What is your opinion about the ruling coalition’s future? There were plans to broaden it by the end of the parliamentary spring session.

There are two possibilities. First one is to work in the current coalition, something we have been doing all this time. The government finds it difficult to work in such a situation because the ruling coalition has only 70 out of 141 seats in the Seimas, plus three members of the Peasants and People’s Union who support the ruling coalition. Another possibility is to invite another party or a group of individual MPs to join the ruling coalition.

I do not know yet which of the two possibilities will be chosen because this depends on many things. If the opposition parties, whose ratings are growing because they are not in power, stick to their unspoken agreement not to join the ruling coalition and not to assume responsibility until the difficult economic situation is over, there will be no official expansion of the ruling coalition. However, we have had some quite productive discussions with some MPs.

Is it true that when you spoke with the representatives of the Order and Justice Party about their possible work in the ruling coalition, they asked for the post of Seimas speaker and four ministerial portfolios?

I was not aware of such demands. It is logical that each member of the ruling coalition wants to have posts in proportion to the number of seats he has in the Seimas. But the request you have mentioned would be absolutely un-proportional. Perhaps somebody mentioned something like that in haste? We have not had any serious negotiations regarding membership in the ruling coalition with any parliamentary party yet.

The Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius has hinted that it is possible to successfully cooperate with some MPs from the Social Democratic Party (LSDP).

The prime minister indeed has had many conversations with LSDP leaders and individual members. Perhaps the content of the discussions gave the prime minister this idea? After all, the LSDP, which had been in power many times, understands the situation of the government better than anybody else and could provide the current government with support on some issues. Especially since the Conservatives supported the LSDP government in 2006.

It is much easier to do that once they have an example. However, the issue of cooperation with the LSDP remains open. On the other hand, the LSDP must realize that there is no other political nucleus that could replace the current ruling coalition in this Seimas. This is why it is simply illogical to act destructively.

The political era of Algirdas Brazauskas has ended. By all rights it began in 1988, on June 24^th of that year in Vilnius,  Sąjūdis organized a farewell gathering for the delegates to the 19^th All-Union Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union being held in Moscow. At that point, A.Brazauskas was only one of the Lithuanian Communist Party’s secretaries, yet he was the only government representative brave enough to take the podium and address the gathering of people. Four months later, after pressure from Sąjūdis, the leadership of the Lithuanian Communist Party changed – A.Brazauskas was elected First Secretary and he became the first Lithuanian leader born from “his” Lithuania.

In March 1990 A.Brazauskas was elected to the Supreme Council – Restoration Seimas, and became a signatory of the March 11^th Act of Restoration of the Republic. From that time, he served in the highest ranking national offices for at least some period – 1990-1991, First Vice Premier of the Government, 1992 – Seimas Chairman and Acting President, 1993-1998 – President, 2001-2006 – Prime Minister. In eleven of the first sixteen years of restored independence of the Republic, A.Brazauskas was one of its most influential political leaders. Few would point in error calling the period of restored independence, using old soviet naming conventions, as A.Brazauskas’ political epoch. Upon his leaving political life, the Lithuanian Republic steps into a new phase of its development.

Politicians, particularly a well known and influential politician, can leave their posts via a choice of two paths. First – leave without losing to ones opponents, being at the height of power, making up your own mind when to take that step. Second – to leave ones post under intense pressure understanding that if you don’t make the choice to step down, you will be forcibly removed. A.Brazauskas experienced going down both of these paths.

The first time A.Brazauskas gave notice of his departure from national politics, then President A.Brazauskas announced in the fall of 1997 that he would not seek election to a second term (where victory in that election was all but guaranteed for him, at least that is the current belief). He announced that it was time for a new generation to take command of the nation, unburdened by the soviet past. A.Brazauskas named his successor – former Prosecutor General Artūras Paulauskas.  The latter, even with the support of A.Brazauskas, lost the Presidential elections to Valdas Adamkus.  This, of course, somewhat tarnished the elegant exit of A.Brazauskas, which people manage to forget.

In the summer of 2001, after the collapse of the “new political” coalition, A.Brazauskas returned triumphant. In the previous year, the Social Democrat and LDDP coalition, which he led, received the most votes in the Seimas elections and he himself proclaimed he is returning to “save Lithuania”. It is true that the economy was reformed and was climbing out of the 1998-1999 crisis, although the majority of the population had yet to experience any positive results. The return of A.Brazauskas was generally regarded in a positive way in that most believed he was no fan of political infighting and that his presence would stabilize the scandal ravaged Lithuanian political environment.

In 2001 a new A.Brazauskas returned to government – one who was convinced of the righteousness of his own decision making, ignored public opinion, unafraid of scandals which would just slide off of him as easily as water from a goose’s back. A time when he felt great nostalgia for his, and his soviet, past. His term as Prime Minister began with a scandal marred trip to Moscow with business leader Bronislavas Lubys to meet with Russian energy representatives and a hunting trip with his close family friend – Manager of LUKOIL Baltia Ivan Paleicik. Next, he surprised foreign investors when he organized a speech pointing out how the soviet period was positive for Lithuania.

