Vardija missed Nausėda’s chances: he transferred his positions to Skvernelis and Veryga

Tomas Janeliūnas, professor and political scientist at the Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science (VU TSPMI), stated that in the face of this crisis, the main focus in the public space is on two “leaders”: Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis and Health Minister Aurelijus Veryga. Therefore, it is natural that too many leaders simply interfere.

Professor VU TSPMI Delphi He said the public may be a little disappointed by the president’s lack of word, but the situation did not allow for anything more to be expected.

“I would say that the President himself, naturally not very willing or imagining how he should behave here, naturally resigned from those positions to Prime Minister S. Skvernelis and Minister A. Veryga. Because otherwise he could have deepened that crisis if he had tried to compete for attention, decisions, trying to take responsibility, which is not very suitable for him as president, “said T. Janeliūnas.

And he added that the main functions of the president are currently very limited, both in terms of foreign policy and national security.

“Then we realized that some of the president’s informal actions could have, perhaps, been more actively demonstrated. But they in no way could equal or overshadow key decision makers.” Delphi said the political scientist.

Lack of sincerity

When asked to assess what the country’s head G. Nausėda was like during these two months of crisis, T. Janeliūnas said that the doubts and fears expressed above had been confirmed.

“I would say that the crisis has really negatively affected the public image of the President. Until then, there had been doubts about whether President G. Nausėda could establish himself in the political system, how he would behave during the conflict with the Prime Minister, or whether the majority ruler would land where or not. (…) And in a time of crisis, he was unable to show his authority, but only exacerbated those doubts. And his image as a strong political leader has really fluctuated a lot during these 2 months, “he said T. Janeliūnas.

The political scientist said that it is difficult to predict the public’s attitude towards the president in the face of the crisis.

“On the one hand, the public may have yearned for a president who is more moderate, in no rush to conflict. What Dalia Grybauskaitė showed, her actions did not always bear fruit in the sense of public opinion,” said the political scientist.

As an example, the head of the outgoing country’s conflict with the Labor Party, when he did not approve the candidates for ministers proposed by the party. After this conflict, her grades fell.

“Probably because the public doesn’t like excessive conflict either. In this sense, if the public decides that there is a need for such a president, who is looking for his place in the political system quite sparingly and without conflict, then everything is in order, “said the political scientist.

Of course, there will be those who will miss a tougher president, said T. Janeliūnas.

“But it will be clear to those who will yearn for a more difficult role. For everyone, the time comes when the first rankings begin to drop and there may be more than one reason for that. In this case, apparently, there will be those who will be frustrated by the low president activity. You don’t have much opportunity to show that great activity right now. ” Delphi spoke a policy expert.

In the face of the crisis, leaders are being born, but G. Nausėda has been unable to do so.

“It could have played a role in it, the image of that moral authority, the unifier of the nation, could have manifested itself. But even if there was an attempt to do so, it was not natural. And G. Nausėda did not become a moral leader Those speeches, at least, seemed a bit artificial to me. They don’t seem to be hooked by the public, I don’t remember having shared them en masse. In most cases, they were recorded, memorable ex officio statements. “

As a possible reason for this, the political scientist mentioned the lack of sincerity that arose from possible ignorance.

“It probably didn’t happen because the president himself didn’t feel very strong and knew exactly what he was supposed to do and say here. And consequently, only the correct but artificial phrases remained, trying to achieve both expectations. But this apparently did not create As much sincerity, but a role “out of necessity”, the situation was evaluated by Professor T. Janeliūnas of VU TSPMI.

Forget about the “welfare state”

Audronė Nugaraitė, professor at Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) and advisor to outgoing Head of State Dalia Grybauskaitė Delphi Nausėda said he lacked clear leadership and steps towards the “welfare state” established during the presidential election campaign.

“In my opinion, it was a very favorable situation to be a leader, to confirm leadership. And the President did not take advantage of that. A very clear address was missing, with whom you want to identify. That concept of his “welfare state”, as I say, the mountain that we all have to climb with him in five years, could have given some lines. (…) This is untapped leadership. Because in a crisis, it is very important to have a leader who shows the human side, it was a great opportunity to confirm and show it. ” Delphi President G. Nausėda’s actions were evaluated by a VMU professor.

She said that the president must not only be a “situation solver” who assesses the steps taken by decision makers, but also a leader who indicates how we will continue to live, what path we will take.

“I wanted a more active role for him, I missed him. He was a great receiver of the situation, but he wanted him to be the man who lives today but says what we will do tomorrow. I missed this, “said A. Nugaraitė.

He added that “he wanted the light that G. Nausėda would bring.”

In the public sphere, the president is criticized for the lack of action in the face of the crisis, but A. Nugaraitė recalls that the presidential institution cannot make decisions. So criticism is only partially measured.

“I think it is only partially measured. It performs some functions, some functions overlap with the executive branch. But the presidential authority has the trust of the public and it does so because of the fact that the people are waiting for the president and whoever the leader is. That he will tell you how it really is, and the ratings of this institution are probably always high: it is quite independent, allowing it on this basis and to do those things: show solidarity, attract, explain.

In my opinion, all this has not been exploited. The crisis is special, it is both a threat and an opportunity. I dare say that he did not take advantage of the opportunities of the crisis “, – a VMU professor evaluated the actions and communication of the head of the country.

When asked to try to predict how the public will evaluate these actions, A. Nugaraitė stated that this institution has a positive evaluation in society.

“I think if those ratings drop a little bit, really very little. Because there are some major mistakes that people could blame, it is very difficult for this institution to make. And on the other hand, that little surf is naturally. Because the crises are about us opening our eyes, looking around us, appreciating who is who ” Delphi said the professor.

“There is something that has been done well, but from the point of view of the situation itself, the opportunity is wasted,” A. Nugaraitė shared his ideas.