[ad_1]
In his first annual report to Seimas, President G. Nausėda reviewed the work done, set immediate goals for Lithuania, and highlighted the state’s most important current problems.
Programming language with template phrases.
Professor Algis Krupavičius, dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Vytautas Magnus University (VMU), told news portal tv3.lt that the President’s annual report was programmatic.
“The president spoke about core values, principles and goals,” said the professor.
According to A. Krupavičius, the programmatic nature of language is highlighted by the fact that G. Nausėda did not speak about people, institutions, current affairs, but about phenomena and perspectives.
“There are no personalities in the language, categorical ad hominem arrows of criticism, “said the political scientist.
Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Vytautas Magnus University prof. Algis Krupavičius (photo by Jonas Petronis)
According to Rima Urbonaitė, a professor at Mykolas Romeris University (MRU) and a political scientist, G. Nausėda’s speech contained quite a few standard phrases, the essence of which would not have changed, and the language would have been more constructive and brief.
“It just came to our attention then. But it is definitely not that it stands out in the history of languages,” the interlocutor is convinced.
Does the concept of the welfare state become empty?
Political scientists unanimously stated that one of the key issues in G. Nausėda’s report was the welfare state. According to R. Urbonaitė, in one way or another the welfare state is mentioned 12 times in the speech.
“I was caught up in the President’s speech with the thesis that the concept of the welfare state has become commonplace. It is like a victory, but I am very curious about what to enjoy here. Because when a certain concept becomes widespread, it is often It is accompanied by the fact that there is no content behind this concept and it becomes empty, “said the political scientist.
Annual Report of the President to the Seimas (photo Photo Day / Justinas Auškelis)
In his opinion, Lithuanian politicians should not be guided by some general concept of the welfare state, but by creating a unique welfare state.
“Each state is unique and we need to create our own unique welfare state. <...> I wonder if I did not look for something deeper where it was needed, but I limited myself to the standard phrases, sometimes without even looking critically at them ”, reasoned the MRU professor.
Did not name those who pierced the bottom
In his speech, the President also paid close attention to political culture and did not avoid criticism.
“It is a pity that we have minimized the political responsibility cartel of high-ranking government officials,” said President Nausėda in his annual report.
According to R. Urbonaitė, the president spoke smoothly, making it difficult to pinpoint who the “bad guys” who got to the bottom are.
“I would point out that political culture is not a new topic. So, in this case, I would like the President to say very clearly what that fund reached symbolizes. If he spoke abstractly about those funds, he will not solve the problem. In this case, I wanted them to tell me who broke that fund, “said the interlocutor.
Rima Urbonaitė
Both Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis and peasant leader Ramūnas Karbauskis assured that the arrows of the president’s criticism do not run towards them. According to R. Urbonaitė, such a reaction from the rulers should not be surprising.
“There was criticism of the rulers, only the form of their presentation was moderate and preceded by extremely sharp angles and epithets. There is room to decide and interpret in their own way. And that the rulers will certainly not interpret self-critically, it is here without a doubt. It would be a great miracle if that happened, “said the political scientist.
Confidence crisis highlighted
According to A. Krupavičius, in his speech, the president often did not point fingers at specific political events, but at general trends both in the field of politics and in society itself. In the professor’s opinion, the President also drew attention to the crisis of confidence in Lithuania.
According to the interlocutor, the investigation carried out last year shows that only 25 percent trust other people. Lithuanians, only 22 percent. compatriots tend to help others. A. Krupavičius also saw the echoes of these trends in G. Nausėda’s speech.
“Obviously, there is a crisis of confidence both in politics and in society,” said the political scientist.
A. Krupavičius agrees indirectly, but criticism of the president also touches on current issues, the ruling majority and opposition parties.
“With just one finger, the president does not show that he or she is not behaving as it should be,” said A. Krupavičius.
The meeting with Trump left a strange feeling
One of the highlights of G. Nausėda’s speech on the subject of foreign policy was the European Union and the President’s meeting with the President of the United States, Donald Trump.
“Lithuania has a clear political direction for the European Union. We need an economically strong and politically stable European Union,” said the President of Lithuania.
“These are two consecutive statements, but they are practically contradictory. Because the president, on the one hand, says that we have a clear vision. And in the following sentence he presents the most abstract vision possible. I find it very strange why those phrases appear in general , what is its meaning “, criticized R. Urbonaitė.