That by all definitions hot summer of 2001 did not cloud suspicions as to why A.Brazauskas took efforts to return to government leadership. Looking back today, the almost prescient words of philosopher Vytautas Radžvilas in Veidas: “The primary motivation that leads him back into government is that during the entire independence restoration time period, he faithfully represented that which I refer to as the soviet Lithuanian elite. These elites are fighting for their rights – to control the nations’ wealth and to maintain decision making influence. And those groups that are trying to take the last remaining tidbits of privatized national capital away are again trying to force him out.  I can’t discount the possibility that this happened against his will. He returned to finish his last task – to determine who would benefit from the privatization of Lithuania’s energy sector. And those people who assigned him this task, in considering A.Brazauskas’ possible future positions – didn’t care. He would be “eaten up” as a politician.”

In fact – the growing national economy and the post EU accession’s arrival of EU Structural funds presented a unique opportunity to the A.Brazauskas Government to finally reform social, health and higher education systems, yet nothing was done. They couldn’t even manage to introduce the promised Euro currency. That’s why the government sold off “Vilniaus Prekyba” to western concerns and Lietuvos Dujas (Lithuanian Gas) to GAZPROM and a German consortium (although they saved the go between Dujotekana which is of dubious value). Then A.Brazauskas stumbled upon Mažeikių Nafta.

The root causes of Brazauskas’ second forced withdrawal from politics can be found in the summer of 2005, with the commencement of the competitive sale of shares in Mažeikių Nafta.  At the time, when the leaders of the worlds’ largest natural gas concerns traveled to Vilnius, A.Brazauskas didn’t hide his sympathies toward Russian representatives – primarily LUKOil and GAZPROM. September brought the first significant political scandal since A.Brazauskas’ first arrival in government. He was reminded of the historical details involving the privatization of the Draugyste hotel restaurant Šešupė along with his and his wifes, Kristina Butrimiene, ties with LUKOil-Baltia manager I.Paleicik. He was also reminded of the bankruptcy of EBSW and its managements’ ties to those around A.Brazauskas. Significantly, this is the first time in 20 years that scandals started to “stick” to A.Brazauskas. His popularity dramatically declined as it appeared that the public was demanding that, on the whole, he was responsible for his Government. At the end of November 2005, A.Brazauskas found himself at the threshold of resignation. 

However, the ruling coalition managed to hold on at the time. It appeared that A.Brazauskas, and increasingly influential leader of the Darbo (Labor) Party Viktoras Uspackichas agreed on the terms of purchase for the shares in Mažeikių Nafta. The game, though, was ruined by the Russian concern Jukos, which announced that the shares of Mažeikių Nafta that it holds will only be sold to the highest bidder. The Polish concern PKN Orlen became the frontrunner, after a change in leadership it also acquired the support of the Polish national leadership. A.Brazauskas’ plan – for the government to purchase the shares held by Yukos and to sell Mažeikių Nafta to his designate, collapsed.

A.Brazauskas’ Government’s decline into agony began in April 2006 with V.Uspackich’s successful interpellation against Seimas Chairman A.Paulauskas. Understanding that he could be next, A.Brazauskas unsuccessfully tried to convince his party’s representatives to support A.Paulauskas – regardless it was too late. He did manage to resist V.Uspackich’s post interpellation grab at control of the Government, but the coalition’s disintegration could not be stopped. In May, the State Security Department and the Prosecutors Office raided the offices of the Darbo (Labor) Party and accused it of improper campaign financing activities – V.Uspackich fled to Russia.

On May 30^th, President V.Adamkus offered that A.Brazauskas should refute the public’s uncertainty in his Government and to follow the Constitutionally defined methods to form a new Government and receive a vote of confidence from the Seimas. The next morning, the Darbo (Labor) Party’s Ministers resigned from the Government and A.Brazauskas left to meet with the President where he offered the President his resignation.

Formally, no one overtly asked that A.Brazauskas resign. Had he received a vote of confidence from the Seimas, his Government would have been able to continue to work. However, A.Brazauskas didn’t have enough votes for the vote of confidence and he would have had to look for support from the Conservatives – with which A.Brazauskas could not find any points of common ground. Had A.Brazauskas tried to put aside his ambitions and in looking for support, taken the required steps to negotiate with Conservative leader Andrius Kubilius, who well remembered the previous years privatization efforts at “Draugyste”, A.Brazauskas would not have been able to maintain his nomination. For this reason he chose to resign – by his own choice, but in reality he was forced out by the events. His chosen successor as Prime Minister, Zigmantas Balčytis, as with A.Paulauskas before him, failed to receive the confidence of the Seimas.

The head of Government was taken up by Gediminas Kirkilas, a representative of the younger generation, who was nominated to the post by the independence era formed political elite which now formalized its victory over the old “Brazauskas” political elite.

