• Because being “equal under the Constitution” and “actually living without discrimination” are two different realities.

• At present, the Constitution and the laws already state that discrimination is prohibited and that everyone is equal, and the draft of the new Constitution explicitly provides that the state promotes gender equality and gender education. However, this is not sufficient, because these are general declarations. In practice, everything breaks down at the level of details: how people are hired, how they are paid, who is nominated for political office, how harassment is addressed, how trans and non-binary people are protected, how statistics are collected, and how courts consider such cases in general.

• The logic of the proposed draft law is not to repeat once again that “everyone is equal,” but to honestly acknowledge that, in real life, equality does not arise by itself. Therefore, the law proposes procedures and rules that support those who, in practice, find themselves in a more vulnerable position or are underrepresented. It does not equate equality with identical treatment of everyone, but is based on an egalitarian approach: where starting conditions differ, the state is obliged to take this into account and level them out. Put simply, the law explains not only that discrimination is prohibited, but also how the system must function so that people genuinely have equal opportunities, and what specific consequences follow if these rules are violated.

• The draft law does several things at once.

• First, it provides clear definitions of key concepts: gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, direct and indirect discrimination, sexual harassment, vulnerable gender groups, and others. At present, these terms are almost absent from Belarusian law, which leaves many people in a “grey zone”: formally equal, but in practice without a clear mechanism for protection.

• Second, it introduces concrete mechanisms, such as gender impact assessments of laws and state programs, mandatory gender-disaggregated statistics, obligations for employers, and quotas in electoral lists to ensure that women and other underrepresented groups are at least given a chance to reach the ballot.

• Third, it changes the rules of the game in court: where there are indications of discrimination, the burden of explanation lies not with the person who filed the complaint, but with the decision-maker. This removes from the victim part of the often impossible burden of proving that ‘I was not hired / was demoted precisely because I am a woman / trans / pregnant,’ and makes legal protection real rather than merely symbolic.

• The Constitution sets out the principle, while the proposed draft law turns that principle into a concrete and verifiable practice.

• The conventional understanding is that “a man and a woman are equal because the law grants them the same rights.” The draft law radically changes this notion.

• First, equality is no longer limited to the story of two biological sexes. The definition explicitly states that gender equality concerns all people, regardless of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and that not only “equal rights” matter, but also “equal opportunities” and “equal responsibility.” In this sense, “equality between men and women” is expanded to encompass equality among different gender groups, rather than only “he” and “she.”

• Second, the law shifts from the abstract notion that “everyone is equal” to a realistic picture: vulnerable gender groups are explicitly identified, including women and girls, LGBTQ+ persons, single mothers, persons with disabilities, older persons, migrants, and others whose rights are systematically violated. In doing so, the state acknowledges that inequality affecting women is often intertwined with other factors, and that “gender equality” without taking this into account is self-deception.

• The law also redefines the family and so-called “women’s duties.” Domestic work is recognized as an obligation of persons of different sexes on an equal basis. It is expressly stated that such work cannot serve as a ground for discrimination, and that the state must encourage men to participate in childcare, including through paid parental leave for fathers with a mandatory quota of days that must be taken specifically by the father. This breaks the traditional stereotype that “a woman is responsible for the home and a man for earning,” and makes equality within the family reciprocal.

• Finally, the very logic of achieving equality changes: special measures and quotas are introduced as a temporary tool to support the underrepresented sex until gender balance is achieved, including in politics and employment. In addition, in the labour sphere, equality is transformed into a set of concrete procedures and employer obligations, including the shifting of the burden of proof in discrimination cases from the employee to the employer.

• Put very simply, the law moves away from the formula “we wrote that men and women are equal, therefore everything is fine,” toward a more honest one: equality exists when different gender groups are taken into account, both paid and unpaid domestic work is recognized, real power imbalances are acknowledged, and instruments are introduced to gradually correct those imbalances.

• The draft law is deliberately designed so that it can be used in everyday life.

• Its core idea lies in procedures aimed at eliminating inequality in access to resources and participation. It provides people with clear points of entry: where to file complaints, who is obliged to respond, which decisions may be appealed, and what consequences follow from violations. This means that equality ceases to be an abstract principle and becomes an operative argument in concrete situations—at work, in politics, and in the provision of services.

• In addition, the law requires the state and organizations to proactively review their decisions and practices through assessments and statistics, rather than waiting for scandals. This reduces the risk that equality will remain only a principle without real change.

• An organic law is a law that translates constitutional norms into clear, everyday rules. The Constitution sets the framework, and the organic law gives it concrete content.

• The Draft Constitution specifies that the Sojm adopts three types of laws: constitutional, organic, and ordinary, each with its own threshold for adoption.

• An ordinary law is passed by a simple majority of those participating in the vote, but at least one-third of the constitutional composition of parliament.

• An organic law requires a majority of the full constitutional composition of the Sojm, making it harder to pass but easier to protect from situational changes.

• A constitutional law has the highest barrier: it is approved in the third reading by three-fifths of the constitutional composition, and amendments to the main sections additionally require a referendum.

• Essentially, the deeper a law interferes with the structure of power, the broader the consensus required for its adoption. This ensures the predictability and stability of the rules that affect every Belarusian.

You can discuss the draft and propose amendments on several open platforms:

• on the website https://prastora.info

• in the SVAE mobile app (in the “Belarus Constitution Project” community)

• and on the Try Slany platform http://tryslany.com

On each platform, you can leave a comment on a specific article or provide general feedback — anonymously or under your name. All platforms protect personal data. Proposals collected from these resources are regularly gathered and forwarded to the Working Group for consideration.