Democratic State-Building in Post-Communist Lithuania -
Ginta Palubinskas
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20190713174225/http://www.lituanus.org/2005/05_4_2Palubinskas.htm
LITUANUS
L
ITHUANIAN
Q
UARTERLY
J
OURNAL OF
A
RTS AND
S
CIENCES
Volume 51, No.4 - Winter 2005
Editor of this issue: M. G. Slav?nas
ISSN 0024-5089
Copyright ? 2005 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.
|
|
DEMOCRATIC STATE-BUILDING
IN
POST-COMMUNIST LITHUANIA
GINTA T. PALUBINSKAS
George Mason University
The collapse of Communism in Central
and Eastern Europe released a fifty-year grip on the region and began
the process of transforming the countries into democracies with
market-dominated economic systems. New constitutions replaced those
implemented during Soviet rule, creating legal frameworks for the
development of democratic societies. Laws and institutional structures
were changed and soon the basic hallmarks of democracy ? the right of
association, freedom of assembly, numerous political parties, free
elections, the rule of law, and peaceful transfers of power ? were
acknowledged and evident.
But, the establishment of legal
foundations for democracy in post-Communist Central and Eastern
European countries was only a step in the post-Communist
democratization process. Since democratization changed the nature and
function of the existing political systems to ones based on and
functioning according to a radically different set of principles, it
necessitated a fundamental shift in the norms, values, and behaviors of
their populations. A culture supporting independence and a democratic
way of life had to emerge in each post-Communist Central and Eastern
European society that sought to consolidate its democracy.
It is well-known that Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania did not have identical
experiences under Communist rule and that the Eastern European
countries differed both from each other as well as from Lithuania,
Latvia and Estonia, which had been drawn directly into the Soviet
system. Consequently, it stands to reason that their democratization
experiences would differ as well. In general, the democratization
process in Eastern Europe focused on decentralization: the shifting of
power away from the state and to the citizens. The countries
emerging directly from the
framework of the former Soviet Union had to meet the additional
challenge of reestablishing their own identities ? both within their
own borders and to the outside world. Thus the first step in
Lithuania?s, Latvia?s, and Estonia?s democratization process was
state-building: gaining control of their territorial borders as well as
over the institutions of power. This was followed by the shifting of
the balance of power away from the state as a dominating entity, which
citizens depended on for survival, to one more con?ducive to a
partnership between citizen and State.
Both the Eastern European
countries as well as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia began stripping
away the Soviet cultural overlay. In the initial phase of
democratization, they took control of institutions of power, severed
links with Moscow, and removed Soviet symbols to signify the end of
Soviet rule. They abolished the single-party system and decentralized
their economies, demonstrating a huge shift in power away from the
state to the people. Free elections and the peaceful exchange of power
between incoming and outgoing state officials con?firmed the people?s
authority over the state.
By 2003, the Freedom House
Nations in Transit Democracy Rankings for the scoring period between
January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002 showed that seven of the nine
Central and Eastern European countries were ranked as consolidated
democracies while the remaining two were considered to be democracies
exhibiting some consolidation (See table below).
Table 1
|
Freedom House Nations in Transit
Democracy Rankings 2003
1
|
Consolidated
Democracies
|
Democracies
(Some consolidation)
|
Czech Republic
|
Bulgaria
|
Estonia
|
Rumania
|
Hungary
|
|
Latvia
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
Poland
|
|
Slovakia
|
|
Changes in laws and institutions
eliminated some of the structures and relationships that existed in the
Soviet system. Multiparty systems replaced the single-party Soviet
political system; people regained the right of association, freedom of
assembly, and freedom of movement.
In 2004, the majority of Central and
Eastern European countries continued to be ranked as consolidated
democracies, seven of the nine countries entered NATO, and on May 1,
2004 became members of the European Union.
Table 2
|
Central and Eastern
European Country Status 2004
2
|
Country Name
|
Consolidated
Democracy
|
NATO
Member
|
EU
Member
|
Bulgaria
|
NO
|
NO
|
NO
|
Czech Republic
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
Estonia
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
Hungary
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
Latvia
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
Lithuania
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
Poland
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
Rumania*
|
NO
|
NO
|
NO
|
Slovakia
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
* Democracy with some consolidation
|
Table 3
|
Proportion
of Citizens that Agree that
Their Country?s Parliament Should Be Closed
and Political Parties Banned
3
|
Bulgaria
|
25%
|
Czech Republic
|
27%
|
Estonia
|
30%
|
Hungary
|
12%
|
Latvia
|
38%
|
Lithuania
|
44%
|
Poland
|
19%
|
Rumania*
|
21%
|
Slovakia
|
40%
|
Yet, despite the progress Central and
Eastern European countries have made on the formal level, evidence also
shows that they remain fragile democracies. In a 2001 opinion poll,
substantial portions of each population said that, in theory, they
would support the closing of their parliaments and the banning of
political parties ? in other words, to do away with two quintessential
aspects of democracy (See Table 3).