The true extent and breadth of ones political personality only becomes clear once one leaves high office. A.Brazauskas’ influence in government remained significant even after he stopped participating in active politics. His words were seriously regarded not only by fellow Party members, but also by the business world, diplomats and the public at large.

Of course, over time even the most powerful leaders lose influence. This last year was particularly difficult for him as the new Government not only significantly cut the budget of his personal project  Valdovų Rūmai (Royal Palace) but also saw his chosen successor not approved for Party leadership. In looking back, the usurper of his position as Chairman of the Social Democrats, G.Kirkilas, lost his post in a shameful way – even A.Brazauskas’ now long time protégé Zigmantas Balčytis recognized the advantages behind non Soviet Party elite associated Algirdas Butkevičius.

Time will tell. But even from within the current generation, a universally recognized leader like A.Brazauskas isn’t readily apparent.

In analyzing his work, the proponents of A.Brazauskas will point out that during his leadership Lithuania established friendly relations with its neighbors, created strategic partnerships with Poland, implemented the Litas currency, became a candidate and then full member of NATO and the European Union and experienced unforeseen levels of economic growth. Opponents will recall that each forward step taken only happened with pressure from behind, no systematic reforms were created via his initiative yet he became the “shining star” and partook in the fruits of other peoples labors. Both versions will be true.

Translated by VG

First, people like the fact that the president is an autonomous and independent politician. “One gets the feeling the president is pretty much not influenced by her team and her aides, and the president sort of avoids bigger friendships,” Gaidys said.

Voters also like Grybauskaite’s activeness and energy in solving any question. They also find acceptable the president’s policy of friendly neighbourhood (relations with Poland, Belarus). The sociologist said the president’s ability to talk in simple and understandable terms was another reason for her popularity. “She does not demonstrate she belongs to the elite; from her speech one can see that she understands people’s expectations,” Gaidys said.

According to Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius, chairman of the ruling TS-LKD, Grybauskaite has her own strategy, tactics, and working style. The cabinet head rejoiced in the things achieved by cooperating together with the president. According to him, over the year the president was able to reveal herself. “She brought drive and the spirit of dynamism into the Lithuanian political life. I can tell you that Lithuania was lucky,” the prime minister said.

Kubilius did not deny that his views sometime differ from that of Grybauskaite. According to him, this is normal. “We do not think the president’s role is to clap her hands and to say: Look how well the government is working. We knew what we were getting ourselves into at this difficult time and we knew that no one would offer a shoulder to cry on,” Kubilius said. Yet, he noted that on essential issues his opinion is in sync with Grybauskaite’s opinion.

Transportation Minister Eligijus Masiulis, chairman of the Liberal Movement, which is a member of the ruling coalition, views the year of the president’s term in office positively, above all, because the president is strongly supported by the nation. “Over the year the public could have become disenchanted. Yet, the opposite occurred. I think the president did not make huge mistakes that could have hurt her reputation,” he said.

Masiulis noted that Grybauskaite abandoned the tradition of previous presidents to be more concerned with the policy of representation and with the foreign policy. Asked whether the government was going through a hard time, the member of the Liberal Movement said that for now they were able to find consensus. “The tone of the relations is more constructive than destructive,” the minister said. Masiulis did not voice any criticism regarding the president. He would only want to see clearer priorities of the country’s foreign policy.

Algirdas Butkevicius, chairman of the Social Democrat party, which is the biggest opposition party, thinks that Grybauskaite is trying to implement the promises she made during the election. “It is impossible to implement everything in a year. In my opinion, however, in the future this will be successfully implemented,” he said expressing hope.

Butkevicius expressed joy that the president started to balance the country’s foreign policy and tried to develop closer ties with Eastern neighbours: She met with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Finland and met with Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka in Vilnius.

The leader of the party noted that Grybauskaite’s position towards the government was changing, too. According to him, the president, who earlier was very supportive of the government, now voices stricter statements. According to Butkevicius, however, the president’s position towards the government could be even tougher.

Allegedly, Grybauskaite should demand a clear programme for solving economic and social problems. He would like for Grybauskaite to apply more effort in order to reform law enforcement institutions quicker.

Political commentator Lidija Sabajevaite thinks the year that the president has been in office can be viewed positively. “Above all because in her annual address and in her other speeches she emphasized that one should finally start focusing on the people, the country’s citizens, instead of merely taking care of the economy,” the political analyst said. According to her, the president was able to maintain high popularity ratings, because she has been speaking bluntly and honestly. “For now it is hard to predict what the newly-appointed officials will be able to achieve, but this gives people hope that, for example, the work of the Prosecutor General’s Office and other institutions will improve. People want order and peace,” Sabajevaite said. According to her, right now Grybauskaite is the most suitable person for the president’s job.

According to political analyst Lauras Bielinis, during the first days already the president voiced her intentions to change the situation in the domestic politics, in the legal system, and to have a different line in international affairs. “The plans were ambitious, but over the year we have not seen any essential changes,” the political analyst said. According to him, the most frequent action was replacing the heads of institutions that are subordinate to the president; sometimes this was even inexplicable. According to Bielinis, over the year the president “has not formed a line of her relations with the Parliament and political parties.”

