Volha Mayorava: Lots Of UCP Members Believe Kanapatskaya Must Resign Her Mandate

Today the leadership of the United Civil Party will hold a caucus on the issue of Hanna Kanapatskaya’s membership in the “house of representatives.”

A meeting of the United Civil Party speakers, who have participated in the “elections,” “deputies” of the “house of representatives” of the 6th convocation, will be held in Minsk today. The event has been declared closed, the press will not be allowed.

We remind that the UCP candidates are regarded as speakers, as the UCP members are convinced that there are no “elections” in our country. The party participated in the “elections” to prevent the legitimization of the new Belarusian parliament at the international level, but suddenly got a parliamentary mandate for Hanna Kanapatskaya. “How come? They wanted to prevent the legitimization of the “house of representatives,” and the result is quite the opposite – they shored it up. An outbreak is at hand inside the party,” – Belarusian Partisan writes.

The day before the event UCP representative Volha Mayorava gave an interview to Belgazeta:

– For the first time in many years the opposition won a local victory at the “parliamentary elections,” so why do you call the UCP consent to accept the deputy’s mandate a shame?

– This is a betrayal of the principles of which we spoke, for example, last year, when we criticized the position of the campaign “Gavary Praudu” (“Tell the truth”). We held a meeting in the office, I asked a question on this issue to Anatol Liabedzka, and he actually repeated the entire last year rhetoric of Andrei Dzmitryeu in his reply. At that time it was strongly criticized and it was considered unacceptable, and now the leader of our party took the opposite stance on the matter. I believe that it is necessary either to recognize officially that the course of the party is fundamentally changed, or be prepared, that some members of the party will leave its ranks.

– Did you often meet Kanapatskaya before the parliamentary election campaign?

– For a long time I did not even know, that she was the head of the city organization, later, when I found that out, talking to her, I realized that she was not doing anything in line of duty. The party explained that Hanna had her business and she could not afford to take risks. Then I gave assent to this situation, all the more the rest of the party were in agreement with that, and that was positioned as something essential for solving some bureaucratic nuances. Now the same person comes to the “house of representatives,” she has the same business and the same problems, and, knowing her previous work, I understand that now the former approach with great probability will be carried over to her work in the parliament. If we declare illegitimacy and use this situation to continue to fight for the law, it is the height of cynicism.

– Have you got objective evidence that Kanapatskaya busted up the city organization’s work?

– As I was explained at the time, Hanna had been asked to take up the Minsk city organization chairman post, as long as there was no one else to do it. She was in charge, signed some papers, then she disappeared when the presidential campaign started. I do not know exactly what happened, but I learned from hearsay that she had gone to Germany for some personal matters. As the result, the city organization practically did not participate in that campaign, Mikalai Kazlou carry out her duties, later he was elected to this post officially. Kanapatskaya even didn’t come to the meeting, if only to move the work to him. She appeared at the parliamentary election campaign, when it was ramped up.

– Liabedzka refers to the majority of the party speakers, who are for accepting Hanna Kanapatskaya’s mandate. Have you got any other information?

– There is our public group on the Internet, and there had been no discussion until I posted my text. And some opinions began to appear in the comments: the vast majority remained neutral and did not comment on the situation, but there were a few names, which flickered not once. If to count all the names in the comments, it is hardly worth talking about the majority: in fact there were comments of the same people.

The day after the elections I came into the office, asked Anatol Uladzimiravich to assemble the speakers to discuss the situation. He said that it was not necessary, since the party had no opportunity to influence Hanna’s decision. They would assemble the board without the speakers, I was told about that right in the office. After that I decided to formulate the text, posted it and, having received some very unpleasant comments, brought the issue to the public attention.

– Are you sure you would withdraw the mandate, if you won in your constituency?

– Absolutely, because there was persistent fraud at our constituency: the turnout could be overstated by 11 times for a day, the observers were removed from the polling stations, emergency services were called to one of the stations, people were evacuated – sheer ugliness was going on. I'm not saying that I won electorally, it was unlikely to happen, but it was impossible to shut the eyes to such abuses. It was a shame when at the website for speakers, Mr. Liabedzka wrote something like this: ok, hand on heart, let’s ask ourselves in a low whisper, if we were given 23%, would you really be against this? There was an answer that, of course, we would agree, but I personally consider this position an insult.

– Are Mayorava and Malochka the only people who do not share the position of the party?

– Several party members called me expressing support, including one of the leaders of the regional organization. But I would not want to call the names in order not to set the people up before a meeting of speakers scheduled for September 25.

– You accused Kanapatskaya of not indicating neither the name of the party she belonged to nor a link to the program “One Million New Jobs” in her pre-election poster…

– We were told that it was the idea of Kanapatskaya. After the incident, they have repeated several times, that they spoke to Hanna, she repented and acknowledged that she was not right. In addition, when the poster appeared, a post by Liabedzka was published in the group for speakers, saying approximately the following: our picture, our last name, and what else is ours? Where is the rest? So it certainly was not the decision of the party.

– Now, there is a lot of talk about the two places granted by the regime. However, the chairman of the Belarusian Language Society Aleh Trusau, while speaking about the victory of Kanapatskaya and his deputy chairman Alena Anisim, is sure that these are two different stories…

– I also think so – I have not heard about any falsifications in the district where Anisim was running for deputy. Here, everything seems fair: it was her personal choice, her moral position. In our case, there were falsifications: there are screenshots of comments of the employees of the office, members of our party, confirming this.

The problem lies not in the attitude of Kanapatskaya, but in the Party’s attitude: whether it is ready to turn a blind eye at these falsifications and agree that in any case its candidate was appointed to the “parliament”. There is a threshold, which I personally cannot step over, but the party has, unfortunately, crossed it.