|
|
Doc. 7701
6 November 1996
REPORT1 on the situation in Belarus
(Rapporteur: Sir Dudley SMITH, United Kingdom, European Democratic Group)
Summary
Belarus is experiencing a constitutional crisis. A referendum is scheduled for 24 November 1996, with two competing sets of proposals to amend the existing constitution, submitted by the President of the Republic and a group of parliamentarians respectively.
The present constitutional crisis should be resolved in such a way as to strengthen the democratic process and ensure political stability. The freely expressed will of the Belarus people, through its institutions, must be respected.
I. Draft resolution
1. Belarus applied for membership of the Council of Europe in March 1993, thus expressing its acceptance of the values of human rights and freedoms, pluralist democracy and the rule of law. These values entail the principle of the separation of powers, and in particular respect by the Executive of a free and independent Parliament and an independent Judiciary.
2. In September 1996 the President of Belarus proposed a revision of the present Constitution, adopted by referendum in 1994. This revision would greatly increase the powers of the President. It would weaken the role of the Parliament to a degree which would call into question its ability to function as an independent legislature and to exercise democratic control over the Executive.
3. The Parliament has accordingly made its own proposal for a referendum, with additional questions to be submitted to the electorate and an alternative set of Constitutional amendments.
4. The Assembly recognises the sovereign right of the Belarus people to carry out necessary reforms to the Constitution. Such reforms should be well prepared, with proper opportunities for the Belarus people to discuss them - notably through free and independent institutions of the media. The elected Parliament and the Constitutional Court must fully exercise their prerogatives, in accordance with the existing Constitution and without interference.
5. The Assembly calls for the present constitutional crisis to be resolved in such a way as to strengthen the democratic process and ensure political stability. The freely expressed will of the Belarus people, through its institutions, must be respected.
6. Only thus will Belarus stay on the path of democratisation, which is a pre-condition for Council of Europe membership.
7. The Assembly calls for a "round table" of representatives of all interested parties and institutions, with a view to providing an opportunity for productive political dialogue and for a more consensual approach to reform of the Constitution.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by the Rapporteur
1. Belarus, a former USSR Republic, declared independence in August 1991. Together with Russia and Ukraine it was a founding member of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
2. The Supreme Soviet (Parliament) of Belarus has enjoyed special guest status with the Assembly since September 1992. It applied for membership in March 1993. The Committee of Ministers referred the application to the Assembly for opinion in April 1993.
3. The parliamentary elections, observed by an Assembly delegation, were held on 14 and 28 May 1995. They had to be repeated on 29 November and 10 December 1995 because of insufficient turn-out. The Assembly delegation judged the turn-out criteria too high and criticised the fact that the elections were held simultaneously with a referendum on closer ties with Russia and on the official status of the Russian language. The freedom of media has not been sufficiently guaranteed as only President's views were projected in the state-media.
4. The eminent lawyers visited Belarus from 5-9 May 1996 as a part of the Assembly's accession procedure. Their report has not yet been finalised due to the situation concerning the revision of the constitution.
5. The existing constitution was adopted in March 1994, creating the post of President of the Republic. Alexander Lukashenko was elected as President on 11 July 1994. He established the Presidential administration, a body to which he gave considerable competence, but which is not envisaged by the existing constitution. He insisted on implementation of a number of his decrees in spite of the fact that they had been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.2
6. The presidential proposal for a revised constitution, presented to the Parliament on 2 September 1996, would further concentrate the power in the President, to a degree which could compromise the balance of powers which exists between the state organs in every democratic state. Among the newly suggested powers, which presently belong to the Parliament, are the right to decide on the holding of national referendums, on calling partial and extraordinary elections as well as the right to appoint members of the Central electoral commission, the Chairman and members of the Supreme court and the Chairman and members of the board of the National Bank. In addition, the President asked for the right to dissolve Parliament and to appoint the Chairman and five out of twelve members of the Constitutional court. The present single chamber Parliament would be replaced by a two chamber National Assembly, with a House of representatives and a powerful Senate, to which the President would appoint one third of the members. The current term of office of the President would be extended, while other state institutions would be dissolved. The President would have an important role in their re-constitution. The proposal also envisages an important role of the state in "orientation and co-ordination of the economic activities in the private and public sector...". Land, water and forests would become exclusively state property.
7. The Parliament strongly contested the substance of the President's proposal as well as the suggested date for the referendum-7 November 1996. The Parliament agreed, however, on the principle of holding the referendum, and, on 6 September 1996, adopted a resolution in which it set 24 November as the date for the referendum. The resolution also added questions other than those already suggested by the President to be submitted to the electorate3. These new questions would include an alternative proposal for amendments to the constitution, proposed by a group of agrarian and communist parliamentarians, disposing of the post of president.
