Belarus closes the border for the domestic opposition
On March 7, Belarusian border guards did not allow the Chairman of the United Civil Party Anatoly Liabedzka to leave Belarus en route to Lithuania. On the same day, the wife of Liabedzka became a subject to extended examination at the same border while traveling from Lithuania to Belarus. Also, Mr. Dobrovolski, Deputy Chairman of the UCP, was taken off the train en route to Lithuania.
The ban on leaving Belarus for the Head of the UCP Mr. Liabedzka without any explanation implies the Belarusian authorities had to improvise and had no clear action plan against the politician. Otherwise, the authorities would have referred to a formal pretext, for instance, a “criminal” case initiated against him.
Actions against Messrs Liabedzka and Dobrovolsky could represent a “symmetrical response” to the visa restrictions, imposed by the EU against Belarusian officials. However, unlike the ban on entry to the EU of foreign nationals, a ban on leaving the country for the citizens of the country is a more complicated task: it contradicts the Belarusian legislation in the first place.
These recent developments at the Belarusian-Lithuanian border confirm that the Belarusian authorities have not yet decided on the tactics in response to the demands and actions of the EU. They adhere to the tactics of passive retention of the status quo: political prisoners are not released, the CEC threatens not to invite OSCE observers to the parliamentary elections in the autumn, and in response to the visa sanctions against Belarusian officials the authorities introduced vague travel bans on opposition politicians.
These passive measures only meant to restrict the leadership of opposition parties (the UCP in this particular case) from maintaining their international contacts. It is worth mentioning that some governmental officials advocated for a “pro-active” response, i.e. to introduce penalties against those who call for sanctions against Belarus (it has been recently discussed in the Prosecutor’s Office). However, such pro-active response fits in badly with the existing trend towards “passive response” and therefore unlikely to be implemented.
According to Belstat, in August 7,600 people were dismissed, including 4,800 civil servants. Dismissals of civil servants were due to the optimisation in the public administration by up to 30%. Some civil servants would retain their job however would lose the status of a civil servant. Vacancies on the labour market are likely to reduce in number, thanks to the optimisation, the state administration would increase wages for public servants. The payroll fund for retained employees is likely to increase and some former state employees are likely to get jobs in affiliated organizations. The optimisation of the state apparatus should complete by January 1st, 2018, and some former civil servants are likely to join the ranks of the unemployed.