[ad_1]
Meanwhile, according to the member of Seimas, the role of President Gitan Nausėda in the coronavirus crisis is normal, because the main constitutional powers were concentrated in the hands of the Government. On the other hand, the parliamentarian emphasized that G. Nausėda’s moral role in society was really lacking.
When asked if the President should have brought the leaders of dissident political forces together at a table, I. Degutienė said the train had already left for that. According to her, party leaders have turned to personalities, and the president’s invitation to meet for constructive conversation will not help.
“R. Karbauskis is currently spreading not only political but also human hatred to other leaders. He speaks with so much hatred about the opposition and, in particular, about the leader of the TS-LKD group, who is now the leader of the opposition. I don’t hear any arguments, it’s just an internal human contradiction, not even a political contradiction, “said I. Degutienė in an interview with Eltai.
During the COVID-19 crisis, the Seimas was criticized as ineffective. According to the experts of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas did not fulfill its duties under the Constitution and did not exercise parliamentary control over the Government. Would you agree with these statements? How do you evaluate the work of the Seimas during the crisis?
There has been no work at Seimas for 2-3 weeks since the quarantine was announced. All work was transferred to the Government and television screens. Aurelijus Veryga, the head of state-level emergency operations and the Minister of Health, only commented all the time and the meetings took place only in the Government, but nothing happened in the Seimas. Then we proposed, like the Government, to work at least remotely, so that the Seimas sessions still take place. I have repeatedly reminded other parliamentarians that on January 13, the situation was much more complicated and parliament did not disintegrate at the time and all action took place in parliament. And not only in this case, but in general in the work of this term, I see that all the accents are in the Government, and the Seimas has become an institution of the Government. This is not in accordance with the Constitution and the experts of the Constitution correctly ask where the parliamentary control of the Seimas in the Government has disappeared (…) Only a few weeks later, the Seimas began to elect once a week, the committees began to operate remotely, but the leadership did not really come from parliament. I understand that in case of an emergency, the successor is the Government, but the Seimas could have been much more active, only in the end was there such activity. Basically, what I asked for, I didn’t get, there was no parliamentary control.
Tensions between the opposition and those in power also increased during the coronavirus crisis. Do you think that more active and constructive communication could have taken place if the President had placed the leaders of the political groups at the common negotiating table, or would that not have changed anything?
It seems to me that the train left a long time ago. Perhaps if it had been the beginning of the term … From R. Karbauskis, there is not so much political hatred for other leaders at the moment, but also human hatred. He speaks with so much hatred about the opposition and in particular about the leader of the TS-LKD group, who is now the leader of the opposition. I don’t hear any argument, it’s just an internal human contradiction, not even a political contradiction anymore. It is possible to be with a different idea and a different ideology, but after all, it is still possible to find common ground with a person. And now, a blind conversation with the deaf. In 4 years, the “peasant” tone was also set, that what the conservatives did for 10 years is an inherent evil. Still forming some commission to demonstrate that the conservatives are scoundrels and anti-state. Common sense doesn’t have much to say …
In the 30 years of independence, none, thank God, has been a political force against the state and its people. However, we have been listening to this every day for 4 years and in the end it all fell apart when the Constitutional Court declared that the actions of the past commission led by Agnė Širinskienė were unconstitutional. A normal-minded person, in addition to being the chair of the Law and Order Committee (TTK), A. Širinskienė should admit that she has exceeded constitutional limits. But she continues to speak aside that conservatives are to blame here. She is very orderly in her party leadership and goes on to say that the Conservatives have met with the president of the CC. We want to point out and say that this is a judicial decision that is independent and that the judges are appointed by different institutions and are also independent and free. After all, it was not the decision of one of the CC presidents, but the decision of the entire CC (…) Therefore, we are asked if that person can lead the TTK.
Speech by the “peasants” to the President about the President of the CC Dainius Žalimas, do you also believe that the principles of the rule of law have been exceeded?
Of course yes. This is not common sense, but complete despair. “Peasants” generally tend to be infallible. Everyone who has been in power so far has made mistakes, but they themselves are infallible. I didn’t hear them admit that we made a mistake. This is also the answer to your previous question: Can the President, Ramūnas Karbauskis, be invited to speak to Gabriel Landsbergis about something? If R. Karbauskis has already said that he will never speak with G. Landsbergis.