8. Both sets of proposed amendments were examined by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission).
9. On 15-16 October 1996 the President of the Assembly, Mrs Fischer, visited Belarus on the invitation of the President of the Belarus Parliament. She met with the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, the Chairman of the Central electoral commission, with the Head of the Presidential administration and with representatives of political groups represented in the Parliament. In her speech before the Parliament on 16 October4, the President of the Assembly urged the country's political leadership to find a compromise and resolve the conflict in a responsible way. She stressed the importance of the separation of powers, which is essential to the democratic development of society.
10. President Lukashenko reacted to the position of the Parliament by convening a "all-Belorussian people's assembly", a body not envisaged by the existing institution. A resolution which "resolutely supported the initiative of the President of the Republic of Belarus to hold a national referendum and the amendments proposed by him..." was adopted with a huge majority - only 11 of 4,740 participants voted against and 47 abstained, according to the Belarus state press agency Belapan. The assembly also called for rejection of the alternative proposal for amendments, presented by the communist and agrarian groups in the Parliament. The President, in his address to this assembly, agreed to hold the referendum on 24 November, as decided by the Parliament.
11. President Lukashenko entrusted the task of preparation of the amendments to a commission, chaired by the Deputy Head of the presidential administration. Representatives of the Parliament were not invited to participate in the work of this commission. The Commission prepared a revised version of amendments, presented by the President to the Parliament on 24 October 1996. According to the chairman of the commission, failure by the Parliament to accept the latest proposal would mean that the referendum would be held on the President's original proposal.
12. The Constitutional Court has been seized by the Speaker of the Parliament to examine whether the resolution on holding the referendum was in accordance with the constitution. If not, the referendum, legally, cannot be held.
13. In light of the controversies surrounding the referendum on a new constitution in Belarus, the Rapporteur proposes that the Assembly call upon all state institutions in Belarus, and in particular upon the President of the Republic, to resolve the conflict in a democratic and responsible way. It is the sovereign right of the Belarus people to change their constitution and adapt it to new realities. It has to be stressed, however, that such changes have to be in conformity with fundamental principles of pluralistic democracy. A round table with participation of representatives of all involved parties could lead to a more consensual approach to the constitutional reform and eliminate the risk of splitting the nation.
ANNEX 1
Extract from the resolution of the Belarus Supreme Council
of 6 September 1996
Questions proposed by the President of the Republic of Belarus:
1. Belarus' independence day (Republic Day) should be on 3 July - the day on which Belarus was liberated from the German invaders during the Great Patriotic War. Yes or No (definitive reply)
2. Adopt the 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Belarus with changes and amendments (new version of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus). Yes or No (definitive reply).
3. Are you in favour of the free, unrestricted sale and purchase of land? Yes or No. (consultative reply).
4. Are you in favour of the abolition of the death penalty in the Republic of Belarus? Yes or no. (consultative reply).
Questions proposed by the deputies of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Belarus :
5. Adopt the 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Belarus with the changes and amendments proposed by the Communists and Agrarians. Yes or No (definitive reply).
6. Are you in favour of the direct election of local authority leaders by the inhabitants of the respective communities? Yes or No (definitive reply).
7. Do you agree that all the branches of power should be financed openly and exclusively by the State budget? Yes or No (consultative reply).
ANNEX 2
SPEECH BY MRS LENI FISCHER
PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
before the Belarus Parliament
16 October 1996
Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear colleagues,
It is a great honour for me to address you - for the first time - on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Your parliament's special guest delegation in our Assembly is sharing its experience with us for a few years now. We are enjoying this relationship and we are working very closely together. The number of activities that the Council of Europe and its partners in your country have organised is impressive.
I have accepted, Mr President, your kind invitation to visit your parliament and your capital city, to hear from all sides the evolution of the constitutional discussion in your country.
I am very happy that my programme is as complete as possible, taking into account the short time available for preparation.
The Republic of Belarus has asked for membership of the Council of Europe.
It is a matter of great satisfaction that your people have, in this way, expressed their wish to take on their responsibility in shaping the future of our continent, in the framework of the Council of Europe.
Our Council is the place where the peoples of Europe defend together the values of our common civilisation - human rights and fundamental freedoms, parliamentary pluralistic democracy and the rule of law.
Your membership in the Cultural Convention is significant for your contribution to shaping the European cultural identity, which is enriching all of us with its diversity.
