[ad_1]
G.JAKAVONIS: Compared to the two years in the reign of former President Dalia Grybauskaitė, it appears that Lithuania now does not appear to have its own superior leader. The former president intervened everywhere, blackmailed the country’s politicians and citizens, dividing them between his own and strangers, ignored the Seimas, along with the conservatives, especially with the Landsbergis clan, interfered in the work of the institutions responsible for making comply with the law, led the special. services. The impression was that foreign policy also worked for self-promotion and not for the well-being of Lithuania. What happens now that a calmer and more moderate person is in charge? Even after reading Gitan Nausėda’s first annual report, it seems that the president is only calmly observing what is happening in the country.
S.JAKELIŪNAS: The styles of the two presidents are very different, but the morale does not seem to be too much. I once called D. Grybauskaitė an “Amazon of politics”. Its methods of operation were not in line with the principles of a democratic society, and in doing so it had a negative impact both on the quality of the country’s political system and on the democratization processes of the entire state. For some time it seemed to some that G. Nausėda would strive to be a moderate moderator and an advocate of a higher political culture. However, I don’t think his personality traits are adequate for that, he is a migrant from the banking system, which has a disproportionate influence on the economy, the media and politics. His style of speaking is outwardly attractive and expressive, but in terms of content, he generally does not say anything new and original. Someone has called him “tall and beautiful”. For me, he is a kind of “political barbie”. It is unlikely to do anything good for the state and the people, despite strong statements about the “welfare state.” He developed his own wealth, but questions remain whether this was not done at the expense of other people, including older people, as SEB Bank, like other banks, abused its power both before and during the crisis. Also, the building permit for the house in the regional park was obtained under very strange circumstances.
A.NORVILAS: I like emphatically emphatic management. When the will is not given to ambitions, it almost does not yield to provocations, I like the language corresponding to the state of a president and the tone of communication. After partisans, more precisely, after “Landsberg”, control, intrigue, extortion, immeasurable pride, it seems that we are getting out of the ball. Steam has been running since the presidency for 10 years, perhaps it will eventually stop. The president should observe and intervene calmly only when necessary. Dirty and unethical measures will never have a positive effect: the presidency has not known this for 10 years. Although the Constitution clearly defines the functions of the President, they can undoubtedly be very broad. I was one of the first employees of President Algirdas Brazauskas and I can say that the President scrupulously adhered to the Constitution, at least during the first half of his term. Throughout the period of independence, another practice has emerged where presidents can pay a lot. Undoubtedly, the President is a moral authority, but the burden of that moral authority is very heavy. President Valdas Adamkus seemed to have played that role of moral authority well, but several steps are questioned, one of them being the final sale of Mazeikiu Nafta, which he would call the issuance of state interests.
Such events arise that require an expression of the president’s position of moral authority. For example, President G. Nausėda should speak about history with a beach in Vilnius’ main square.
L.BALSYS: People who do not intervene, do not participate in politics and take care of their own affairs, probably liked D. Grybauskaitė’s carefully created image of a strong and strong leader, although behind it was intrigue, division and control, methods of intimidation, decisions based on personal sympathies and antipathies. and officer appointments, and demonstrative “beheadings” for the disobedient. Now it isn’t and I’m happy about it. President G. Nausėda is really different, both as a person and as a politician. Unfortunately, during the first year, he had the impression that he was in public, like an inactive head of state observing the life of the country. I wouldn’t dare say firmly that it is. Obviously, G. Nausėda is a new person in the political field and, unfortunately, in that field, alone, for herself, a soldier, because she has no political background or political allies. Yes, the president must be above the political parties, but that does not mean that he cannot communicate effectively and actively with the political factions of the Seimas or the Government. The President is assisted in this by his team of advisers. If this team is passive, or incompetent, or does not have good political ties, sooner or later this will push the head of the country into a kind of political isolation, there is a danger that he himself will be a victim of the intrigues of other more aggressive political groups. . In my opinion, this is already happening with President G. Nausėda. This was well illustrated by the case when the head of state appointed Minister J. Narkevičius, publicly motivating that otherwise “we would not have had a budget”. The cunning “peasants” and easily beaten political beavers confused the country’s head, and his inexperienced team couldn’t anticipate it.
