[ad_1]
However, so far there have been no major attempts to find consensus or agreement between the different parties. At least the form chosen for that was not the physical seat of the political leaders side by side. Initially, party leaders traveled to the Presidency alone, later according to their affiliation with the opposition and the ruling majority.
During the coronavirus crisis, the president’s idea as a mediator disappeared from G. Nausėda’s rhetoric. However, it is not because the threat of a pandemic distracted politicians from the upcoming Seimas elections and facilitated communication between the parties. In contrast, friction did not decrease during the coronavirus crisis. In disputes over whether the government was adequately dealing with the crisis, Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis and opposition party leaders diligently defended and tried to substantiate different and contradictory stories.
In the stated version of the opposition parties, the current government allegedly does not listen to the opinions of others and, in principle, refuses to acknowledge that the measures implemented to revive the economy are not sufficient and that the opposition’s intellectual assistance is valuable. For his part, the prime minister assured that these were only empty speeches, that specific conservatives, speaking aloud about the written state aid plan, did not show the initiative to reach the government door.
In opposition to these two versions, the opposition accused the rulers of raising the rating of extending the quarantine regime only for political deductions. deliberate intrusion into human life.
Was it possible that the president mediated for the parties during the crisis?
Although the virus passion among politicians does not appear to have had a significant impact on controlling the epidemic in Lithuania, the question of whether the president, acting as a mediator between the parties, could have hoped to achieve higher quality political and economic decisions will continue. unanswered.
Of course, the question that is no less relevant and related to the first is whether the leaders of the political forces, increasingly living in the mood of the Seimas elections, would have tolerated the emerging mediator. Perhaps the presidency assessed the risks posed by confrontational parliamentary parties during the crisis and even considered the need for political mediation. Perhaps it was rejected only after realizing that the existing friction does not create further inconvenience for the parties, so there is no demand for the “services” offered by the Presidency.
Povilas Mačiulis, senior advisor to G. Nausėda, confirmed in part, mentioning that it is not easy to form parties at a table, especially in the run-up to the elections.
“The virus in the next election is probably stronger than the coronavirus,” Mačiulis told Eltai last week.
The leaders of the “peasant” and conservative parties also demonstrate that the Presidency does not even want to receive the promised assistance. Although the politicians do not save the epithets representative of the leadership of each one, the person who helps to communicate, both agree, they do not lack or are willing to have one. According to them, the coronavirus crisis did not create such a need.
R. Karbauskis argues that constructive work with the opposition is generally impossible due to the characteristics of the latter method, while G. Landsbergis states that he is increasingly taking the dictatorial style into account in the actions of the rulers. According to the leader of the “peasants”, the tensions between the parties could be reduced not by the mediation of the Presidency, but by the apology of the opposition and the confession of errors. According to G. Landsbergis, the best mediator for the parties is not a specific person, but the Seimas elections that rewrite the number of seats.
G. Landsbergis: rulers operate in a dictatorial style
Conservative leader G. Landsbergis claims that rulers only closed even further during the crisis, and their method of government was almost dictatorial. According to the politician, this is not only felt by the opposition. The latter, continues the conservative, is only one of the groups representing society that cannot enter the ears of rulers who make important decisions in times of crisis.
“The three main associations, mostly uniting doctors, basically admit that their opinions are not sought by the authorities.” El Lands spoke.
“I suppose this is just the style of government of the rulers. I would say that it is an even stricter word: dictatorial. As if I had a right and didn’t have to listen to anything. And the quarantine only gave him extra energy. When everyone closed, so did the government. And this is dangerous for the state. It is in this atmosphere where most mistakes are made, ”argued the conservative leader.
According to Landsbergis, the president could have been a little more active in mediation during the crisis. However, according to him, the energy of the head of state should be directed not so much to try to seat the politicians as to block groups of society ignored by the government.