On behalf of my fellow parliamentarians in the Assembly I am looking forward to welcoming your country as a full member of the Council of Europe.
The Assembly's rapporteurs will soon be visiting your country again - at the end of this month - to assess the state of consolidation of your democratic reform process.
Our legal experts were here recently, and they are submitting their report to the Bureau of the Assembly for consideration at its next meeting.
This is the normal procedure - and there will be further visits, and dialogue, because membership of the Council of Europe is a serious matter of cooperation in the European family of nations.
This procedure is not in any way exceptional nor is it an interference in the internal affairs of your country because you have asked for membership. This means wishing to share the experience of other members. It also means that the Council of Europe is not imposing any obligations that you have not chosen yourselves as guidelines for shaping your own future.
In this context the current constitutional crisis has led to serious concern in our Assembly. Our experience is that the separation of powers is beneficial to the democratic development of society, in particular the independence of Parliament, the executive and the law courts and the freedom of the press. You will understand that - according to my experience of some 20 years of work in the German Bundestag, the institution of a free Parliament is a cornerstone of the democratic system. So is the independence of the Executive.
It is certainly in the interest of all powers of the State to respect each other and the rules of parliamentary democracy. Any attempt to bypass the freely elected Parliament should be avoided because it would be detrimental to the democratic development of the country and risks splitting the nation.
That is why I am so grateful to address you today on this issue and to express my sincere hope that your prerogatives and your constitution will be faithfully respected and followed.
This does not mean - and let me be very clear on that point - that the constitution cannot be adapted to new realities in conformity with its own provisions.
I call on your country's political leadership to try again to find a compromise and not to confuse the people but to solve the conflict in a responsible way. I did not meet President Lukashenko because he is not in the country but I had a very good exchange of views with the head of his administration.
By enabling me to meet Mr Miashnikovich, President Lukashenko showed his readiness for dialogue with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which as you know, has the responsibility of giving its opinion to the Committee of Ministers of our Organisation on the request for membership of your country.
I appreciate his attitude and I am convinced that President Lukashenko - who knows that the main responsibility of a President of a country is to guarantee the unity of the nation - will also pursue this dialogue with all parties concerned in Belarus and seek a compromise.
My view is that one should not be in a rush to fix a given date, but to take time to discuss a reasonable solution. Giving a second thought to this important matter does not mean losing face - in any institution - because what is at stake is the cohesion of society and the stability of the state.
Personally I am not involved in any struggle for power in Belarus. My concern is that your country should join the Council of Europe, and that its structure and functioning, for that reason, should conform to European standards.
Let me, therefore, appeal to all authorities here, to resume their dialogue - and to assure together - for the people of this country their freedom and their prosperity.
Thank you for listening - thank you Mr President - for giving me the floor.
Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee.
Draft resolution adopted by the committee on 6 November 1996.
Members of the committee: Mr Bársony (Chairman), Mr. van der Linden (Vice-Chairman), MM. Aloglu, Antretter, Baumel, Mrs Belohorska, MM. Bergqvist, Bernardini, Björck, Bloetzer, Bokov, Büchel, Bühler, Caputo, Cem, Cerqueda Pascuet, Chornovil, Deasy, Desyatnikov, Diacov, Eörsi, Fassino (Alternate: Benvenuti), Gjellerod, Gotzev, Gricius, Hardy, Irmer, Iwiński, Kalus, Kaspereit, Kyprianou (Alternate: Christodoulides), Mrs Lentz-Cornette, MM. Lopez Henares (Alternate: de Puig), Martinez, Masseret (Alternate: Seitlinger), Medeiros Ferreira, Mota Amaral, Muehlemann, Mrs Ojuland, MM. Oliynik, Paasilinna (Alternate: Laakso), Pahor, Pavlidis, Popovski (Alternate: Vangelov), Pottakis (Alternate: Vrettos), Pozzo, Radulescu Botica, Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, MM. Schieder, Schwimmer, Severin, Sinka, Sir Dudley Smith, Mr Spahia, Mrs. Suchocka, MM. Thoresen (Alternate: Mr. Berg), Urbain, Van der Maelen, Vella, Woltjer, Zhirinovsky, Ziuganov (Alternate: Mr. Lukin), N... (Alternate: Mr. Atkinson).
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries of the committee : Mr Hartland, Mr Kleijssen, Mr Gruden.
1 1by the Political Affairs Committee
2 2 Order No. 259/29 from December 1995 "On the respect of provisions of presidential decrees".
3 1 See Annex 1.
4 2 See Annex 2.