Authority without power?

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda Photo: Augustas Didžgalvis (CC) commons.wikimedia.org

For the last decade, Lithuania was a country that, though small, was well known around the world. Much of this was thanks to Grybauskaitė who, as president, was called the Iron Lady for her forceful language and principled positions. She has left big shoes behind to fill. Nine candidates were brave enough to attempt to fill them. In the end, the Lithuanian public put its trust in Nausėda, a 55-year-old economist who has been working in a commercial bank for the past 18 years. He was known as someone who often appeared on national media, usually criticising the government.

Presidential debt

Nausėda, however, had one serious disadvantage – he has almost no experience in politics. He was an adviser to the Valdas Adamkus campaign in 2004, but decided not to work for Adamkus as president after the election. When he was seeking the presidential bid, Nausėda was offered support from the main opposition party, the Homeland Union, but in the end decided to run as an independent candidate. Only in the last number of days before the second round did he receive an endorsement from the leading Farmers and Greens Union. He was also supported by Adamkus.

To be an independent candidate in Lithuania is not an easy task. You are forbidden from receiving financial support from private businesses and political parties do not support you; you only can use your own money or else receive financial support directly from private individuals. Nausėda’s campaign was not cheap – it cost about 330,000 euros. His rivals started to ask questions and demanded that he publish his spending before the election. Nausėda refused, however. After the election, it was estimated that Nausėda was nearly 40,000 euros in debt. Nausėda claimed that he was going to pay the debt with his own money.

“My 2018 income declaration shows I am capable of doing that,” Nausėda said. It is impossible to know if the president was telling the truth. By law, the president’s declaration for 2018 is not public. Before the election he had to declare his wealth and income for 2017, and he will have to declare it for 2019. But there is a gap in the law which allows him to bypass the 2018 declaration. Nausėda could have disclosed how much money and wealth he and his family had last year on his own accord, but he refused to do that. This decision leaves the question open – did Nausėda really have enough money to pay his campaign bills?

Peacemaker or twaddler?

In his electoral campaign Nausėda presented himself as a peacemaker. He promised a new standard in politics, one without intrigue or fighting. When asked about his favourite basketball team, he said he supports the three main ones. He said that all the political problems can be solved with dialogue. This was understandable during the campaign, of course, when he was trying to catch voters across the political spectrum, but the people do not want a president without an opinion.

After Nausėda was elected, people started to ask if he really has one. The first test came with the reshuffling of cabinet ministers. Nausėda, in the past, was critical of the social welfare and health ministers, so many hoped he would not approve of them in a renewed cabinet. This did not happen, and in fact only three ministers actually changed, and that was due to the ruling coalition’s decision, not the president’s. Additionally, Nausėda had argued that Rokas Masiulis, the minister of transport and communications, was one of the best politicians in the cabinet. Masiulis was one of the three ministers who lost their cabinet roles.

Before the election, Nausėda said that, in domestic politics, he will employ “presidential soft power”, suggesting his moral authority. But what is the president’s word worth if outstanding ministers are being removed but those who are criticised remain? Nauseda said he could not risk the stability of government and admitted he had to accept the ministers who were proposed and had political support in parliament.

President’s party?

One explanation for Masiulis’s departure is interesting. Nausėda started to hint at the possibility of Masiulis creating a new political party (Masiulis himself has never said a word about such a plan prior). According to the constitution, the president cannot be a member of any political party. However, as Lithuania is a semi-parliamentary state, it is very important for him or her to have the backing in parliament. Nausėda’s words have led some to speculate that he may plan to follow in the footsteps of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and create his own political party as Lithuania will have parliamentary elections in 2020.

When asked about it, Nausėda explains that he was speaking about a niche that exists in the country. His chief advisor, Povilas Mačiulis, said that Nausėda is very much in favour of professionals seeking to participate in politics and to ensure a closed loop is not created. “For there to be changes, new people are needed. The president hopes that the coming elections will bring novelties, that there will be new people, who will help accomplish the main goal – the vision of a welfare state.” Mačiulis also noted that the president is not participating in any current or future party activities. Maybe not, but on July 30ththe centre of registers reserved the name for a new political entity – the Welfare State Party. As I write this, the centre has not disclosed whose initiative it was.

