After the scandalous marches, a grim picture is put on: an ambiguous message and a mistake we missed

The professor at the Institute of International Relations and Political Sciences (VU TSPMI), the director of the Institute of Civil Society Ieva Petronytė-Urbonavičienė and the professor of Public Inclusion at the Kaunas University of Technology (KTU) Paulina Budrytė spoke about this on Monday at Delfi theme show

Is the protest culture changing in Lithuania?

According to I. Petronytė-Urbanavičienė, the culture of protests is not developed in our country, because the population rarely protests.

“About 3, at most 7 percent. The public has participated in protests, demonstrations, support actions in individual years and that is very little. When there is little action of this kind, it is difficult to speak of a clear protest culture and well established ”, said the researcher.

Therefore, he says, people take to the streets to protest when a problem takes root that they are not happy with, and the participants in such demonstrations themselves become angry and aggressive.

“Looking at photos or video reports of the protest, we can see a rather ambiguous message in terms of emotional background: on the one hand we choose bright clothes, smiling white balloons, we try to form an image of beautiful people, but at the same time we hear screams very offensive and intolerant, it shows that watching the protest is really extreme. All of this slightly devalues ​​the protest action itself, “said I. Petronytė-Urbanavičienė.

It was seconded by P. Budrytė, who pointed out that organizing such a protest means that the government made mistakes somewhere.

“If the public perception of being a family, who the family is and what values ​​we stand for is so overwhelming that people are determined, whether or not they have permission, to go and express their opinions, it means that somewhere we – I mean and government and education – we made a mistake and that discussion did not take place, ”said the KTU speaker.

Ms. Budrytė noted that dialogue in problem solving should be constructive, but this is not the case in this situation.

“Unfortunately, the protest is not a constructive solution. Of course, we would all like the protests to be carried out in an orderly manner and as they should, but if that vote is already so overwhelmed that people can no longer remain silent, then it must be carried out. That must be the case, because we are a democracy, we must accept it, “said the expert.

I. Petronytė-Urbanavičienė also noted that conservative Matas Maldeikis, who came to the protesters to speak, was overwhelmed by uncensored words, which she says shows the lack of a culture of discussion.

“However, such offensive comments show our lack of discussion, of culture, how we look at our opponents, those who have a different opinion. That defending opinion at all costs is ruining the advantages of democratic functioning, giving an unpleasant taste ”Said the VU TSPMI speaker.

The president supports the participants of the march: the idea of ​​mobilizing citizens is over

The protesters were also received on Thursday by the head of the country’s leader. Councilor P. Mačiulis. According to Ms Budrytė, the authorities should not choose one side of the dialogue.

“If the respected Mačiulis had participated as a private person, it would be a position. When government officials attend and support an unauthorized demonstration, it is probably not the best sign and course of action. Then, immediately, the public becomes even more confrontational. ”Said the KTU speaker.

The presidency, he said, could simply start a dialogue and encourage the public to speak up and find solutions, while at the same time finding out what kinds of people are organizing them before attending those rallies.

“If the Presidency, the President’s representatives, or the President himself represents one opinion or another, they must know who they represent. (…) I was preparing myself for this conversation, just as the representatives of the Presidency should know who they meet with when they attend any discussion or meeting. Otherwise, the dialogue cannot be prepared and cannot develop constructively ”, emphasized P. Budrytė.

I. Patronytė-Urbanavičienė, professor at VU TSPMI, spoke in a similar way and pointed out that it is really difficult to bring people together on this issue.

“On the other hand, the president seems committed or presents himself in society and public discourse as such a mobilizing and dialoguing personality, at least he has done it before. So the question is how to do it in practice? “Although it is difficult, at least it is possible to invite or provide certain formats in which both parties can speak and seek solutions,” said the expert.

I. Petronytė-Urbanavičienė recalled that President G. Nausėda, during the discussions on the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, spoke about the mobilization of the public for the discussions and expressed the opinion that the parties of both positions should sit down and seek common points of sight.

“It just came to our attention then. The biggest problem is not that the presidential adviser came out, greeted and spoke with the protesters, as the authorities should communicate with the protesters, but that the problem is how it was done. However, this is not. it seems to be very equivalent, objectively, in terms of both positions, as if we were seeing the choice of one side. It is difficult to concentrate when one side is openly supported (…) more than the other, “said the head of the Civil Society Institute. .

Whats Next?

Both interlocutors of the program unanimously argued that both parties must find common ground.

“Otherwise, it is a constant situation, very unpleasant and very unfortunate, I do not think it can continue. It leads nowhere, such protests can take place several times more, but if nothing happens, they will be aggressive and that segregation between groups in society it will only increase, that resistance will only increase. In the end, the decisions that the protesters seek in this way will also be distant, because during that protest, through the aggressive move, no one will approach them, they will only oppose them, and the representatives politicians will oppose it even more. ”said P. Budrytė.

Therefore, according to her, all participants in the dialogue should move away from extreme opinions.

“If you just want to protest and express your very important opinion, then you can continue, but it leads nowhere. Nowhere,” emphasized the KTU speaker.

For his part, I. Petronytė-Urbanavičienė also assured that the situation must intensify. However, he said, the political cycle could hamper that.

“I wish there was a de-escalation, but there is a bit of skepticism as to whether it will happen. We are talking about elections coming up, some are over, some are far enough away, but political parties or individual politicians are already preparing for that. Probably. we can see the echoes of the next elections: the formation of phrases of certain voters, the representation of positions. The next period of the political cycle represents a major obstacle to de-escalation “, admitted the researcher.

At the same time, he emphasized that it is necessary to move away from the extremes, because, as I. Petronytė-Urbanavičienė gave an example, similar riots can become the beginning of a sufficiently disturbing change, as happened in Hungary.

“It just came to our knowledge then. It is worth bearing in mind that disqualification and no more digging, looking for middle ground, solutions, moving away from extreme positions rather than trying to exploit that position for personal political interests, because in this way we can be quite disappointing as state and as a democracy ”, added the VU TSPMI speaker.