[ad_1]
The most anticipated presidential verdict on December 4 on the composition of the cabinet. Two candidates went to the president: Dalia Miniataitė (presented to the Ministers of Agriculture) and Kaspars Adomaitis (presented to the Ministers of Transport). The president noted that these candidates lack vision and knowledge of key issues. The wording is quite abstract and probably applicable to many of those whose candidacies were ultimately approved. At least before the meetings with the president in public space, there was no lack of skepticism about the candidacies of Simon Gentvil, Simon Kairis, Evelina Dobrovolska, and the president, through his spokesman, found something to stick to after almost every meeting.
The farming community responded positively to Dalia Miniataitė’s presentation. The president lacked the visionary vision of the candidate. A good civil servant will not necessarily be a good minister, he is required to do different things. Agriculture is going through a period of transformation and the European Green Course poses new challenges. That’s probably why I.Šimonytė’s second choice was Kęstutis Navickas, and not Kazys Starkevičius or Edmundas Pupinis, veterans of the Homeland Union (TS-LKD). Current conditions demand more from the Minister of Agriculture than before. Environmental expert K. Navickas is not such a suitable candidate for farmers: the interests of vegetables and farmers often do not coincide, but considering the upcoming challenges, he seems suitable for the job.
Although Kaspars Adomaitis has a lot of experience as an urban analyst, he was assigned a job in a very difficult position. The area is complex: all kinds of transport, communications. It has many different interest groups and a plethora of long-standing issues. Marius Skuodis has more managerial experience and is probably a better option.
Environmental expert K. Navickas is not a suitable candidate for farmers: the interests of vegetables and farmers often do not coincide.
One of the great intrigues was the president’s decision regarding Arūnas Dulkis. Although he wanted to continue at the helm of the State Audit Office, in the spring of this year the president was not nominated for a second term. The presidency communicated the decision as a choice between the good and the best, calling the designated ombudsman Mindaugas Macijauskas more ambitious. This time we wait for G.Nausėda’s decision.
Most likely, whether A. Dulkys was approved was determined by two factors. First, the candidate herself was strongly defended by I. Šimonytė, she assumed the personal responsibility of the minister. Second, the president realized that failure to nominate a candidate would cause a considerable storm in the public space: A. Dulkys has an excellent reputation in society. The final verdict of the president was quite ambiguous. The president stated that doubts did not arise about the long-term vision of A. Dulkis, but about the closest works. However, by saying that he would like to make a mistake about the candidate, the president showed that he does not trust A. Dulkis much.
Even before the meetings with the ministers, it was discussed to what extent Dainius Kreivis and Gintaras Skaiste could be harmed by the stories of the past. D. Kreivys lost his post as Minister of the Economy when he supported the renovation work of the school by a company related to his mother. G.Skaistė’s family (the husband of politician Audrius Skaistys blamed his father) had turned the area of state land into an orchard. If, for other reasons, the candidacies of D. Kreivis or G.Skaistė had been inappropriate for the president, he could have decided not to approve the election of the shadows of the past, but he did not.
Late last week, the LRT Research Department also published a questionable story, when a multi-apartment building was built on the site of the social housing and community center in Jerusalem, a company built by D. Kreivys owns a significant part of the shares. However, this did not change the presidential verdict.
The government formation process itself also raised questions. Generally, after the meetings with the candidates, the former leaders of the country did not present their impressions to the media in such detail. Now, after each meeting, the president’s spokesman, Antanas Bubnelis, presented the position of the country’s leader. In almost all cases, with considerable doses of criticism. At least we haven’t heard in public before about past presidential advisers’ meetings with candidates. After one of the meetings with G.Nausėda, I.Šimonytė herself described the selection process for ministers as unusual.
Generally, after the meetings with the candidates, the former leaders of the country did not present their impressions to the media in such detail.
Cabinet formation may have been lengthy. The president tried to create an additional stir: the meeting with A. Dulkis on November 30 promised to announce his decision on his candidacy the next day, but we did not receive it until December 4, when a joint verdict was announced to the Cabinet of Ministers . The meetings themselves lasted seven business days. 2016 Dalia Grybauskaitė only took three business days.
However, the fact that the talks lasted did not have much practical significance. The Seimas approved I. Šimonytė’s candidacy for Prime Minister on November 24, and the next morning the President signed the nomination and gave instructions to form the Government. The plenary sessions of the Seimas take place two days a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. From November 24 to December 2, the Seimas did not sit on the COVID-19 outbreak.
The Cabinet of Ministers receives the authority to act when the President approves its composition and the Seimas approves the Government’s program. Therefore, the first government program could theoretically be considered for consideration on December 3 (although we do not know if the government would already be ready to be presented), the second earliest day is December 8, when consideration began. So even if the president had approved the government much earlier, the earliest realistic time for his oath would have been December 8.
In 2008 and 2012, the consideration and adoption of the Government Program took two days of plenary sessions. In 2016, Dalia Grybauskaitė approved the Government on November 29, but her program was approved only on December 13. This year, the Government Program and the Government itself were approved on December 11.
However, the fact that the talks lasted was of little practical importance.
It is obvious that the president learned the lessons of 2019 when he appointed Yaroslav Narkevičius, Minister of Transport, who was constantly caught in scandals. So this time the poster was raised above. By commenting on almost all the candidates, G. Nausėda jointly reserved the right to remind the public later, if necessary, that in case of doubts and scandals he had to hold the Prime Minister more accountable.
The rulers were humble and this can be understood. The current situation, both in terms of health and the economy, may require unpopular solutions, so the support of the president is very important and will be in the future. Entering into confrontation with the president is not the right time. For Lithuania it is important that relations between the government and the president remain constructive.
Matas Baltrukevičius is an Associate Analyst at the Vilnius Institute for Policy Analysis.
[ad_2]