“In the foreign policy area she made a few steps that not so much changed the foreign policy direction, but raised more questions,” Bielinis said. According to him, certain actions of Grybauskaite, for example, refusing to have a dinner with President Barack Obama in Prague, pushed Lithuania further away from the United States, one of the most important allies. In the relations with the East, the analyst did not see any major changes either.

According to Bielinis, one of the brightest actions by Grybauskaite was the president’s position regarding the Church’s decision not to allow the late President Algirdas Brazauskas’s coffin. “In this situation the president made a wise decision and demonstrated professional stance. She demonstrated respect for the deceased and at the same time revealed her position on inner misunderstandings between politics and religion,” the political analyst said.

The article was published in the daily of Lietuvos zinios on 10 July

It’s a generally accepted fact that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian society. The term “totalitarian society” can be understood in two ways. First, it can be understood as a society, in which citizens are under the firm control of the authorities (police, security service and military) in almost all aspects of life. In Lithuania in 2010 this is clearly not the case.

The second meaning of the term is a society, in which the generally accepted opinion is that there is a single belief system, religious, political or ideological, which has answers to almost all important issues confronting society. There is a belief system with the claim to be “total”. In the Soviet Union this official belief system was Marxism-Leninism and socialism in one country. In reality the Soviet Union was a bureaucratic and patriarchal class-society, which only recognized one “norm” in private life. Therefore, only heterosexual relationships were considered as “normal”. The country was run by a small elite, the communist party, a system justified as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The mental switch from this single “total” belief system to a belief system based on Lithuanian nationalism (corresponding to “socialist in one country”) and Catholicism (patriarchal subordination, a clerical elite and heterosexual norms) is actually not a very dramatic one. It’s a lot greater leap (forward) to move from the Soviet mentality to the insight that no single belief system exists, which has answers to all questions confronting mankind in general and the Lithuanian society in particular. Therefore, pluralism and an acceptance that everyone in society has the right to chose their ideological, political, religious, ethnical and sexual identity is necessary.

I would say that Lithuania is still a totalitarian society in the sense that still a single belief system is considered by many to be enough. Many believe that answers to all questions can be found in the Catholic dogmas and in Lithuanian nationalism. This delusion must be overcome. It will be a painful, and a painfully slow, process, but this change must happen in order for Lithuania to become a functional pluralistic society; with equal rights for both sexes, for all races, for people with all sexual orientations and of all religious beliefs.

Having stated this, I do think that Lithuania is opening up rapidly and the recognition that everyone has the right to his and her sexual orientation will be generally accepted and will evolve much quicker than in most western countries. In these countries this process took decades, if not centuries. A great part of the Lithuanian population is living abroad in other EU countries right now. These expat Lithuanians will help to bring in influences, which will enlighten the rest of the population. In addition, Lithuanians in Lithuania have full access to international media and many Lithuanians are travelling abroad.

Judging from my impression at the recent Pride Parade it seems that some don’t understand that this development is unavoidable and irreversible. Or perhaps they do understand and that’s why they are feeling so threatened. At the end of the Pride Parade on May 8 a pathetic clown dressed in a suit appeared. I was told that he was a Lithuanian parliamentarian and he had been the main advocate for the middle age law forbidding objective information to Lithuanian children and to teenagers about homosexuality. When I spotted him I remembered John Stuart Mill’s words:  ”Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”

However, when I saw that Lithuanian parliamentarian’s irrational outbursts towards the police, I started to doubt whether Mr. Mill was right. Perhaps all conservatives are stupid?

It’s difficult to imagine the reason for such uncontrolled fury. A person fighting an internal temptation might be acting against other people as a sort of self-treatment, or self-medication. Could it be that some of this visible homophobia is caused by own suppressed homosexuality?

I consider a man approximately as sexually attractive as a piece of furniture, like a table. If a man had approached me with homosexual intent, it would be like a table approaching me. The very thought is absurd in an entertaining way. In a free world every individual has the right to decline any offer; regardless whether the offer is from a man or from a woman. So, why is this thought so threatening for that Member of Parliament? I think he should really look into the mirror and ask himself whether he isn’t subconsciously attracted by homosexual fantasies. In any case, even as layman it’s all too obvious to me that he needs some professional psychiatric help to come to terms with himself.

However, as I stated at the very beginning of this article I consider a generally cautious attitude towards new ideas and changes to be sound. During the years I have had to review my own attitude towards women and gender equality. I have had to develop and change my own worldview. At times rethinking can be painful.

It’s clear to me that a great part of the Lithuanian society still has such a rethinking process in front them about homosexual, bisexual and transsexual orientations. It’s natural that such processes require time to evolve. Centuries of traditions are not changed overnight.

In the middle of the 1990’s Sweden joined the EU. Before the accession there was a heated debate in Sweden whether to join. One of the main arguments for not joining was the fact that many countries in the South of Europe are Catholic. It was feared that Sweden would have to adopt Catholic traditions and it would lead to more violence against women, more violence against children, etc, etc.

