The brave of October Square

Let us begin with the bright side of the story.

Sunday, March 19 was a great day for Belarus. Some 10,000 people braved the threats by the country's authoritarian regime and went out to protest in the streets of Minsk against the rigged election that handed yet another mandate to Alexander Lukashenko. Many vowed to camp in October Square until another rally, scheduled for last Saturday.

The KGB had threatened to treat protesters as terrorists and to crush any attempt of a revolution. Fortunately, there were no reported casualties even though the riot police stormed October Square and cleared it from protesters at the time of writing. I wanted very much to be with the people in Minsk on Sunday but the authorities would not grant me or any other member of the European Parliament a visa, even though Mr Lukashenko now went on record saying we would be welcome after the elections.

I was in constant contact with my friends in the crowd. It was their first experience of a mass demonstration and they were taken aback by the fact that so many people decided to show up despite the constant threats blared from the state media. The organisers of the protest did not even have a decent public address system to speak to such a crowd. Nevertheless, the mere fact that thousands of people were brave enough to take to the streets stressed the point of dissent much more than any speech could ever do.

After the first protest, a number of students who took part were expelled from the state universities. Amnesty International reported that some 400 people were arrested after the election and a number of beatings have taken place.

The official results gave the incumbent an 82 per cent victory. Let us be clear, Mr Lukashenko has a relatively strong base of popular support, especially in the countryside and among the older generation. This is fuelled mainly by the relatively organised social system he set up and by a state-controlled economy sustained by energy supplies heavily subsidised by Russia. Independent surveys estimate that a sizeable minority supports the President. His strongholds are people in the countryside and pensioners. On the other hand, the opposition - which is still somewhat fragmented in its approach - enjoys widespread support in the capital and among young people.

Our duty as democrats is not to decide who should lead Belarus. That is the sovereign right of the people of that European country to decide. Our role and obligation is to see that the citizens of Belarus get the chance of making a free and informed choice in fair elections meeting international standards. This has not happened in Belarus for quite some time. Mr Lukashenko would have had a good sporting chance of winning the election had it been free and fair. Nevertheless, he was after a plebiscite that would consolidate his authoritarian rule.

Many of my friends who are activists in opposition parties ended up arrested or persecuted just because they do not agree with the government's position. Many of their organisations were disbanded by the authorities and the results in the parliamentary election did not even give the opposition parties a single seat in Parliament! Opposition leaders were jailed, even after the election protests, and people critical to the authorities suddenly disappeared. Their relatives are more than certain they have been killed.

State media are heavily manipulated. The OSCE calculated that Mr Lukashenko was given 94 per cent of the total time allocated for presidential elections coverage. Opposition candidates Alexander Milinkevich and Alexander Kazulin had to divide the remaining time with a fourth pro-government candidate! At the same time, two opposition newspapers that were being printed in Russia were silenced in the run-up to the election. No wonder the organisation concluded that the elections were "severely flawed due to arbitrary use of state power and restrictions on basic rights".

The International Federation for Human Rights expressed its preoccupation at the escalation of human rights violations against the independent press, opposition candidates and their supporters and human rights activists.

There have been calls for the annulment of the election and for a fresh one to be held in full respect of internationally accepted democratic electoral standards. As expected, the authorities have brushed them off in a very casual manner.

It is high time for further actions to be taken on Belarus. These should not come only in the form of sanctions and condemnations, which only lead to the country's further isolation and consequent hardship to citizens. I argue that the European Union should ease visa procedures for the members of the Belarus civil society and increase assistance programmes for the country's young people. It is also high time for the EU to take leadership on the issue and start tackling the issue with the key player, namely Russia, without letting economic and energy supply matters get much into the way.

Whatever decisions are taken, the writing is on the wall: the people of Belarus have shown that, despite the intimidations, they are ready to stand up for change. The clock is ticking.

Mr Muscat is the vice-president of the European Parliament's Delegation for Relations with Belarus.

www.josephmuscat.com