. The whole year rumors were heard that some "political reform" might take place - in form of establishing a party of the ruling authority, about "the system" opposition and increasing the political role of the parliament. But these political changes must have been postponed until after the parliamentary elections - if they are going to be realized at all.
Trends:
• Relations with the EU and the USA have deteriorated; attempts to extend relations with Asian countries have been made, cooperation within the EurAsEC has increased;
• Legislative activities followed the established routine: low level of initiative, all normative acts submitted by the president and the government approved;
• A number of controversial normative acts have been passed circumscribing political and civil activities;
• Discussions about political reform, including the change of the principle of the parliament formation, have turned out vain.
Discussions on political reform
For the parliament, the year 2011 was a pre-election one. Traditionally, this showed not in pre-election activities of the deputies but in the discussion of a probable political reform. After 1996 each parliamentary election stirs discussions on this topic.
In 1999 — 2000 the opposition and the authorities discussed a possible democratization of the election procedure and the parliament's political role through the mediation of the OSCE, unfortunately, without success. The years 2003 — 2004 were marked by a broad campaign to improve the "Belarusian political model" (by consolidating the authoritarian regime) and rolling out the project "ideology of the Belarusian state". In 2007 — 2008 a broad discussion was launched about establishing a party of the ruling power. Initiatives to build a new political organization developed into establishment of the association Belaya Rus, but no significant political reform followed.
The year 2011 mostly repeated the situation of 2007: the speculations about political reforms circulated during the whole year. The goal of such a reform was transformation of Belaya Rus into a party of the ruling power and its participation in the election campaign. Moreover, behind-the-scene discussions evolved around including opposition representatives into the parliament and even establishing a "system" opposition. Nevertheless, by late 2011 significant changes of the political sphere were labelled as premature.
Therefore, Belaya Rus has never become a party and the reform, just like in 2007 — 2008, has been postponed. As far as we can judge, the main reasons for that are the following: unsatisfactory administrative conditions, resistance of the bulk of the bureaucracy, a great risk that something goes wrong during economic instability.
Administrative changes
In 2011, the House of Representatives saw only one change in its chairmanship: in July the Chair of the Standing Committee on International Affairs and Relations with the CIS Igor Karpenko was appointed Vice Chair of Minsk City Executive Committee. His successor was deputy Vitaly Busko. Although the new position cannot be described as high in the system of authority, Karpenko's appointment can be called promotion.
The Council of the Republic also experienced some changes. There was some ambiguity with the Vice Chairperson of the upper chamber of the parliament. In June 2011 former Vice Chair of the Council of Ministers Vladimir Potupchik (2009-2010) took this position. Actually, it was a direct appointment: on 16 June, by presidential ordinance, Mr. Potupchik was appointed member of the
Council of the Republic and the next day he was elected Vice Chairperson. We should point out that he is the third person to take this position in the Council of the Republic of the 4th convocation. Before him, it was Anatoly Rubinov (2008 — 2010) and Leonid Krupets (from May 2010, after dismissal from Chair of Minsk Regional Executive Committee, till February 2011, when appointed ambassador of Belarus to Brazil).
Moreover, in late 2011 Chairperson of the Standing Committee of the Council of the Republic on Legislation and State Administration Yevgeny Smirnov resigned; he was appointed judge of the EurAsEC Court. Later he was elected Chairperson of this court. The above mentioned administrative changes prove the general tendency that ex-parliamentarians are appointed to relatively minor positions in the state authority.
Relations with state institutions
The 7th extraordinary session (January-February 2011) might have been the most important of all from the formal point of view as the parliamentarians were to give their consent to appointing Mikhail Myasnikovich Prime Minister. The decision was predictable and formal.
Presenting the new head of the government, Lukashenko pointed out that "the country needs to develop more dynamically and the economy requires up-to-date approaches". And Mr. Myasnikovich can "not only organize work to reach good gross figures but also secure effective economy"1. In their turn, the deputies made special mention of the new head's "high professionalism and organizational skills". Afterwards, the consent for appointment was expressed by secret ballot.
The meetings of Vladimir Andreichenko, Chairperson of the House of Representatives, and Alexander Lukashenko emphasized the subordination of the parliament to executive bodies. In particular, on 17 May the president was instructing the formally independent branch of power on some aspects of legislation, which has already become a usual and somewhat institutionalized practice.
See: http://www.belta.by/ru/all_news/president/Belarusi-neobxodimy-bolshaja-dinamika-razvitija-i-sovremennye-podxody-k-upravleniju-ekonomikoj—Lukashenko_i_540792.html.
The House of Representatives also regularly cooperated with the Council of Ministers and local authorities. No details about the form of cooperation are available, so assessing their effectiveness is rather difficult. The main effect of this cooperation must be informing and coordinating because half of normative acts are prepared by the bodies of the executive power.
Foreign-policy activities
In their foreign-policy activities the parliamentarians represented the official line, which became very topical when relations with the European Union and the West deteriorated after December 2010. Attention was focused on resolutions and other actions toward Belarus taken by interparliamentary bodies and national parliaments.