That whole logic was absurd and dangerous for several reasons. First, no one in Sweden would have to turn Catholic just because Sweden had joined the EU club. Second, the fear of Catholicism in Sweden was irrational, unless to recognize the incremental impact of strong Protestant propaganda from Church and the Swedish state over centuries. Third, with few Catholics in Sweden Catholicism was unfamiliar to a great part of the population. People all over the world fear the unknown and unfamiliar.

I see great similarities between the fear against Catholicism in Sweden some 15 years ago and the situation in Lithuania today. However, the ferocity of the fear for homosexuality and sexual education today in Lithuania is much stronger than the fear for Catholicism in Sweden a decade and a half ago. However, the main reason and the mechanism for the scare are still the same; lack of knowledge, lack of education and fear for the unknown.

The fear of the unknown and a resistance to adopt can also be viewed among the Lithuanian political parties.

Traditionally left-wing parties are expected to be the protectors of threatened and persecuted groups. In Lithuania of today it’s difficult to think of any groups fitting this description to a greater extent than the homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals.

Still compared with the female part of the population these groups are small. Left-wing parties could focus on improving the situation for the female majority of the population, which in many ways is discriminated compared with men. In Western Europe a left-wing party, which doesn’t have gender equality as a top priority, simply can’t be found. What is the reason why left-wing parties in Lithuania don’t focus on improving the situation for people, who are persecuted due to their sexual identity? And why are Lithuanian left-wing parties not strongly fighting stereotype gender patterns? Perhaps Lithuanian left-wing parties are simply not yet fully liberated from the ideological chains of Bolshevik dogmas?

For right-wing parties freedom for the individual is usually a core value. It’s difficult to imagine a more fundamental freedom for the individual than to decide over one’s own body and the right to have a close personal relationship with any consenting adult without any interference from anyone else. So why are not all representatives of the Lithuanian right-wing parties in the first line on the barricades in the defence for this very fundamental freedom for the individual? Is the ideological heritage of collectivism from the Soviet Union still too strong a burden to realize the importance of individual freedom?

Stereotype gender patterns are severely limiting freedom; both for men and women. In Western Europe many right-wing parties have embraced gender equality as an important tool to increase freedom for the individual citizen; both for men and for women. It seems that Lithuanian right-wing parties have not yet grasped the importance gender equality for individual freedom.

In short, tolerance of people with a non-mainstream sexual orientation should be a priority of all parties; both left-wing and right-wing. The same is true for gender equality. Unfortunately, it seems that in Lithuania this is not yet the case.

Still, at the Pride Parade I was somewhat surprised that I hardly spotted any older Lithuanians marching. Where were leading lawyers, journalists, academics and politicians standing up for fundamental human rights? One of John Stuart Mill’s quotes, which really tells it all about freedom of speech:

”If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Hopefully, the educated Lithuanian intelligentsia will realize that freedom of speech limited to expressing what the majority considers right is basically the same thing as no freedom of speech at all. In any society the educated part of the population must be the backbone of society; never giving up even an inch of human rights. Anyway, it was a great symbolic victory for Lithuania as a whole that the parade really did take place. Last year a Pride Parade was allowed to take place in Riga. It would have been clear sign for the whole world that Lithuania is lagging the other Baltic States in democratic maturity and modernity, if the Pride Parade of May 8 had been cancelled. I saw many young people in the parade. And as we all know, the future belongs to the young. So, the future is bright for Lithuania!

In general I think that the public discussions and media coverage surrounding the recent march have been great for the public debate in Lithuania. It has been a great leap forward, but let’s hope that the development towards a more open society for all will be a speedy one. I really do think that Lithuania will succeed in making this transition quicker than many other countries. Hopefully, the Baltic Pride in 2013 in Lithuania will be much bigger and many more prominent Lithuanians will stand up for universal values such as freedom of speech and the right of everyone to decide and express one’s sexual orientation freely. I do wish that in three years time Lithuania will be mature enough to embrace the parade to take place in the very centre of Vilnius; on the Gedimino Prospect and on the Cathedral Square.

It’s understandable that the ongoing economic and social crisis in Lithuania is making the population feel threatened. People with this feeling are usually not embracing change, but at least it’s important that the development isn’t allowed to slip backwards. During an economic crisis freedom should still be maintained, because human rights and human dignity have no economic costs and are actually underpinning economic development. Freedom is free of charge and for everyone!

The individual’s right to security and freedom should never be under threat in our common European Union.

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after the Baltic Pride – Part 1 (Introduction, Homosexuality)

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after Baltic Pride Parade – Part 2 (Gender Roles)

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after the Pride Parade – Part 3 (Family, Church, Sex, Education)

Disclaimer

All views and opinions expressed are those of the author, Mr. Erik Edlund, and may not completely coincide with those of the Lithuania Tribune
—————————————————————————-
© Copyright 2010, Erik Edlund and the Lithuania Tribune, All Rights Reserved

“We have heard the ideas that we have formerly expressed ourselves in Grybauskaite‘s speech. The government lacks strategic thought, the reforms are sometimes implemented with no regard towards country‘s strategic purposes, or towards an individual, as the most important element of the state,” Labour party‘s member Vytautas Gapsys said.

