[ comments ] 

Looking Forward: Cross-border programs and Belarusian NGO development.
Think Tanks: Their Role and Impact

Juras Likhtarovich

Belarusian Think Tanks: what next?


The evolution of Belarusian situation during last few years shows how really important resource has became research and analytical work. Its importance was recognized by A. Lukashenka when he appointed Ural Latypov, former director of the Higher School of KGB in Minsk, a head of presidential Administration. From the pro-democratic side, we hear the voices that point out on increasing frequency the necessity to have a serious analytical background. For example, representatives of “Zubr” (sensational youth organisation that for a long time was concentrated on the activities of civil disobedience) repeatedly announced a creation of its own analytical centre. Numerous political statements are based on large scale citing from different trustworthy analytical researches. In Belarus, there is even the Association of Think Tanks that includes a few dozens of analytical and research centres and presents experts analysis of situation and eventual problems solutions. Indeed, results are modest Instead of contributing to the democratisation of Belarus, often the analytical centres became simply advisers to politicians (the richer politician the better) and produce formulas for his gaining the power. It is widely know that among intellectual elites it’s rather rare to find any new names, but at the same time there is a lot of well placed “old names” (persons who has been formed under the Soviet rule).
Alternative analytical surroundings are getting to form, they already achieved visible succes. Here are worth mentioning the cases of the Belarusian Collegium or analytical group formed by V. Bulhakau. But the question is whether they are able to influence in positive manner a farther democratic development of Belarus? In our opinion, two elements could give the ground for successful growth of this environment. First, it’s a sharing of commission in democratic society – separation of work between politician and analyst, NGO’s leader and analyst. Second, the involvement of Belarusian analytical circles into the programs of cooperation at the regional (neighbouring countries) and European level that will help them to perceive Belarusian problems in European context instead of self-isolation.

Professionalism of analytical surroundings

It is well known; that the considerable impact of independent analytical centres on democratic development is the work on providing changes of the frames that structure process of learning and decision making in governing circles. This is essential for the success of democratisation.
In Belarus, the first task of intellectual elites was to re-interpret the heritage of last historical period and to present the project for the future development of the country. However, this undertaking hasn’t been successful. Certain experts entangled themselves or were enmeshed by the others to the false dilemma that the construction of independent and democratic Belarus destroys “dear and comfortable Soviet Belorussia”. And as it’s impossible to simultaneously advocate for “ruin and recast”, these people concentrated on the question: how implement the major economic and political changes while not breaking up the old way of life? The easiest outlet was a strategy of “copying the Russian experience”. A considerable number of Belarusian analysts have studied in Russia and they often adopt the innovations via Moscow. Moscow from her side draws inspiration from Western theories of democratisation. As a result, the analysts concentrated on considerations how better democratise the state’s institutions or guarantee basic rights, while the main questions remained unresolved. Whereas, for the post-communist governing body the most important thing was to ensure a victory for its general conception for the development of Belarus, to keep the power and to construct mechanisms of reproduction of the system. Therefore, they made concessions in details that didn’t threaten its strategic vision of Belarus.
An alternative vision was partly presented by pro-independence and the Belarussian forces. However, in these circles the dominant figure was a prophet and not a politician. On the other hand, the majority of intellectual elites took a position of the “intellectual negativism” regarding this new vision. It means that they devoted themselves exclusively to disqualifying propositions of these political forces, throughout appealing to the personal experts’ point of view, this approach remains widespread to date.
One more snare on the way of development of the analytical centres, as the structures contributing to the democratisation, was lack of separation of work between politician and analyst. Even today, the majority of opposition politicians are at the same time politician and the best experts on Belarusian question. It’s obvious that not always they can be a successful in two spheres. Now, the certain leaders of NGOs make similar mistake, they think that after intellectual and political bankruptcy it is they who are the best analysts. In fact, gradual transfer of the emphasis from the fighting for the power to the creation of civil society hasn’t resolved a question of democratic development. Newly formed third sector can’t overcome two major problems: opportunism and cliquishness. Consequently, the sector didn’t present new elites that could effectively withstand the old Soviet-Belarussian elites. During, all years of independence, democratic environment can’t create a professional analytical structure. The idea of “learning” by means of election campaign(s) or mobilisation campaign is still actual. But, the work of studying, looking into the processes, of analysing is insufficient. The example is the analyses of the last presidential elections or rather lack of this analyses.
In the contrast to the democratic surroundings, their adversaries (Lukashenka and company) understand very well the importance of analytical work, as a basis for current political strategy. Therefore, here analytic work is professional. It means that there are a few specialised analytical bodies. It’s clear that the democratic society (third sector) doesn’t posses the same possibilities that state support provides. Therefore, we must find the solution in:

· Improving/increasing professionalism and structure of Belarusian orientated think-tank that will be an alternative to the old post-soviet centres.
· Participation of analysts in educational projects, their support for the independent educational system. The experts/analysts should not only advise politicians, but also be explorers and lectures. This will contribute to resolving the important problem of the democratic movement – lack of staff that is capable of understanding the challenges of the new situation and reacting effectively.
· Next element that will help reinforce these structures is the development of regional cooperation and broadening contacts with Europe (team-work (Belarusian-European) research, program of short-term and longer fellowships for Belarusians in Europe, invitation of Western specialists to lecture in Belarus). It will ensure an increased level of quality among Belarusian analysts and contribute to development of think-tanks.

The role of Western support in the processes of forming the Belarusian analytical space.

Here, we proceed from the assumption that helping to democratise from the outside is possible only if the international community will support the pro-Western and pro-independence circles in Belarus that will replace the governing group. In the Belarusian context, pro-Western means pro-European, because Europe is the more visible and closer West, potentially accessible to each Belarusian.

Spheres and methods of cooperation

The opinion that Belarus isn’t a part of European cultural space is widely diffused. The majority of foreign experts and a part of internal analysts present this country like the part of the Russian cultural space. The opposite idea is often ignored. Thus, the consequence is that social and political process in Belarus aren’t considered in the European context; quite the contrary actually we are witnessing a still strong emphasis of the fact that Belarus’s history is an exceptional one, close to the Russian tradition and not the European one. The attempts to awake West’s interests to Belarus aren’t successful. There is only one possibility to rouse this interest - to appeal to common problems. And this contact with Europe is necessary for us, because it could help to develop a new strategy of the democracy development.
Between quantities of axis for cooperation (team-work (collaborative) research programs) we could enumerate a few:

· Transformation experience of the Central Europe and directions of Belarusian reforms
· Public policy research
· Belarus– Europe Union, identity problems
· New non-governmental actors
· Confessions and ethnic minorities

Main methods:
Involving nascent analytical centres in collaborative programs with similar structures in Central Europe, Western Europe and North America, will contribute to professionalism of Belarusian explorers (they will learn Western methodology and work practices (particularly team-building)), at the same time Western colleagues will learn to understand Belarusian realities. Belarusian analytical centres could prepare research concerning Belarus for their colleagues. The NGO could act as mediators in this process as it is in the case of BK, Batory foundation or IDEE.
Programs of official exchange, internships and short-term training.
Coordination – involving into international networks, permanent participation of Belarusian analysts in international conferences, seminars etc..

With whom to cooperate?

This question can be legitimised by a simple fact: the failure of 10 years democratisation. If we look closer at the Belarusian analytical realm, it remains dominated by the people who had finished their studies before 1991 and whose world-view had been shaped before independence. Moreover, one should take into account the following: Soviet educational system influence, superficial understanding of Western political thought and Western methodology of the last 50 years and, also, a reluctance integrate new knowledge and viewpoints (connected to the natural ageing conservatism). In contrast, the generation that came into active social and academic activities after the collapse of the USSR and which is engaged in democratic organisations, bears different values (non-Soviet education and direct access to Western methodology, sources and world-view), are still more open to acquire new knowledge. Its representatives have a much stronger interest in bringing about changes than older ones, which mostly reacted to the challenges without anticipating them. Main indicators here should be adherence to the Western democratic values and Belarusian identity as part a greater European identity.

[ comments ]