You mentioned the commission of inquiry headed by A. Širinskienė, but I would also like to recall the investigation launched by the Committee for National Security and Defense on Irina Rozova’s relations with Russian diplomats. You yourself mentioned earlier that the I. Rozova case seems more serious than the Mindaugas Bastis impeachment process. Although the proceedings against I. Rozova have been ongoing for almost 2 years, the Seimas does not appear to have reached the impeachment proceedings of the Seimas member due to personal disputes. So does the active Seimas look at this place, how does he evaluate it?
Yes, it seems to be an important national security issue, state issues, because I. Rozova is shown to have communicated with foreign citizens. Communicated with politicians in that country who are not friendly to our state. Everything seems understandable and clear, but in this Seimas everything has moved to the other side, because of me. Rozova is in the ruling coalition. To justify it, they began digging deep into the former NSGK president as to why he had said something to someone or not. They went, I would say, to very minor things and moved away from the substance. I think this is very characteristic of today’s dominant majority. But there were other things. For example, how much time did you spend with the crisis investigation commission led by Stasys Jakeliūnas. I am against the commissions of this level, because as far as I work in the Seimas, I have not seen the result of any commission. Commission by commission, this is the thrill of the air in the media, to show people that we are supposed to investigate and do something here. But if there is a serious problem, such as corruption, it is the relevant institutions. The Seimas has the right to submit a request to the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, the Special Investigation Service, etc., which will consequently initiate investigations if suspicions are found. And here in the Seimas everything goes from emptiness through (…) This, I think, is not serious and no result is achieved. This is the end of the Seimas’ mandate, or at least an old commission, and as never before in this mandate, were there many of them or did they yield any tangible results? I see no result in this, politically or legally, and what message are we sending to the people of Lithuania? As he said well, these are disputes and disputes between parliamentarians.
But perhaps then we should talk about the absence of the political culture of this term of Seimas in general? The prime minister often congratulates conservatives, calling them an anti-state party. And his party president often hints that the rulers are acting in a dictatorial style. Were the limits of political culture not exceeded?
That’s so. There were many Seimas and each had their own details. There were also completely unconstitutional things, but there were certainly significantly more political cultures. Perhaps it is because many new and inexperienced politicians have come. They are in their fields where they worked in the past, maybe they were great professionals, I don’t know, but in politics you need to have a certain character and political ideas to see, not personal. During this period, there are many things and personal ambitions that take over rather than solve the problems of the state (…) after all, those people were chosen for the Seimas.
Another problem, when there is not a large majority and they need to form in some way through coalitions, is also what needs to be done here. Because the distribution of political publications and programs, which will be the minister, is beginning, the quota for my party is such that your party has both publications, etc., and so on. Probably in all normal parliaments and democracies, coalitions choose the best people, not just because of the quotas they have. I think our ruling coalition should learn, and the quality would be different, and then the Jaroslav Narkevičius scandals would not arise, because it was already clear beforehand that this man would not assume these responsible responsibilities.
If we return to the question of the Minister of Transport and Communications J. Narkevičius. We have also seen the president’s dissatisfaction with the minister. Under the Constitution, the president cannot remove a minister. Would you suggest that the head of the country directly demand the responsibility of the Prime Minister and express his mistrust? What could be the role of the president in this place in general?
Under the powers of the President, you can only claim the responsibility of the Prime Minister. But then, in what ways? This – a conversation with the Prime Minister. Furthermore, as the President has publicly said that he does not trust Mr. Narkevičius and that he never invites him to meetings in the Presidency. And another thing, it would continue to be the so-called legal path, when the president expressed mistrust towards the prime minister and his cabinet. But I think it would be an extreme measure and that point has not been reached for the President to do so. One more thing, I would have imagined if it were the beginning of the mandate, but now there are months before the new elections. Perhaps the President is wise to do so. It is shortly before the elections and after the elections, hopefully the President will take the nominations more seriously.
Speaking about the role of the president overall during a coronavirus pandemic, some critics said the president applauded rulers, others that the president did not take the lead during the coronavirus. Do you think the country’s head needed to take more initiative in crisis management?