He stated that the current cabinet should ponder over their abilities to solve the problems that were named by the president.

Gapsys added that the opposition will take all the action to “implement what has remarked on by the president and eliminate the wrongdoings.”

The leader of the biggest opposition party Social Democrats Algirdas Butkevicius emphasized that the president‘s speech was critical and fundamentally different from former leaders’ speeches, but lacked the review of the spheres that are in president‘s competency.

The leader of oppositional party Order and Justice, member of European parliament Rolandas Paksas, said the head of the country should not only report the main problems, but also seek political responsibility from the guilty.

A survey, requested by Alfa.lt news portal and Lietuvos Zinios daily, and conducted by Rinkos Tyrimu centras, also shows that the Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats would get 17.8 percent of votes from those who would participate in election. Another 16.5 percent would give their vote for Lithuanian Social Democrats.

The Labour party is the favourite for 12.5 percent favouring the party, while Order and Justice party would receive 8.9 percent.

Two liberal parties, currently in the ruling coalition, Liberal and Centre Union and Liberal Movement, would get 4.4 and 3.8 percent of the votes respectively.

The Rising Nation party would receive only 1.6 percent of the votes. Some 25.7 percent of people, who would vote in the election, have not made up their minds on their favourite political parties yet.

Respondents of the poll were asked to evaluate the performance of different institutions and public figures in scale 1 to 10, where 10 represents the best performance.

Dalia Grybauskaite, the president, receives the highest rate of 8.4 points, while Seimas Speaker Irena Degutiene gets 7.3 points. The leader of the social democrats and the head of the parliamentary opposition Algirdas Butkevicius receives 6 points.

The fourth in the ratings is transport and communications minister Eligijus Masiulis with 5.9 points. Rasa Jukneviciene, the minister of Defence, gets 5.7 points, which is equal with Viktor Uspaskich, currently a member of European Parliament and the leader of Labour party.

Prime minister Andrius Kubilius is among politicians of the worst performance, collecting only 3.4 points out of 10, while former Seimas speaker and the leader of Rising Nation party Arunas Valinskas gets 3.8. Culture minister Remigijus Vilkaitis receives 3.3 points, the leader of Polish Electoral Action Voldemar Tomasevski – 3.8 points, and the mayor of Vilnius Vilius Navickas – 3.9 points.

The same rating system helped evaluate the performance of the ministries: Foreign Affairs, National Defence, and Communications ministries received the best ratings of 6.1, 6.0, and 5.9 points respectively. The worst performing ministries, according to the interviewees, are Energy ministry (3.7), Health ministry (4.0), ministry of Justice (4.2), and the ministry of Social Security and Labour (4.2).

The president’s office performed the best out of 13 state institutions, while the Seimas was evaluated as the worst. People have also lost trust in Prosecutor’s Office, courts, and National Social Insurance institution.

1006 respondents were interviewed on April 13-21 by Rinkos Tyrimu Centras and Norstat at the request of Alfa.lt news portal and Lietuvos Zinios daily.

Please refer to Alfa.lt and Lietuvos Zinios when citing any figure or results from this survey.

The main goals of the new foreign policy strategy have been ranked in the following order: to achieve deep integration with the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, to regenerate relations with the United States, to normalize relations with Russia and Belarus, and to maintain friendship with Ukraine and Georgia…

Conservatives Have More Potential To Act
Lithuanian diplomats believe that one of the reasons why Russia has changed its attitude toward Lithuania is because the construction of the electric power bridge between Lithuania and Sweden has been started. The fact that Lithuania will have an alternative connection and that it will synchronize the frequency of electric power transmission with Scandinavia, means that Russia might have serious problems in Kaliningrad, which is connected to the Russian electricity system via Lithuania. Moreover, Russia wants to increase the import of gas to Lithuania, but Kubilius has said that Lithuania could buy more gas from Russia only if the price is not higher than the one paid in Germany.

“Time will show whether this upsurge of meetings and negotiations is artificial or genuine,” one of the officials participating in the shaping of the new Lithuanian foreign policy strategy told Veidas. “The fact that one or several politicians have met does not mean anything. Of course, it is a positive thing that the number of such meetings is growing, but we will see the results of the meetings and the real goals of our partners only after some six months. It is important that the Conservatives are in power now. They have more chances to develop an open dialogue of equal partners with Russia, because they do not have this aura of ‘pro-Russian politicians,’ which the Social Democrats and their partners have not managed to get rid of,” he added.