A.KRUPAVIČIUS: Presidents are different, they are not created under the same shoe. In Lithuania we had Brazauskas, Adamkus, Paksas, Grybauskaitė and now Nausėda. It would be difficult to select a vector for them when evaluating them. Another thing is to always compare comparable things. Therefore, Nausėda’s first year should be compared to the first year of the first term of other presidents.
At the beginning of her first term, Grybauskaitė was no more active than Nausėda, both in domestic and foreign politics. 2009-2010 Grybauskaitė tried to “recharge” relations with Belarus and Russia. In a meeting with Lukashenko, he tried to discuss the location of the Astrava nuclear power plant, unfortunately without results. And that topic was long forgotten. In his first year in office, he sparked an international mini-scandal by not attending a meeting with Barack Obama in Prague. During the first year of his term, Nausėda met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the leaders of the European Union, who further promoted dynamic relations between Lithuania and Poland. The pandemic slowed the president’s international activity somewhat, but did not stop it. In general, internationally, Nausėda is perhaps even more active than Grybauskaitė.
In domestic politics, D. Grybauskaitė tried to fight against the oligarchs. But the general result of that “war” seems to be that only the power of one oligarchic group has been redistributed in favor of other oligarchic groups. In the first annual report, Grybauskaitė said that “we forgot the person.” Not a single person in Lithuania after his ten years in power could say that one person was forgotten.
In general, D. Grybauskaitė’s policy, especially at home, was to react to events. G. Nausėda, on the contrary, clearly formulated the main objective of his mandate: the welfare state. After joining the EU and NATO, Lithuania no longer had a clearer political strategy. The sediment formulates it. Alone without hysteria and hitting the table. After the autocratic style of Grybauskaitė, Nausėda’s moderation and intelligence in society are sometimes understood as weakness. But this is, above all, a difference in political action or political style with Grybauskaitė. In this regard, Nausėda is more similar to Adamkus or even Brazauskas. They were moderate. Grybauskaitė is much more similar to Paksas in that it created images of fighters (sometimes with windmills).
G.JAKAVONIS: Although our Constitution does not define the President’s functions very clearly, the country’s foreign policy is a priority. So far, G.Nausėda activity in this field appears to be blank and not very clear. On the other hand, the president, elected by the nation, is always a moral authority. Furthermore, with or without their approval, a government is formed. Here his powers are really great. But we missed the presidential coronavirus pandemic. We have not heard G. Nausėda’s position, when it was necessary to evaluate the actions of the “shepherd”, mocking the history of the nation, the mayor of Vilnius, Remigijus Šimašius.
I also ambiguously appreciate the President’s refusal to contact Minister J.Narkevičius, and his praise for Rokas Masiulis, who is preparing to “parcel” state property. Why do such things happen?
S.JAKELIŪNAS: G. Nausėda’s refusal to go to a meeting with the Latvian and Estonian presidents on the last day due to the allegedly unresolved problems of purchasing electricity from the Astrava nuclear power plant was a complete foreign policy error. Even more so when he spoke in the annual report about the need for a common international position and solutions, and compared local politicians who manipulate these issues with “crushed roosters”. Apparently, they received a serious informal response from them, were frightened by their own words and sacrificed part of their reputation internationally as “compensation”. Along the way, in an attempt to cover up this misunderstanding, he announced the resignation of the entire group of presidential advisers. It is as if there is now an ongoing renovation. I really doubt it. His actions, using businessman A.Ribnikov, are the simplest revenge for Minister J.Narkevičius. I am not saying that the Minister did not do something wrong, but not for the Presidency to do such “investigations”. This shows that the president’s political and moral culture poster is low, close to the bottom. The President’s comments on the actions and motives of an SSD official who has been granted the status of official rapporteur may have violated the provisions of the Rapporteur Protection Act, which the President must protect first, as a democracy Modern is not possible without the rapporteurs. With such statements, the president discredited himself, because after such statements there is little connection to the fulfillment of civic duty and he will report violations in state institutions.
