Talk:1995 Belarusian referendum

View of former CC judge

Pofka in this edit you add the following paragraph to the lead: "According to Mikhail Pastukhov, the former judge of the Constitutional Court of Belarus, the referendum was for the most part valid, except on the matter on the Russian language status.". I find it to be a bold edit that is problematic in several respects which I will outline below:

• "the former judge" should be "a former judge" as there are 12 judges in the CCB
• the source for the paragraph is Euradio, a media outlet that appears to be based in Minsk [1], there isn't freedom of expression in Belarus and this raises doubts, although the article is in many ways critical
• Mikhail Pastukhov, was dismissed by Lukashenko in 1997 [2], and the interview is conducted in 2016, if Mr. Pastukhov still lives in Belarus, should he be considered a reliable source? again, there isn't freedom of expression in Belarus and incidentally the state radio Belteleradio was recently expelled from the European Broadcasting Union for the broadcast of interviews apparently obtained under duress
• as a general rule, elections/referendum either are legitimate/valid or not. Stating that a referendum is "for the most part valid" makes limited sense to me, especially putting it in the lead.
• the part you quote is clearly selective, almost to the point of being a POV edit, if I may quote the paragraph in whole

Were there violations during the polls?

According to Mikhail Pastukhov who was a Constotutional Court judge in 1995, there are no grounds to treat the referendum as invalid. Pastukhov reckons there were no serious violations in the course of the vote.

On the other hand, questions remain as to the legitimacy of the referendum per se. The former member of the Supreme Council Siarhei Navumchyk repeatedly said about numerous violations during the polls. He stressed that Belarusian laws did not allow proposing the questions related to national and historical identity for a referendum. Moreover, various violations were spotted at all the polling stations where observers from the Belarusian Popular Front were present. The results of the referendum were not approved by the 12th Supreme Council and eventually passed only by the next parliament. One of the reasons one can claim that the results of the 1995 referendum should not be regarded as legitimate is the Constitution cannot be amended earlier than six months before the parliamentary election.

Now, Pastukhov's assertion that there are no grounds to treat the referendum as invalid is immediately qualified by "Pastukhov reckons there were no serious violations in the course of the vote". Reckons? Serious? This is not very authorative. In the next paragraph two different sources are quoted as saying there were violations at the polls, directly contradicting Pastudkhov?

• Finally, and this is the most important point in my view, if you read the OSCE report on the elections/referendum they find several issues with them, let me quote a few:

• The government also attempted to influence the outcome of the elections and the referendum. This was seen, in particular, in the government's use of its influence on the media.
• Lack of experience could also be seen in the polling stations where the authorities allowed extensive multiple voting, and did not promote secret balloting procedures.
• Most official information appeared to encourage the electorate to vote in favor of all referendum questions: Official posters were displayed at nearly all polling sites, instructing voters to vote in the referendum, stating the referendum questions, and listing the choices ("for" printed in the only red letters on the poster, and "against" in black letters). Sample referendum ballots were also distributed to voters in advance of the elections and at many polling sites on the day of the elections, illustrating votes in favor of each of the questions.
• Interference from the authorities regarding the referendum was apparent through the distribution of biased sample ballots and other information displayed at polling sites. At numerous polling stations, members of the delegation observed examples of the sample-ballot leaflets available to voters, along with the ballots. The leaflets advised "Milions of Belorussian citizens who want to live in peace and harmony" on which choices they should choose in the referendum (Annex 4). These leaflets were distributed by the authorities not only at many polling stations, but also by mail to some voters. The delegation finds this to be a highly inappropriate attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum. The authorities also intervened in the referendum by placing black-and-white posters in virtually all polling stations. They had the "yes" choice printed in bright red and "no" in black.

I could include more quotes from the report but I think this is enough. Pastukhov is therefore in direct contradiction with the OSCE report.

In light of the above points, I think the statement you've inserted requires modification, the Euroradio source is not reliable enough, and that it should not be in the lead. --Jabbi (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: According to article European Radio for Belarus, this portal is: "is an international radio station that provides independent news, information, and entertainment to the citizens of Belarus launched on February 26, 2006." The fact that this judge was dismissed in 1997 by Lukashenko only supports the fact that he has done right things and was not a puppet of Lukashenko. Governmental websites, run by Lukashenko, certainly would not interview such judge in 2016. As far as I understand from remarks of this judge, the only illegal question was about the Russian language status (most likely it violated the Constitution at the time), so I believe that such analysis of a reliable, non-puppet Belarusian judge, who worked at the highest (constitutional) court, should be presented as such lawyers are very, very rare. After all, we include the members of opposition statements as fully reliable. I perfectly know that Belarus currently is an authoritarian state, run by a terroristic regime, so governmental websites certainly are not reliable. However, this judge seems to be an objective supporter of the opposition. I heard that those who opposed the horse rider symbol, including Lukashenko, presented it as a Nazi symbol, but such opinion of them do not automatically make this referendum as illegitimate.

European Radio of Belarus seems to be similar to Nexta / Radio Free Europe: "Euroradio was established by the Belarusian journalist Dmitry Novikov, former head of the popular Minsk Radio 101.2, which was shut down by the authorities in 1996.[2] Novikov was also one of the Radio Racja founders. He established European Radio for Belarus as a non-profit organization in September 2005 in Warsaw, Poland." So it is most likely a radio station run by the democratic opposition of Belarus.

By the way, Lukashenko was elected democratically in 1994 (same as the first parliament) and certainly did not converted the state into an authoritarian regime in only 1 year. As far as I read about it, we can speak about authoritarianism and falsifications only during the second presidential election of Lukashenko in 2001, so it certainly took him a few years to gain authoritarian absolute power. For example, he was able to remove the quoted judge only after 3 years (from 1994 to 1997; the referendum was held in 1995).

The opinion of Siarhei Navumchyk is quite different, so maybe both of these lawyers opinions should be presented? I think that the Constitutional Court is superior over the Supreme Court in such questions. -- Pofka (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Pofka, I think you are entering WP:OR territory. In my view your edit should be changed substantially to qualify that it is possible that Pastukhov is not speaking freely, if he is living in Belarus, which is not clear. His statement is contradictory, asserting that the referendum is valid but then saying he "reckons there were no serious violations", he is immediately contradicting himself. What is more, this is an informal interview, not a legal opinion. Your assumption seems to be that before Lukashenko the Belarusian judicial system respected the rule of law and had judicial independence. That is not the case. I think that your edit should be considerably qualified because of the issues I have raised and moved from the lead, not least because stating that a "referendum was for the most part valid" makes limited sense. I do not have any interest in proposing an alternative. I see no other way than reverting your edit if you do not propose an alternative. --Jabbi (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I honestly do not know how to modify it according to your statements. If you see what modifications should be made, then perform it freely. I will not oppose that. If your decision is to revert it, then do it freely as well. I inserted this information because I felt it is reliable and an interesting opinion, analyzing black and white aspects, not only black, presented in a website run by the opposition. -- Pofka (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)