[ad_1]
The lawyer emphasizes that when making such a request, the head of state must provide clear arguments as to why they cannot be representatives of diplomacy.
“Diplomats are not officials of the political trust of the president. And the president in this case cannot elect them based on their greater or lesser trust. If there are other reasons why these people cannot be diplomatic representatives, they must be clearly identified. This is required by the constitutional principle of transparency in the functioning of the government ”, emphasizes A. Šindeikis in his Facebook account.
The lawyer emphasizes that these types of actions by presidents are characteristic of heads of state under undemocratic and disrespectful law, who tend to exercise their power more than the Constitution in making decisions.
A. Šindeikis also mentions the problems arising from such actions of the president. According to him, by introducing the requirement of “political cooling” and not justifying it, G. Nausėda creates a state of legal insecurity in the state, public distrust of the law. The lawyer stresses that this does not correspond to the aspiration of the Lithuanian state to establish the rule of law announced in the preamble of the Constitution.
“The fact that citizens do not hear from the Supreme Head of State the reasons for their decisions based on laws or regulations in force and the specific factual circumstances why the proposed persons cannot be appointed diplomatic representatives is not only a violation of the Constitution due to lack of respect for the rule of law and good administration. non-compliance, i.e. non-compliance with the president’s oath, insult to the dignity of Lithuanian citizens by depriving them of the right to know and understand how and why the president acts in this case, ”A. Šindeikis shares his opinion.
The lawyer also highlights that such unconstitutional behavior of the head of state sends a message to the entire diplomatic corps that if they agree to occupy the position of minister or vice minister, they will not be able to return to their professional diplomatic service and become diplomats. at least indefinite representatives under the laws and regulations in force, the “reflection period” set by the President, and this will depend solely on the will of the President.
“It is likely that the professionals of the diplomatic corps who may face such unconstitutional arbitrariness will not agree to occupy the position of minister or vice minister, although their experience and knowledge in certain ministries can be of great benefit to the Lithuanian state,” he added. he said.
The third problem that arises from such an act by the president, he said, is that such behavior by Mr. Nausėda is an example and a very poor precedent in democracy, “because mistrust in politics and politicians is the greatest scourge, often associated with political arrogance that they are elected or appointed to serve the people, and that the Constitution limits their powers, and that in a democracy they must act not according to their whims but according to the Constitution and the law, be able to motivate their decisions and present clearly to the public “.
A. Šindeikis also emphasizes that the arguments of G. Nausėda’s advisers that the ambassador, being a diplomat, is a statutory public official and must carry out both presidential and governmental appeals, raises serious doubts as to whether the presidential advisers understand how the service works.
He also emphasizes that in this situation, the head of the country himself, and not his critics, acts in a non-transparent manner, covering his actions with rumors and assumptions.
“The president himself has created preconditions for raising doubts as to whether the president is acting in the interests of the entire state or only in his own personal power-building interests,” he writes.
And although A. Šindeikis claims that the position of President G. Nausėda is not based on clear arguments that outgoing ministers cannot work in the diplomatic service for some time, there is no violation of the Constitution that can be recognized as serious and may lead to impeachment of the president, but still, according to him, it is a constitutional error.
“This is the constitutional fallacy of President Gitan Nausėda and his contribution to the unconstitutional functioning of the Lithuanian authorities, which does not create but destroys our democracy, for which it should be noted and criticized. The presidency is not a bank that acts in the interest of its shareholders and administrators, not in the interest of society as a whole, ”he says.
ELTA recalls that President G. Nausėda stated that he did not see the possibility of former Foreign Affairs and National Defense ministers running for the posts of ambassadors in the United States and the European Union. The president argued that a “political cooldown” was needed for the outgoing ministers to carry out their duties properly.
The presidency also decided not to allow former Interior Minister Eimutis Misiūnas to return to the post of judge.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of ELTA.
[ad_2]