Return to Landsbergis’s Political Line
Broadly speaking, there is a serious transformation going on in Lithuanian foreign policy, but it is not obvious yet. Lithuania is moving away from Adamkus’s foreign policy, (or to be exact the policy of (a former Foreign Ministry official Albinas) Januska), which was directed toward the development of democracy in the East – in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, and which was based on cooperation with Poland and the United States, toward Landsbergis’s policy, based on close partnership with the Baltic and Scandinavian countries. This is understandable, because Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have close financial and business ties with the Scandinavian countries, and even if the Scandinavian countries wanted to discontinue these relations, it would not be easy to do. As for Lithuania’s partners in the East, the only ties we have are the nostalgia of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Soviet past. And, what is most important, Lithuania did not have human or financial resources to carry out such a policy independently.

As for the Scandinavian countries, their most influential member Sweden was one of the authors of the EU Eastern Partnership Programme, thus if Lithuania maintains close cooperation with Scandinavia, it can continue some of its projects in the East, especially in Moldova.

The biggest problem for Lithuania now is not relations with Russia, but, strange as it is, its relations with Poland, which Lithuania saw as its strategic partner for a long period of time. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, one of the candidates for Polish president, has been clearly ignoring Lithuania and focusing his attention on the revival of Poland’s relations with Germany and Russia instead.

It seems that, as far Poland’s Eastern policy is concerned, all Sikorski is interested in is the problems of the Polish minorities in Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. This is understandable, because the biggest part of constituency that votes for Sikorski and the party he represents – the Civic Platform – live in the territory that belonged to Germany before WWII, which is now populated by the Poles who had relocated from the former Polish territories that now belong to Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. This circumstance and the pressure from the expatriates from the former Polish territories living in the United States have formed Sikorski’s attitude toward Poland’s Eastern neighbours.

“We notice everything and understand everything, but the answer is simple: Whatever happens, we will certainly not react to Poland’s nasty tricks in like manner,” a diplomat, responsible for the agenda of Lithuania’s current policy toward Poland, told Veidas. “However, it is obvious that our relations will become colder anyway. And this is why it is very important to restore our relations with the Baltic and Scandinavian countries; something that Landsbergis was very eager to do in the past,” he added.

Another task, which Lithuanian foreign policy strategists are deliberating at the moment, is the development of relations with the United States. “President Dalia Grybauskaite has set a task — to seek a meeting with US President Barack Obama,” the diplomats told Veidas. “Moreover, we have to find new topics for Lithuania’s cooperation with the United States, because our current relations have become very weak, and are limited to the joint military operation in Afghanistan.”

Lithuania will return to the Eastern policy initiatives not sooner than it achieves a diplomatic breakthrough in its relations with Scandinavia and the United States.

The commentary is published by courtesy of Veidas magazine

Lithuania’s Parliament opposition of Social Democrats, Order and Justice and Labour party has 53 members at the moment.  It seems that this number to grow by another 13 MPs since the undecided Christian party has finally decided to join the opposition.  The ruling coalition claims that they are not concerned about this latest development.

The newly created Christian party issued a press release after its presidium meeting on 15 March stating, “The presidium decided to announce the Christian Party as an opposition force, with a possibility for its parliamentary group to take part in the formation of a new ruling majority.”  The Christian party with its 12 MPs also announced that MP Vidmantas Ziemelis from the ruling Conservative party has joined its faction, making it 13.

MP Ziemelis was notorious for his independent voting while in the ruling coalition.  The Conservative party announced that the coalition’s quality has increased since Ziemelis’ departure to the opposition.  Politically, MP Ziemelis long ago ceased to be member of the coalition.  This politician, even on 11 March maintained that he is not conducting negotiations with the Christian Party.  Hence, MP Ziemelis could not be viewed as reliable.  Furthermore, Ziemelis has already had one fight with incumbent Christian party’s Chairperson Gediminas Vagnorius.  In the Eighth Government under Gediminas Vagnorius in May of 1998 the Minister of Interior Ziemelis was sacked from the Government.  However, it seems that after only a dozen years the pair discovered that they have many things in common.

The opposition  has already declared that the ruling coalition is a minority government.  The Social Democrat Juozas Olekas said on 14 March, “I think this first Seimas plenary session illustrated that the ruling coalition no longer has majority. Even with a few opposition members absent, we had as many as 72 MPs vote against their candidate for deputy parliamentary speaker. Therefore, the ruling bloc was obviously the minority with just 59 votes. The numbers show that they no longer have majority.”

The politician was referring to the vote on 10 March to appoint a new first Vice Speaker of Seimas to replace Raimundas Sukys, who on the same day became the Minister of Health.  In a secret ballot only some 59 MP supported the ruling coalition’s candidate from the Liberal and Centre Union Jonas Liesys, who is barely known even to the Parliamentarians.  MP Liesys will be nominated by the ruling coalition for the same vote again.  This will be an extremely good opportunity for the ruling coalition to check its status.

Nevertheless, the situation in Seimas is slightly confusing.  The opposition parties declared that they are ‘talking’ to all of the coalition partners but the Conservatives.  The Liberal and Centre party’s Gintautas Babravičius told to media that they are fed up with being called the weakest link in the coalition.  He stated to the journalists that the Liberal and Centre party is staying in the coalition and is not considering joining any other bloc. 