Nevertheless, the welfare state was the main theme of Nausėda’s campaign. He explained his five main goals, which he plans to achieve in his five year term: a reduction in income inequality; boosting the fiscal revenue from today’s 30 per cent to 35 per cent of GDP; reducing regional exclusion; more effective use of EU funds; and progress in public education.

“These indicators of the welfare state, in particular, will constitute the criteria for assessing the overall work of the government and of all the political forces. Therefore, when appointing ministers, signing laws, expressing criticisms or praise, I will assess everything based on how the institutions and officials serve the well-being of the Lithuanian people,” Nausėda said. He promised that the first step to achieve his main goal will be taken together with next year’s budget, for which the president presented his proposal.

Yet according to some economists, the budget proposal has little to do with Nausėda’s promised “welfare state”. Nerijus Mačiulis, a Swedbank economist, said it would be a sad state, rather than a welfare state, if Nausėda’s idea of increasing social security spending by 100 million euros that would go on raising pensions and disability benefits is accepted by the parliament. The prime minister and minister of finance both said that this initiative is unattainable. Nausėda, himself an economist, is criticised for putting forward such an unfeasible proposal and some have accused him of populism.

Continuity in foreign policy

The main responsibility for the president is not domestic policy, rather it is foreign affairs. And here we can see Nausėda’s first few steps. He has already visited Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Belgium and Germany. It looks as though he will continue the path that Grybauskaitė set, talking about the importance of a strong NATO and European Union. Regarding Russia, Nausėda has said he will soften rhetoric, but declared that Lithuania’s relations with Russia will not change until Moscow alters its behaviour towards Ukraine. Nausėda has not announced any plans to meet Vladimir Putin.

“What could I be talking about with Mr Putin at this point? As long as we have the situation in Ukraine, as long as the escalation of tension continues in the entire region, I see no point in exchanging diplomatic pleasantries and, importantly, I have no moral right to do so – there is nothing to celebrate, tensions are felt throughout the region,” Nausėda said in an interview with LRT TV.

Yet the biggest challenge might lie in domestic historical policy. In July, Vilnius’s mayor Remigijus Šimašius decided to take down the memorial plaque of Jonas Noreika, a pre-war Lithuanian military officer and an anti-Soviet resistance fighter, also known as Generolas Vėtra (General Storm). Šimašius said he made the decision because Noreika, the head of Šiauliai County during the Nazi occupation, signed documents establishing a Jewish ghetto and expropriating Jewish property. A huge protest broke out and Pro Patria, a nationalist organisation, produced and reinstalled a new Noreika plaque.

At first Nausėda tried to respond with calmness. He called for “a moratorium on erasing historic memory” and said that Lithuania should avoid a situation when different mayors have different policies on such painful and sensitive issues. But when the new plague was installed, Nausėda’s tone changed. He blamed Šimašius for the unwise decision, but said nothing about the placing of the new illegal plague. The president’s opinion was very different from the minister of foreign affairs, Linas Linkevičius, who noted that the hanging of the new plague will damage Lithuania’s image and could have a negative impact on relations with Israel and the United States.

Saturday’s president?

By now, the new president has given more thought to his own image than his country. As the philosopher Gintautas Mažeikis wrote in a recent column, Nausėda has authority, but he still does not have power. For the first two months he had 12 people in the department of communications, but only one in his domestic policy group. Lithuania still fondly remembers president Grybauskaitė whose words were strong and powerful. If she criticised someone you knew her words would be followed with action. She knew how to play the political game and had real power.

Nausėda, for now, is just a picture of a president. Well-educated, intellectual and a collector of antique books, he looks good on Saturday pictures from small town festivals. He knows how to talk to the average voter. But to become a real president, Nausėda has to gain real political power. Perhaps this could be achieved by the new political party being established, which could ensure a strong force for the president in parliament. Without something like this, Nausėda may take Lithuania from being a semi-parliamentary state to a full one, where the president is a ceremonial figure, only required for representation, organising forums, mediations, and beautiful pictures.

Liepa Želnienė is a journalist and local news editor at 15min.lt.

Gitanas Nausėda, Lithuania