“The strength of the president has yet to be discovered and would be joining the ranks between the two sides. Imagine the doctors … If the president were to face them, or if he were with them, the bargaining power of the associations medical would increase a lot. I think the president has not yet found a way to defend the forgotten and unheard-of side, “the opposition leader said immediately, stressing that the president probably did not have much need to mediate between the dissident parties. There are much more appropriate instruments for political mediation, he said.
“I would not emphasize political parties. Political parties, after all, mediate during elections,” summarized G. Landsbergis.
R. Karbauskis: there was no need to seat the rulers and the opposition
The conservative president cited majority governance style as the main reason for disagreements between the government and the opposition, and R. Karbauskis emphasized the mentality of political opponents, which was not suitable for constructive work. However, this is not the only reason, according to the “peasant”, why he did not see the need for the president to be more active in mediating between different parties during the crisis. According to him, the government was fine, so there was no need for additional assistance from other institutions in the political field.
“The fact that the Government and most of the Seimas have faced the first task: controlling the development of the coronavirus. If someone says that you are not great, I understand why. The predictions published by scientists were ten times worse than the current fact. We have to talk about whether the situation was very well or perfectly controlled by the authorities. No one could say that it was bad or satisfactory, “R. Karbauskis summarized the situation.
Therefore, in the opinion of the “peasant” leader, it is not worth asking whether the president had and could have tried to put the leaders on a table.
“Whether the president had or could have, one thing has to be said: there was no need to plant the opposition and there was no such position.” According to our laws, and in reality, the responsibility for managing the pandemic has been assumed by the Government and the Emergency Response Center. We had a way of governing in which the political parties or the politicians in the Seimas were responsible only for passing laws, ”said R. Karbauskis.
“The president, like Seimas, did his duty. I cannot say that it went wrong. He did what he had to do,” the politician continued.
According to R. Karbauskis, the government’s prerogative to resolve the crises provided by law was not the only argument for which the mediation of the President was not necessary. According to him, the opposition’s thinking only about the elections, while the rulers only thought about saving lives, created an excessive gap between them.
“In this situation, the president didn’t even have anything to sit on, it didn’t make sense and it wasn’t necessary, because it was clear that the conservatives, liberals and Social Democrats in Palucko only think about the elections and the worse the better for them ” And our task is to make the number of victims and problems as small as possible. We speak in elections and we dedicate ourselves to that work, ”said R. Karbauskis, emphasizing the sacrifice of the rulers.
He spoke about the different mindset and about the immediate “disarmament” of the ruling.
R. Karbauskis evaluated the fact that the opposition and the ruling authorities could solve the problems of the coronavirus crisis before the autumn elections without facing each other as a more hypothetical than real possibility.
He said those in power with the opposition could only start working if they recognized that everything the government had done so far was small, at least well. Meanwhile, now that the interests of the opposition have been interpreted by R. Karbauskis, the opponents in the Seimas simply continue the strategy, which started badly, by inertia. R. Karbauskis’s conclusion is simple: the opposition, who had guessed that a black scenario would occur in Lithuania due to the coronavirus, “did not rely on that horse.” However, the leader of the “peasants” continued, even if the minority of the Seimas realized that the strategy had not changed.
“After all, even today we can say yes, we have made a mistake, the government is acting responsibly, we are doing well because of the epidemic, now we are going to unite the economy.” However, they will not do it because the mentality does not allow it … you will not be able to confront when your opponent says … He would disarm us immediately. (…) What should we say in this case? Thank you, great friends, they came to help us … ”, the politician shared his thoughts on what to do if the unthinkable happened.
“But they won’t because they can’t think differently than they can think.” They need enemies and grind that enemy (…). After all, we did not refuse help, we did not want to listen. After all, they make suggestions that are absurd, that have nothing to do with life, and then replace the plate … How can you listen to them when they wanted to give everything to the army? R. Karbauskis said to Eltai.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of ELTA.
[ad_2]
