BELARUS NEWS AND ANALYSIS

DATE:

21/04/2008

PACE discusses Russian elections, justice in Belarus

Author: Vsevolod Samokhvalov

Among the fierce debates about the state of democracy in Russia, Moscow has repeatedly referred to the Council of Europe (CoE) as the only respectable authority to judge about democracy. One can explain it by the fact that the Russian experts have always had an opportunity to participate in the CoE works and had a voice in each move of the originations and its bodies. However, the divergence of opinions of the Russian deputies and European became obvious to many observers last week during the spring session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), where the assembly discussed the report of the monitoring of the Russian presidential elections and the abuse of the criminal justice in Belarus.

It is needless to say that the report prepared by the PACE was always more moderate in its monitoring reports. This time was no exception. The report prepared by Swiss Socialist deputy Andreas Gross criticised mostly unequal access to media, refusal of the incumbent candidate Dmitri Medvedev to participate in the public debate, absence of the long-term observers, which did not allow monitoring the pre-electoral process and some other technical difficulties.

Russian Communist Deputy Ivan Melnikov confirmed the finding of the report, saying that Medvedev indeed had been granted greater access than others to the media, particularly the electronic media. He was also often referred to as the deputy prime minister, which was not an acceptable state of affairs in an election. Melnikov suggested that during campaigns, all candidates, with the exception of the president, should resign their other posts.

The key counter-argument of the Russian sides was developed by the Head of the Russian Representation to the CoE and Member of the pro-presidential "United Russia" party Konstantin Kosachev who first of all stressed that, quite frequently, international assessments on electoral processes sometimes seemed to depend on the result. "In elections in Serbia, the delegation from Slovenia had, just two hours after the polls had closed, congratulated the winner and said that the elections were free, fair and just. No observer from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the Council of Europe or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had expressed such a view so quickly." Kosachev said. He also expressed his doubts about that, and wondered whether such congratulations would have been offered to a different winner. The Russian deputy also noted the fact Sweden had had no observers of its elections.

Kosachev also stressed that in many countries of Europe, such as in Sweden and the UK, the post of the head of state is transferred by heritage, not as a result of the vote.

This difference of approaches to the state-building between Russia and PACE has displayed itself even more in the tough debate about the abuse of the criminal justice in Belarus. The PACE raporteur Christos Pourgourides, who has been a recognised expert in the political development in Belarus, prepared a quite detailed report with numerous cases of the abuse of criminal justice in the country, politically-motivated trials, disappearance of people, etc. The Russian answer came from the deputy rightist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Leonid Slustki, who said that the rapporteur had fulminated against criminal justice abuses in Belarus, but he had not taken into account the fact that Belarusian opposition received about USD 105 million funding from abroad, which amounted to significant interference in the internal affairs of Belarus.

Slustki stressed that activities of Belarus authorities received harsher treatment than, for example, the activities of the Georgian authorities in Tbilisi. Relationships with Belarus needed to change, given the examples of Georgia and Kosovo. It was curious that Russia was always asked to intervene. Russia's job was not to batter Minsk, but to promote dialogue. Over-zealous reports, such as the one the Assembly was debating, merely fuelled tension. It was time, too, to do away with make-believe stories about secret killings and other such things.

Other Russian deputies developed the argument that the process stressed that the Belarusian people actually support the rule of Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko because it had taken care of its people; the streets were safe, children could play outside and there was no prostitution. As different as they are in the political affiliation, the Russian deputies supported the opinion that the government of Belarus is the legitimate expression of the state and opinion of the society. They also suggested that the Council follow its inclusive spirit and invite Belarus to participate in the work of the organisation.

However, at this point it was clear that even the inclusive framework of the Council of Europe did not provide enough room for manoeuvres. Some deputies agreed that the Belarusian authorities could be invited to the PACE session, but only to be questioned, not as an equal partner, something that Russia suggested. The Belarus debate has to some extent revealed the difference between the European and Russian values, which are frequently discussed. One could suggest that a key difference in the values between Russia and Europe is the attitude to the violence. Europe by no means accepts it in public and political sphere, while Russia shows certain understanding when it is used for the sake of greater ideas (national security, state interests, etc). But while the CoE is ready to provide certain legitimacy to Moscow, despite some doubts about democratic character of Russia, Belarus, which applies much more violent methods, has no chance to be treated as an equal partner, whatever lobbying Russia applies.

Source:

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/85500.php

Google