“Let Me Know that I’m not Crazy”: An Interview with Pavel Turchaninov

Pavel Turchaninov is an advocate for reform in Belarus. He lives in Minsk, where he works as a freelance translator for various NGOs and business customers, including the United Nations Development Programme. He studied Linguistics at Minsk State Linguistic University and Contemporary European Studies at the University of Sussex, UK.

This interview, conducted by Frank Burgdörfer, took place in association with the Citizens of Europe OpenFora, a group of debates among like-informed, not essentially like-minded, people about issues of contemporary life, business and politics in European societies, including external relations and global affairs. Visit the website for more information about Citizens of Europe and OpenFora.

You raise your voice for changes in your country, keep contacts abroad, visit international meetings dealing with Belarus. All this has negative consequences for you: Last March for example you travelled to Minsk to take part in a demonstration and got arrested in a rather violent way. Why do you do all this?

In my point of view my country is at a critical stage. Either we manage to achieve a dramatic positive change or we will see utter chaos. People cannot live for long in a situation where their rights and freedoms are constantly violated. Their discontent is like a time-bomb: if it is not defused, sooner or later it will explode and injure many innocent people. I do not want this to happen.

So your intention is to promote peaceful resistance?

I advocate peaceful resistance, but peaceful in the Western meaning of the word. Here, in Belarus, the meaning of the word “peaceful” has been deliberately perverted by state propaganda. President Lukashenka often refers to the Belarusians as “the most peaceful and tolerant nation.” To be peaceful and tolerant over here means not to get involved in anything, to sit in one’s kitchen and quietly observe any injustice that is happening around, it means complete apathy.

Is it realistic to expect a gradual change to the better? Can this happen within the existing state controlled structures under current conditions?

We certainly need a quick change of the executive in order to gradually change the country for the better. This requires a major cross-section of the population to come out into the streets to demonstrate to the government that MANY people want change, not just a few thousand. A new democratic government would then pass laws that reduce state control, privatize state-owned companies and de-regulate the economy. At the same time education will be necessary to increase mobilisation and civic participation.

So in your point of view the change must come from within the country?

It certainly must. However, at the same time, foreign governments can support such a process. Economic sanctions make sense. If civilised countries refuse to trade with Belarus, its centrally-planned economy will fail. This will prove to the people the inadequacy of our system. Restrictions on visa issuance to our government officials are another example of effective sanctions. How can the officials nobody wants to talk with represent us? How can we expect them to work in our interests? We really need condemnation of the regime on the international arena.

You decided to work for an international organisation.

I work for the United Nations Development Programme in Belarus. I mostly translate documentation and sometimes also official meetings. Some UNDP programmes are aimed at motivating people to stop relying and depending on the state, to take the initiative into their own hands, to develop small businesses in the countryside, for instance. I view my professional work as my modest contribution to fostering dialogue between the world community and my country.

How did you develop your plans and set your aims?

This is probably the result of living abroad. I like to think about it in terms of an aquarium. A fish that lives in its aquarium cannot understand what is beyond the glass until it jumps out of the water and spends some time outside. When living abroad, I learned that societies that build on consent and cooperation are much more successful than those that build on coercion and fear. In my entire foreign experience I can single out two stages: a practical one and a theoretical one. The former entails my summer visits to the US and Europe under Work and Travel Programs. That showed me the practical benefits of living in democracies: higher standards of living, longer life-expectancy and so on. The theoretical part entails my studies at Sussex University in England - that gave me an insight into why standards of living are higher in democracies than in authoritarian states (a scientific explanation, so to say).

What needs to be done in order to enable more people to get this outside view you are talking about?

International work exchange programs are just as important as sponsorship of academic placements at foreign universities. Also, contacts with local opposition activists make a lot of sense. I attended your OpenForum in Vilnius as the topic - Citizenship education - looked interesting to me and I wanted to meet similarly minded people from Europe. Citizenship education is what is missing in Belarus and I see it as a way of uniting the people of Belarus and shaping our national identity.

In the West and the Centre of our continent, many people perceive “Europe” as something opposing their national belonging.

I don’t share this view. “Becoming European” to me means adopting common European values while preserving specific national idiosyncrasies. The famous slogan of Europe is “United in diversity.“ For Belarus, to turn towards Europe means to protect and to win back our national identity, to turn towards Russia would mean to destroy and to erase it.

This means, for you Russia or Europe are more than geographic terms and belonging to either side is more than being part of a political bloc?

I believe the difference is much more significant. It is a question of mentality and values. We all know how differently Europe and Russia behave on the international arena - the arguments they use in their political discourse are different. It reflects the fact that the mentalities are different. Where Europe relies on logic, Russia relies on brute force.

Let me be provocative: aren’t the problems the Belarusians to formulate a clear identity and civic concept of their own nation the perfect proof, that they are “more Russian than European”?

It is difficult to have a consensus in a nation. On the one hand, there are a lot of people here who understand very clearly that we are a European nation. If you look back historically, you will see that in the past Belarus used to be a part of The Great Principality of Lithuania. Then it came into the orbit of Russia, and then Soviet assimilation came. But the historical roots are still European. Our pro-Soviet Government is trying to mask and eradicate those roots by twisting academic programs at schools and universities, but a lot of people remember history. On the other hand, many others – I’d say, the majority - are confused. The political elite is taking advantage of this confusion, because they can brainwash people and pacify them into obedient labour at state-owned companies while the elite itself can enjoy a luxurious lifestyle that feeds off the energy of the confused. But the people are coming to slowly realize what is happening.

I meant the mentality or the political culture or the absence of a civic political culture. Your western neighbours had a clear identity and there were many people who had an idea of the future of the own nation, which made them take things in their own hands.

I do not think that civic political culture is non-existent here. It is suppressed. It operates at the minimum level, waiting for the right time to flourish, like a flower-seed in the winter. It might die, though, if the winter lasts for too long. But there are heralds of spring already - the people who are now in prison for political reasons, who are ready to suffer for their ideals.

So you see Belarus unavoidably at the crossroads between Russia and the EU in a sense that it will be either part of either one or the other?

I don’t think it will be part of the EU for a very, very long time, but I fear that it could become part of Russia very quickly. I think we should steer clear of Russia, but develop on our own, as a proud independent nation and somewhere down the line, who knows, maybe we will be able to join the EU.

What would it mean for you personally if things will not develop as you hope?

If Belarus gets annexed by Russia, that would be the end of my hopes. It will cease to be my country and I will definitely leave it. And I am sure that the majority of the intellectual elite would also leave. Only the people who care about nothing but money and food will stay.

So what is essential for protecting the seeds you were talking about? For encouraging those who are in favour of a peaceful democratic change?

What’s essential is giving moral support to the few brave people who are unjustly punished here. If they see that the world community sympathizes with them, they will not be broken. From my own experience I can tell you that when one lives here and has enough education to understand what is really happening, one can think: “Either I am crazy, or the world around me is crazy.” If people from democratic countries voice their support, many more Belarusians will brush away their doubts and funnel all their energy into fighting for the Belarus I would take pride in being part of.