It seems to me that you cannot demand from the President what is impossible to demand. You could express yourself more actively as a citizen and take action or offer ideas. But from a constitutional point of view, in an emergency, the executive must exercise and the parliament must exercise control. If there were many babysitters here, it would hardly be a head boy. I believe that, according to the Constitution, the President has done everything that belongs to him. Perhaps at the beginning of the quarantine he could have encouraged people to focus, because he is a president with moral authority in society (…) Instead, he would have reacted to the way older people were treated when they felt discriminated against in public. The President was silent. For him, there was room here as a moral authority to express his position (…)
The President of the Seimas at that time is the second person in the state. You yourself were the spokesperson for the Seimas during the crisis, so how do you assess the work of Viktor Pranckietis during the crisis, could you have been more active? Can there be an active Seimas speaker who does not have the support of the majority?
His status as a spokesman for the Seimas is truly unenviable. Of course, this does not really give the institution itself an advantage. It has never been the case that the President of Seimas has no support. Yes, he, like the President, cannot participate in party activities and must suspend party membership. But in this case, the President of Seimas has no political background, the rulers do not help him, but the opposition does not help either. Consequently, he cannot even function normally as the spokesman for the Seimas. Naturally, it is very difficult for him to represent Parliament and he can only express his position as a person, but he does not even know the position of the ruling majority, nor does he know the position of the opposition. He is legally the President of the Seimas, so he would visit both the ruling and opposition factions in his place to at least hear their views on one or the other decision to be made in the Seimas. I don’t know if he’s going anywhere, but he’s never been in our group. When I was the President of the Seimas, I was not afraid to go to the opposition factions and talk to them (…)
Let’s talk about the upcoming elections. You are a conservative leader, how, in your opinion, has the party changed over the years? Have the party values changed? Critics say the party has become liberal, would you agree?
Our party is called Union of Fatherland – Lithuanian Christian Democrats. He is a more current Christian, and there are also political prisoners, deportees and conservatives. In Europe itself, conservatives are already different from the conservative attitudes of the 19th century. ar XX a. At first, the so-called modern conservatives. This is our party, which is essentially the equivalent of the European People’s Party and the Group in the European Parliament, which are called such neocons and have a more liberal attitude, a less dogmatic conservative. The EP is a conservative group and a group of the European People’s Party, and we belong to the Group of the European People’s Party. Hungary, for example, is at the forefront of Orban’s affiliation with the Group of the European People’s Party, but the group itself sees them radically within and offers a move to the conservative dogmatic group of the EP. It is the same with our inner life. When he wants to hold on to us that we have become liberals, we have simply modernized as conservatives and are not far-right dogmatists (…)
As for the party president, how do you evaluate his decision to allow Ingrida Šimonyte to keep the list? Is this a new fad where party presidents give up their seats to others?
I think it was a very pragmatic view before the elections, because looking at today’s ratings by I. Šimonytė and G. Landsbergis, I. Šimonytė is way ahead of him. This is pragmatic, which one is better? Naturally, me. Šimonytė would be a better leader. But again, it must be said that not all party presidents would agree to do so, after all, others would not allow ambition. I see it here and positive. Yes, it is a pragmatic calculation that will be much better for the party and the list if the leader is me. Šimonytė, and he will be the second. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to pay tribute to Gabriel himself, because a person has not entered his person as much as the party president. You could say we don’t look at my rankings, I’ll still be number one on the list, but he’s looking at what’s best for our community. I think this is true and I see many positive aspects.
At that time, Mrs. Degutiene, is your name not on the list? Does that mean you are already finishing your political career?
Yes, but my career at the party is not fading and I am not fading from the party anywhere. I only wish, God forbid, that all politicians follow the long and difficult path that I have traveled in 24 years. This is 6 terms. Thanks to the Lithuanians who really voted for me. I also got the most votes at the party. I’ve always won in a single-member constituency, so here I thank people for believing in me for so many years and for giving me the opportunity to serve the Lithuanian state.
I think a time has come, after all, it is the beginning and the end. The generation has changed, because today there are already 30 years that were born in independent Lithuania. Perhaps your vision of the future is already different from mine. I believe what I could have done. Of course, there were mistakes, maybe I didn’t behave like that somewhere, but as I understood it, I worked that way. I really faithfully worked with the state and its people. And now I have the right to rest. If I need my advice, I am definitely ready to advise my young colleagues.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of ELTA.
[ad_2]