A.NORVILAS: Turning to foreign policy, I would like to say that this is the most difficult task for the President: to rebuild what has been destroyed. D. Grybauskaitė managed to take on the opinion on Lithuanians that we are prudent, guided by unreasonable decisions, the chest in the front and the mind, then. What do we have now for Astravo? An audience screaming that it hits their chests and shows what kind of patriots they are, but any sensible person would say that it is all, spoons in the afternoon. This is understood by all ordinary Lithuanian citizens, also understood by all ordinary Belarusian citizens. If we want a rational solution, we must demand that we have a certain security control function, guarantees against the non-development of the power plant, etc. But the tone that is now being raised for pre-electoral purposes is a great challenge for the president, as this screaming audience will soon start to make arguments that the president is not listening, betraying, selling Lithuania, etc.
L.BALSYS: The constitution clearly defines the powers and activities of the president. Foreign policy and the rule of law are areas exclusively under the control of the President, and in national politics, the powers of the President are manifested through legislative initiative and the final approval of the laws approved by the Seimas, the appointment of ministers and other functions. It is up to the President only to what extent and how he will use those powers, how actively he will shape foreign policy, how deeply he will contribute to the efficiency of the judiciary, in appointing judges, etc. I would not like to delve into any specific story when evaluating the president’s relationship with one or the other minister, because I do not think that ‘labeling’ leads to anything in politics, only to conflicts. The president, according to the Constitution, must be equal and fair with everyone, which, in my opinion, means not showing his sympathies and antipathies, but following facts, tests and laws. The situation of the pandemic and the history of the Lukiškė “beach” is a manifestation of the President as a moral authority rather than as a decision maker.
A.KRUPAVIČIUS: On the powers of the president. They are not constitutionally as small as they are sometimes interpreted. The constitutional powers of the President of Lithuania are equal to those of the President of Poland and are greater than those of the President of Finland. They would be significantly strengthened if the presidents of Lithuania had clear support in parliament. But this was only in 1993-1996, when A. Brazauskas received the support of the LDDP. 2000 Adamkus’ “new policy” failed. So sometimes the president needs to be especially resourceful to achieve his goals in consultation with the majority of Seimas. Therefore, the reluctant to practice the so-called “cohabitation” regime, where the president has to seek compromises with parliament and the government. Instead, presidents sometimes try to provoke a “glass storm” in public relations. Grybauskaitė was well versed in the specific technique of “cutting heads”.
Moral authority, unfortunately, is a very empty sound in Lithuanian politics. Such authorities need moral policies to emerge. But we often have a policy of selfish interests. It wouldn’t be so bad, because interests are a component of politics, but there should be at least some morality. He seems to be wandering around politics.
On the relationship of the presidents with the local government. There was an episode in Adamkus’ career when he publicly offered to resign Zuokas as mayor of Vilnius. The reaction to that proposal was that the President was interfering in local government affairs. He did not repeat similar suggestions. Incidentally, President Nausėda is also reacting to resounding events in the municipality. Among them is the “beach” in Lukiškės Square, the removal of commemorative signs in Vilnius and the like. Just don’t teach what municipal officials or institutions should do. That is what the head of state must do.
G.JAKAVONIS: The impression is that the team of presidential advisers is incompetent and weak. Who advised the President to go to the Kaunas “Žalgiris” parties when the pandemic began, when citizens were advised to avoid public events? Who advised G.Nausėda and his wife Diana to participate in the LNK New Year report “KK2”, where, in my opinion, they were derided. It is true that he has now replaced part of the team, but will it not be the case that His Excellency is innocent and that the environment is to blame?