Annual Report of the President to the Seimas (photo Photo Day / Justinas Auškelis)
The political scientist was also trapped by the American leader mentioned in the speech.
“At the NATO summit in London, when the President of the United States, Donald Trump, asked me what Lithuania’s membership in the European Union and NATO meant, I reacted succinctly: the European Union, for a better life, NATO , only for life, “said G. Nausėda in his speech.
“Meeting Trump, I think, not just for me, caused such a strange feeling. Quote from a conversation … To whom, for what purpose? It is not clear ”, taught R. Urbonaitė.
Self-criticism was lacking
What did policy experts miss in the president’s first annual report? R. Urbonaitė hoped to name clearer foreign policies and explain how the vision of the welfare state will be achieved.
“I was left to say what I couldn’t do or what bigger challenges I faced as president during this period,” said R. Urbonaitė.
In the opinion of A. Krupavičius, in his speech, G. Nausėda touched on all the subjects assigned to the President according to the constitutional powers.
“Perhaps some of the evaluations, in my opinion, could have been further expanded,” said the professor.
According to the political expert, during the two terms of Dalia Grybauskaitė, a tradition has formed in Lithuania that the annual reports of the President are quite short and last about half an hour. According to A. Krupavičius, for example, the annual speech of the President of the United States lasts about an hour.
“The return to longer, more detailed language should be gradually returned. If the president had spoken for an hour today, instead of a good half hour, it would have been very misunderstood,” said the political scientist.
A. Krupavičius is convinced that G. Nausėda’s first annual report will be a starting point, which will be used to assess not only all of his annual reports, but also his actions and steps during his tenure.
“It is very important that those goals, first and foremost, the creation of a welfare state do not remain an empty dream,” said A. Krupavičius.
Vilpišauskas: G. Nausėda logically added accents, but how it works remains unclear
Political scientist Ramūnas Vilpišauskas says that in the annual report, President G. Nausėda logically ordered the issues, but cannot provide a clearer picture of the president’s own actions to achieve the stated goals.
The professor said that in the report, as expected, the head of state spoke about the vision of the Welfare State and the mobilization of politicians and social groups, evaluated the impact and response of the coronavirus pandemic, discussed relations with others politicians and mentioned key aspects of foreign policy. .
“The most important thematic things he expected in this annual report from this president are in him, the annual report corresponds to the usual genre for him,” R. Vilpišauskas told BNS.
“However, the crucial question is to what extent do the issues discussed say something new or better explain the president’s position to the public and to what extent do they show the president’s own efforts to contribute to the vision,” said a professor at the Institute of Relations. International and Political Sciences of the University of Vilnius.
He stated that some proposals, for example, to legalize electronic voting for foreign Lithuanians, turned out to be fragmentary, and the President did not explain in detail how he would try to mobilize politicians to act in strategic directions for Lithuania.
“An example is the issue of the Astrava nuclear power plant, where the statement of the situation is quite adequate, but it is not clear what the president intends to do as a mobilizer of political forces.” This also applies to other areas, ”said R. Vilpišauskas.
Girnius lacked specificity and attention to political culture in the president’s annual report
Political scientist and philosopher Kęstutis Girnius says President G. Nausėda encouraged people to meet in his annual report, but it lacked specificity.
“Language was invited to unite people, more was said about what could be achieved, less was done or not done. It was broad about everything, but rather vague, ”K. Girnius told BNS.
According to him, the annual report “did little to discuss foreign policy.”
“The president is criticized for not giving a more concrete content to the idea of the welfare state, but this time he also spoke very vaguely that it starts with economic and social indicators and is impossible without trust and justice. Everything is true, but there was a lack of specificity, ”said K. Girnius.
He said he believed the president could have put more emphasis on his ties to the regions and talked more broadly about political culture.
“I think he could have emphasized more his efforts to change the political culture, that the president is not omniscient and tries to live with the government, but when he cannot find a consensus, he is not afraid to veto the law, he has done it ten times” Girnius said.
“However, I think the language is weak, and partly because he is required to show some kind of leadership, although it is not very clear to me what that leadership is.” It is an encouraging language that could be more suitable for gym graduation, so your Lithuania will be interesting and good, “he added.
[ad_2]