The National Revival party also declared that they in negotiations to anybody else and they are not interested in leaving the ruling coalition.  The Liberal Movement, the party which is considered the strongest ally of the Conservatives in the coalition, said that they have not received any invitations from opposition.  The Party Chairperson and Transport Minister Eligijus Masiulius said to reporters, “Recently we’ve heard a few statements from the left wing about a new majority, but I have yet to see one.  We received no official proposal from the Social Democrats, and without such a proposal it is difficult to comment on the possibility.”

The Prime Minister, Andrius Kubilius, stated that his coalition is continuing its work.  He said to the reporters, “We don’t really appreciate that type of political arithmetic. The current opposition centres on this genre. This reflects its inner problems. A shortage of intellectual ideas leads to manoeuvring with figures of political arithmetic.”

Alvidas Lukosaitis, a political scientist from the Vilnius University’s International Relations and Political Science Institute said that he does not pay too much attention to the speculation about the creation of a new coalition.  Delfi quoted the political scientist as saying to BNS, “I cannot say that there has been more clarity after the Christian Party’s political group declared themselves opposition. I would evaluate this move as an ordinary event.”

The three opposition parties of Social Democrats, Labour and Order and Justice have stated that their programme include suggestions to reduce taxes, fight unemployment, increase the state investment in infrastructure projects, value-added tax privileges, revision of excise duty for fuel and alcohol and adoption of law on bankruptcy of physical entities.

Nevertheless the Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius criticised the programme stating that it offers nothing new, apart the VAT taxes reduction and the changes of excise duty for fuel and alcohol.  The Prime Minister said to the reporters, “The alternative programme announced by the opposition Broad Coalition today is for the greater extend does not differ from the Government’s programme, with efforts to cover the absence of new practical proposals with anti-governmental rhetoric.”

The three parties have also invited the other parliamentary groups to join the opposition to support their programme.  The opposition, which now has 53 members, invited the Centre and Liberal Union with its seven numbers, which belongs to the ruling coalition.  Yesterday, the opposition also announced that another large political group is considering joining the opposition.  It is very likely that they meant the Christian political group with twelve parliamentarians.  Lithuanian media also informed that Conservative MP Ziemelis is considering joining the Christian group also.

The opposition leaders could have been encouraged to expect the President’s support after the parliamentary political groups leaders meet with the President on 8 March.  Apparently, during the meeting the President said that if the ruling coalition is not ready to work it should be replaced with other coalition.

Algirdas Butkevicius, the Chairperson of the Social Democrats said to reporters after this meeting, “The president said that at least for now she supports the current government, but is ready to talk with other factions if the government fails to tackle issues and adopt necessary decisions”.

However, the President’s Spokesperson Linas Balsys clarified that the President did not express her support for neither political force.  Balsys said, “The president didn’t voice support to either the ruling bloc nor the opposition. The president is ready to cooperate with absolutely all of the Seimas’.

The ruling coalition, which currently has 71 MPs has signed an agreement with the Peasant Union party on 9 March.  The Peasants with its three MPs agreed not back ungrounded vote of non-confidence against the Prime Minister and the other Cabinet members.

In short, the Spring session is going to be hot.

The opposition leaders understand that it will be difficult to topple down the present ruling coalition.  The three parties hold only 53 MPs out of 141.  One of the opposition leaders, the controversial MEP Viktor Uspaskich told to reporters on Monday, “We will invite all those willing to contribute to the programme’s implementation. As you are well aware, we don’t have a majority. In order to see the programme through we will need help from other MPs.”

The three have in mind the Liberal parties in the coalition government.  One of them, the Centre and Liberal Union is in talks of joining its forces with another coalition partner National Revival political group.  The Liberal movement, on the other hand, even though criticising the high taxes is unlikely to leave the coalition.

No matter what it is more than obvious that the three are not fit to form an alternative government.  MEP Uspaskich is still upset with the Social Democrats form their dealings in the former parliament.  The Social Democrats chairperson Butkevicius does not trust Uspaskich, since time when Mr Uspakich was the minister of economy and Butkevicius was the minister of Transport.  After a dispute between the two Butkevicius resigned his post in the government.

The Order and Justice party does not trust the both parties, especially the Social Democrats, the party which was active in impeaching President Paksas.  The Christian party has declared that they are not planning to join the opposition.  Furthermore, few weeks ago the MEP Uspakich called the Christian party a ‘political prostitute’.  And to add the salt to the injury the Labour party and the Order and Justice issued a joint statement declaring that they do not see possibilities working together with the Christian party.  And that was also two weeks ago.

Those only few areas of possible tensions in the future coalition.  Not mention the programme: reduction of unemployment and migration, encouraging consumption, and tax reforms.  It would be interesting how the Social Democrats will suggest changing taxes, which sounds like decreasing them.

The current centre-right Coalition includes of political groups of the Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats, the Liberal and Centre Union, the National Revival Party and the Liberal Movement.  The coalition has a minimal majority of 71 votes.