S.JAKELIŪNAS: The president’s team’s most important task is to preserve and strengthen its charming image of the “creator of the welfare state.” It is no coincidence that the team is dominated by public relations, in other words, propaganda, experts. Instead, I will not evaluate the results of their work, some thoughts, and facts about other counselors. One of them, it is true, was Vida Petrylaitė. The same one that, more than two years ago, along with other “ specialists ” in the pension economy, commissioned the pension funds to reach a favorable conclusion for them on the reform of the second pillar of the pension system, which We implement based on the recommendations of international experts and our electoral regulations. Thirty members of the Seimas copied this “study” verbatim, without specifying the author, and in July 2018. sent to the Constitutional Court. They attempted to halt this transformation, one of whose goals was to end the funding of immoral pension funds at the expense of today’s older adults. The investigation of this petition in the Constitutional Court was entrusted to … Daiva Petrylaitė, judges of the Constitutional Court, sister of the author of the text. There was a great scandal that, only with the participation of D. Grybauskaite and V. Landsbergis, and with the help of the media serving these people, was not extinguished anyway. Therefore, inviting that person to consultants means having no idea of a conflict of interest. Even more so when G.Nausėda worked in a bank that also owned a company dedicated to this pension business. However, another adviser, S.Krėpšta, continues to work in the presidency. He is the former direct manager of the Bank of Lithuania economist, who was granted rapporteur status due to the Viliboras case. S.Krėpšta, along with other Bank of Lithuania officials, carried out unauthorized actions against the person with the status of reporter. Well, it has just been announced that journalist R. Jasilionis will work as the new propaganda adviser in the presidency. The same as in April 2019. He described his speaker as a “mole” on his show. It is a term used by the KGB in its time. That’s the kind of presidential team that says a lot about itself. It is a complete political failure of the President and the failure to comply with the basic norms of political culture, or a determined action to achieve an incomprehensible goal.
A.NORVILAS: Speaking of the president’s advisers, I think relying solely on youth has its advantages, but when it comes to the role of moral authority, those people still don’t have the wisdom. The gray-haired wisdom begins to take shape. Here, the president should think hard about the body of public advisers he would really trust. It is difficult to find people at the level of Justinas Marcinkevičius, but they are everywhere, even in the field. That status of public adviser does not confer any preference on man, but it can be of great service to the president and the state.
L.BALSYS: We don’t have a chance to find out who really advised the president to act one way or another. Formally, these are public relations matters, and judging from the fact that the communications manager no longer works on the president’s team, he may have assumed responsibility. But participating in a tabloid television show is nothing compared to what I think is a major political mistake: refusing to attend the Troika meeting of the Baltic presidents, which seriously damages relations with our “sisters” and “brothers”, arguing that the ministers did not reach a consensus. positions regarding Astravo electricity. In my opinion, it was only necessary to go to the meeting and speak openly with the leaders of Estonia and Latvia itself, if the ministers are no longer successful. I am aware of the experience of working in Brussels, when the Heads of State themselves take and agree on something, that is, the day after the Council, the Ministers of the countries that have not agreed before, quickly find the necessary solutions. There is no other way than open dialogue, the search for allies to defend the interests of our state, and no political management without demonstratively going to a “family reunion” of our friendly states.
A.KRUPAVIČIUS: Both the president and most of his team are newcomers to politics. It takes time for everyone to get used to it. After the first year of their tenure, most presidents conducted a kind of team audit. We see it now. Did the presidential team make mistakes? Yes but not that much. And they certainly are not deadly sins. For example, that LNK KK2 report was unnecessary. There was a communicative confusion at the beginning of the pandemic. But then things went back to places. The decree of a judge of the Constitutional Court to the Seimas could also have been better formulated. Lawyers did not criticize him correctly.
Due to the Kaunas “Žalgiris” party, not only the president did not appreciate the next pandemic. March. At the beginning of the government meeting, the Minister of Health asked the government to allocate LTL 300,000 for measures to protect against the pandemic. euros After about ten days, tens of millions had to be allowed for that … Whoever was waiting did not understand, even those who had to understand better, i. health managers. The peace of the pandemic lasted until the jubilee of March 11. It is very important that advisers learn to properly communicate with Seimas and the Government. They learn it. And it will seem to learn.
The footage of the discussion can be found here.
[ad_2]