The PACE resolution "The situation in Belarus in the aftermath of the presidential election" (of 20 January 2011) was received "with regret" because of its "unbalanced and destructive character", as expressed in the special press release. In his interview for Soviet-skaya Byelorussia, the chair of the House of Representatives expressed a similar position, remarking, "Belarus is being pushed out of European policy, which has neither common sense nor pros-pects"2. A similar reaction followed the European parliament's resolution on the situation in Belarus of 2 March that introduced some sanctions against the official Minsk.
Belarus and the EU continued to move in different directions and on 2 May the parliamentary assembly Euronest signed the statutory documents without the Belarusian delegation. The preceding consultations aimed at finding a compromise format of Belarus' participation failed, which did not come as a surprise.
Generally, statements were the only form of counteracting the EU's actions following the events of 19 December and after. The official Minsk tried to exploit parliaments of other Eastern Partnership member-states to promote its position but the effect was limited (only Azerbaijani parliamentarians rendered active support).
The Belarusian parliament also took advantage of the annual session of the OSCE parliamentary assembly in Belgrade on 6-10 July. The deputies took a critical stance toward the OSCE actions
See: http://pda.sb.by/post/111571/
and together with some other countries came out for reforming the organization. But the central event of the summit was the resolution on Belarus that raised issues of democracy and meeting the OSCE requirements. The Belarusian side did not succeed in blocking the resolution, but it managed to convince some CIS delegations to support its position.
The events took an interesting turn when the parliament initiated "the Polish issue" in response to discussions on Belarus in the Polish parliament. During the 7th extraordinary session the deputies sent a request to the Constitutional Court for legal treatment of the Act on the Pole's Card. Officially, the request was made "at the suggestion of Belarusian citizens and civil society entities". The Constitutional Court passed the respective resolution on 7 April pointing out that certain elements of the Polish act disregard some generally accepted principles and international legal norms.
On 2 April, the deputies took part in the international scientific and practical conference on "Modern geopolitics of Poland in the context of the Peace of Riga 1921". The conference was of rather political than scientific character and rounded up with a critical address to the authorities and the public of Poland.
Poor relations with the West showed in more severe criticism towards western countries and their policies. For example, at a press conference the chairperson of the Standing Committee on International Affairs Igor Karpenko described the coalition's actions in Libya as a war and violation of international law.
The parliament continued to participate in various interparliamentary entities (EurAsEC, CIS, CSTO and others) and held bilateral meetings with representatives of various countries (Cuba, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Armenia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Estonia, etc.).
To compensate poor relations with the West, the parliament paid special attention to expanding cooperation with Asian countries. In September 2011 the Belarusian parliament was granted the observer status with the International parliamentary assembly of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The procedure was initiated with assistance of Vietnam as far back as 2010 and in 2011 it came in handy as the political isolation increased. Great attention was paid to the visit of the delegation of the National People's Congress in line with the general intention of the Belarusian authorities to extend relations with China.
Legislation
The parliament performed its legislative activities during two regular sessions. Normative acts of international character made up the bulk of them. The parliament passed acts related to the Customs Union, the Single Economic Area, establishment of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community, bilateral agreements. The parliamentarians passed a package of bills and amendments of economic and administrative character, particularly, concerning licensing, registration, applications and addresses of citizens, alternative legal procedures, and others. As for civil legislation, they discussed and amended legislation on family relations, medicine, trade unions, innovation, law enforcement, advocacy, criminal procedure, etc.
During the year only two bills were initiated by the House of Representatives. One passed two readings and the other — the first one. The parliament approved all the bills submitted by the president and the government.
It should be noted that the spring session drew less attention of the public than the autumn one. The parliament's amendments to the law 'On mass events' and 'On amendments and changes to some normative acts' drew a wide response. They were stimulated by summer protests, which revealed certain gaps in the legislation. The official motivation was that the bills were to "ensure civil security during mass events and specify out-dated notions"3.
The parliamentarians passed the normative acts on the very first day of the autumn session and at both readings. This instant passing of the politically-tinged bill drew a wide public response. Eventually, on 5 October the parliamentarians held a press-conference to present the official position on the bill with the special stress on the international experience and protection of interests of the Belarusian citizens. But it did not change the public opinion.
Conclusion
The parliament's activities went within the established framework of rules in the Belarusian political system. Basically, the deputies'
See: http://www.belta.by/ra/an_news/society/Vstupaet-v-silu-zakon-o-massovyx-meroprijatijax-v-novoj-redaktsii_i_582582.html.the.
activities were influenced by the current political situation, external to the representative organ itself.
When relations with the West worsened, it had to change orientation of its foreign-policy activities compared to the previous years. Its main activities were to react to criticism against the policies of the Belarusian authorities from different European institutions. The parliament also made attempts to develop relations with Asian countries but we cannot assess the effectiveness of these steps.
In legislation the parliament consistently followed the role of amender and passer of bills elaborated by the government or the presidential administration. The deputies showed little enthusiasm in initiating new bills. Neither did the parliament have objections to the candidate for the chair of the Council of Ministers or to passing the program for government activities until 2015. In response to rising political activities in spring and summer 2011 the parliament helped to change legislation to circumscribe political and civil activities.
The year 2011 saw non-public discussions about a political reform in Belarus that was to change the principle of the formation of parliament. But these projects are yet to be realized.
