[ad_1]
This can be confirmed this week with the start of the new political season with the spring session of the Seimas.
The rulers, having finally presented a plan for the future activities of the Government for the entire period, reiterate that they will not pursue revolutions, but rather follow the path of evolution.
Such caution is understandable. After all, the ruling majority, although there is no real alternative in this Seimas and at least in the near future, remains unstable.
This shows the divisions on various issues not only between the Liberal and Conservative parties, but also within the camp of the latter.
The opposition, of course, is hungry for those differences and is talking louder and louder that those in power do not know what to do with the power that has fallen to them, they are incompetent.
But the opposition itself is also divided. It is true that the “workers” and the peasants promise to reach a final agreement on a common opposition leader, without the Social Democrats.
But it is not yet known whether the former prime minister S. Skvernelis will become that leader, although the peasant leader R. Karbauskis already promises him this position.
G. Nausėda, the head of the country, is far from being an exception in this general picture of confusion.
Commenting on the still passionate Istanbul Convention, the president was pleased that rulers were reluctant to submit it to the Seimas for ratification during the spring session, but postponed it until at least the fall.
Of course, G. Nausėda had to explain why he had previously expressed his support for the famous priest A. Tololia, who had previously called for a fight against the Istanbul Convention and received strong criticism for it, just because the cleric had been attacked earlier. . others.
G. Nausėda and others have further strengthened the suspicions that he is biased in this great confrontation and even incites it.
As if to justify his calls for further discussions, the president stated that he himself was studying the text of the Istanbul Convention very carefully and was concerned about it.
It is also concerned not only about the “social gender” that most concerns opponents of the Convention, but also about the possible “consequences for education and even freedom of expression.”
Without explaining or endorsing such statements, the president simply backed the fiercest opponents of the convention, arguing that the convention seeks to “wash” and eliminate gender, sexuality in general, and all this by force in the children’s educational system and the public sphere.
Does a senior government official who has repeatedly promised to be an executor himself, and in this case is calling for a debate, don’t understand what he is doing, so openly marginalized and so irresponsibly wasting ambiguous statements?
It seems that G. Nausėda is really sincerely convinced of that, because she is the best defender of the same ideological haircut and values as those “traditional and family values”.
Peace with the country’s Church leaders, most of whom sided with opponents of the convention, is also important to him.
This has been demonstrated by the president, albeit less openly, by calling for a debate not only on the legalization of relationships between heterosexual but also homosexual couples, and by avoiding a direct response to his views on the matter.
But wouldn’t it be better if the president simply asked to finally decide and formulate the political will, without hiding his own, instead of soaping up the endless rope and procrastinating with a parliament that cannot and will not decide in any way?
Instead of waving his hand in this direction, the head of state began to show other signs: he raised the idea of the Citizens Assembly.
It is precisely the gathering of ordinary citizens, selected in an unknown way by chance, that could form an opinion on the Istanbul Convention, which politicians should then take into account.
The presidency recalled that such assemblies had been convened, for example, in Ireland and France, to focus society and politicians on particularly sensitive issues such as abortion, social policy or climate change.
But the benefits and positive effects of such structures are still unclear and are debated not only in these but also in many other democracies.
The key question is, are these ways really the best way out of the crisis of traditional parties and traditional politics and democracy, or do they just exacerbate it?
After all, they give new strength to those who are reaping the main benefits of that crisis, to the rescuers of all types of hair, who present themselves as representatives of the people, not of the ‘system’ or the ‘elite’.
The presidency does not answer many of the most important questions in this case.
One of them: what could be the constitutional and political status of the assembly and the relationship with the real assembly of citizens that exists in every democracy, the parliament?
The impression is that the country’s leader, inspired by games with overlapping advice from experts in managing the pandemic, is increasingly trying to play new public relations games by letting the bubbles empty.
Or is the Presidency, continuing the struggle for power with the ruling majority, deliberately trying to heat up the political situation by taking advantage of the people’s mistrust of the country’s main authority in the Seimas?
After all, in the part of society that is openly supported and nurtured by the main opposition force, the peasants are already screaming about early elections to the Seimas or even about resistance.
So there are no signs that the heated passions of quarantine are cooling off just yet.
