2024-08-04 13:26:47
Although Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė, who announced this decision, emphasized that she had no complaints against any of these ministers, when presenting the decree to President Gitan Nausėda, she immediately named two specific names that could already replace the two harshly criticized members of the Government.
A. Dulkis is proposed to be exchanged for Vice Minister Aurimas Pečkauskas, K. Navickas for conservative Kazi Starkevičius.
True, as soon as the news appeared that I.Šimonytė somehow condescended to G.Nausėda and overloaded the Government based on his observations, political scientists immediately put forward a version of political exchanges. There is almost no doubt that there were also talks about a smoother transfer of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gabrielias Landsbergis, to the European Commission (EC).
The same opinion is shared by the political scientists who spoke on the “Actualusis interview” program of “Žiniai Radio” – according to them, G. Nausėda is now “leading”, but we will see soon whether he will be the winner in this situation.
Will it be agreed to “draw”?
Matas Baltrukevičius, an associate analyst at the Vilnius Institute of Political Analysis (VPAI), said that I. Šimonytė’s verdict did not surprise him too much, but this case of changing ministers is rather exceptional.
“Usually, we saw different procedures – that the president meets with one or another minister, some kind of conversation takes place, then it often happened that we heard perhaps less ambiguous statements from the president’s side, but a little more concrete rhetoric, and now everything happened in a certain sense behind closed doors the door.
Yes, it was not a surprise that these two ministers were replaced, but the president and the prime minister managed to control this situation in such a way that there was no way that some side would burst out with emotions, so that a lot of information was released to the media – the whole process was managed quite constructively, although it was a little was different from how it used to happen in similar situations”, the political scientist noted.
According to M. Baltrukevičius, replacing these two ministers was probably the easiest, because the president was obviously interested in replacing the representatives delegated by the “liberals” or the Liberal Movement, but specifically the conservatives.
“A. Dulkys is not a party member, K. Navickas was so downgraded by his fellow party members that it is obvious that his positions in the party are not very strong at the moment, both areas have their own problems and complexities.
Maybe in general it would be difficult to find a minister of health protection who was universally popular and had a lot of support, but if the minister of agriculture is fiercely criticized even by liberals, it is obvious that not everything was good in these areas and when talking about them”, explained the specialist.
“If, speaking in sports terms, now someone tries to talk about whether the president won here, then I would say that the president is in the lead, and when we know who is going to the European Commission, what candidates are proposed, then we will know whether the president won or here it was agreed to play a draw”, added M. Baltrukevičius.
According to Vytautas Magnus University’s (VDU) associate professor, political scientist Ignos Kalpoks, the signals that were sent from the Presidency that those ministers who are in conflict with their communities should be replaced already clearly indicated that the finger is being pointed not only at K.Navickas, but also to A. Dulkis, because a lot of accusations have been pouring in on him recently.
“Another thing – we can also remember the process of appointing ministers at the beginning of the term, where there were also certain personalities – here we can discuss whether legends are more spread about the personalities between G. Nausėda and A. Dulkis, or whether there are actually certain challenges there – but there were certainly many disturbances for this particular candidacy from the very beginning.
It is quite natural that now the opportunity was used to essentially end the career of A. Dulkis as a minister”, said I. Kalpokas.
True, according to experts, it is still more difficult to explain why the prime minister chose the deputy minister of health protection, and not, for example, the conservative Jurgita Sejonienė, whose name was mentioned in this context, but these two situations, according to them, are different.
“In the medical community, maybe there was not as radical indignation against the minister as in the agricultural community, and in reality, maybe for some reason it was decided that the vice minister is better.
After all, it is not necessarily the case that the politicians themselves rush before the elections, and finding people like Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė and K.Starkevičius, who agree to jump on the train for a while, is not such a simple scenario. It is to hope that a person will come from outside, such a scenario was hardly possible,” M. Baltrukevičius thought.
No one doubts what the real goal is
According to I. Kalpokos, there are still no signs of G. Nausėda’s enthusiasm to drive around and not approve two new candidacies.
“In general, the whole situation, how those changes of ministers took place, that these were such negotiations behind closed doors, probably shows that those changes were discussed, debated, and for now I would definitely believe more in the idea of in-kind exchanges,” commented the political scientist, speaking about the blessing of the European Commissioner’s portfolio.
Also, according to the associate professor of VMU, for a long time I.Šimonytė had a strategy to keep the composition of the Government unchanged for as long as possible, she “stood as a wall” for all the ministers, but recently the gates have opened and now we have both forced and behind-the-scenes withdrawals of ministers.
“I think that until now K. Navicks simply hit the wave in his favor when those ministers were protected. Now, as the elections approach and the political circumstances change, sometimes the retained ministers are strategically changed to other political parties”, the interviewer explained.
Political scientist M. Baltrukevičius considered that it is difficult to expect fundamental changes in the areas of the replaced ministers in the next few months.
“But there is one more aspect that works a little in favor of those in power – if these changes had not taken place at all, especially due to the activities of the Minister of Agriculture, it would have been difficult for the candidates of the Fatherland Union to fight in the election campaign and debates in the regions.
I’m not saying that K. Starkevičius will radically change the situation, but at least some minimal change will take place, the Government and the Homeland Union will be a little calmer on certain issues when they have to endure criticism from opponents in debates,” he said.
For his part, I. Kalpokas did not doubt that the donation of the ministers was made due to the smooth path of G. Landsbergis to the European Commission.
“I usually look at politics quite cynically, and in this place, in-kind exchange seems to me to be the most realistic scenario.
At the end of the day, the issue of the European Commissioner will still have to be resolved somehow, and it can be resolved in several ways: either to prolong the confrontation, where in the end only one side can win, or to tie it to other things, other political benefits, which would allow both sides to exit to the winners.
I would see the process of the change of ministers as an opportunity to let off steam and tension a little, and by combining those two things, which should not be related in any way in theory, to create a situation where in different contexts both sides will be able to show that we have won.
The Presidency, that they have achieved a change of ministers, the Union of the Fatherland – maybe after all send G. Landsbergis to the EC”, taught I. Kalpokas.
According to M. Baltrukevičius, G. Nausėda probably did not want to force himself into a corner, so he spoke about the ministers to be replaced with subtle hints, he wanted to get all possible options on his table.
The political scientist is convinced – for now, the country’s leader is not risking anything if he promises that he will not block G. Landsberg’s candidacy, besides, G. Nausėda can change his opinion even at the last minute.
“If we put together all the statements of the president and his advisers on the issue of the EC member, we would also find some where G. Landsbergis was simply named as one of the possible candidates, so in reality the president is again keeping all options on the table for as long as possible.
In reality, in this case, by promising that he will not block G. Landsbergis, he is not risking anything too much, because it is not a fact that those in power will agree, (…) the other thing is that he did not give any written promise, he will be able to change his mind even at the last minute.
I. Šimonytė will not come and say that we told you that we would not discuss these issues, but in fact we had an agreement,” said M. Balturkevičius.
2024-08-04 13:26:47