Table 1 and Table 3 provide an
interesting contrast: on the one hand, formal democratic procedures and
institutions have been introduced in each of these countries, on the
other, substantial portions of their populations still lack the
democratic spirit. Table 3 shows that after more than a decade of
democratization, economic transition, and on the threshold of EU and
NATO membership ? a clear reintegration into the West ? a considerable
number of people (28% of those who took part in the 2001 poll) were
still reticent to embrace democracy. On average, a greater proportion
(37%) of people in countries emerging directly from the framework of
the Soviet Union expressed support for actions opposed to democracy
than the proportion (24%) of those polled in Eastern European
countries. It stands to reason, however, that countries that were fully
occupied and subjected to complete dominance and a prolonged period of
terror, coercion, and threats by the Soviet Union would take longer to
reestablish a concept of individuality, self-worth and independence
than their neighbors who experienced some degree of freedom during
Soviet rule.
Lithuania, one of the first countries
to break from the Soviet Union after more than fifty years of Soviet
occupation and to begin the process of democratization and
reintegration into Western civilization, can be used as an example of
both the progress in and the challenges to democratization in
post-Soviet Central and Eastern Europe. This paper examines Lithuania?s
democratic development by measuring how Lithuania?s democratic
processes have worked during the nation?s first presidential
impeachment process.
Democratic State-Building in
Lithuania
After declaring independence,
Lithuania discarded the Soviet system of governance and reorganized
itself as a constitutional democracy based on a constitution that vests
the powers of government in a popularly elected president, a unicameral
parliament, a government headed by a prime minister and an appointed
judiciary. Over the course of the first twelve years following the
reestablishment of its independence, Lithuania increasingly
decentralized and democratized its institutions, making its government
more efficient, transparent, and increasingly more reliable. During
that time, the country enjoyed peaceful exchanges of power following
elections, developed one of the most rapidly growing economies in the
area, and seemed to be successfully overcoming the Soviet legacy as it
prepared to join NATO and the European Union in 2004.
The third post-independence
presidential elections held in 2002, with a second round in January
2003, yielded surprising results. President Valdas Adamkus was unseated
by Rolandas Paksas, stunt pilot and construction business owner, twice
ex-mayor of Vilnius and twice prime minister. The results were even
more surprising given each candidate?s record. Adamkus had successfully
brought the nation to the threshold of NATO and EU membership and had
promoted Lithuania as a reliable partner worldwide. Paksas had no
foreign policy experience, a record of changing party allegiances and,
at opportune times, resigning from all political posts that he had held
in the past. However, Paksas was widely known as a young and daring
stunt pilot, and he campaigned vigorously in the countryside while the
campaign of the elderly Adamkus, assured of success, appeared
complacent and was content to concentrate on its base in Vilnius.
Moreover, the Paksas campaign made unrealistic promises, such as
raising pensions, that won him broad popular support, but which in
reality were impossible to fulfill because they fell outside of the
president?s constitutional powers. Lithuania?s president oversees
Lithuania?s foreign policy but holds little formal power in domestic
affairs. Since he is elected by the people, he can assert moral
authority over a wide range of issues, but he does not have the power
to raise pensions.
Lithuania?s Presidential
Scandal
Ten months later, in October 2003, a
presidential scandal erupted, testing the strength of Lithuania?s
democratic institutions and rocking the nation as a whole. On October
30, Lithuania?s State Security Department issued a report to parliament
linking Paksas, his Advisor on Security Remigijus A?as, and his main
campaign contributor Yuri Borisov, Russian businessman, with ties to
international criminal groups. That evening, Paksas denied the
accusations in a televised address to the nation. Lithuania?s
Parliament (Seimas) held an emergency session which was also broadcast
to the nation. During the course of the session, some of the secretly
recorded telephone conversations linking the President to organized
crime were played. On them, individuals with ties to organized crime
discussed deals that had been made with Paksas before the elections in
January. On one of the tapes, Borisov, the chief contributor to
Paksas?s presidential election campaign, was heard threatening the
President for reneging on a deal the two had made prior to the
election. The news stunned the nation. On November 4, the Seimas formed
a special parliamentary commission to determine whether Paksas posed a
threat to national security, had violated the constitution, or had
broken his presidential oath. The special commission, which became
known as the Sakalas Commission after the parliamentarian heading it,
immediately decided to keep its hearings as public as possible, on the
principle that the public has a right to know the facts upon which it
would base its report. Consequently, the commission?s hearings were
televised live, allowing citizens throughout the country to hear all
evidence except that which had to remain classified due to national
security requirements.
As the scandal unfolded, public calls
for Paksas to step down grew. On one occasion, 5,000 people marched
through Vilnius demanding that Paksas resign. Paksas continued to
insist that he would not resign and began traveling across Lithuania to
meet with supporters. His visits strained communities and encouraged
conflict as he urged his supporters to ?remember the names of those who
did not support him? ? words that stirred up memories of the Soviet
era, when neighbors spied on neighbors and ?other? meant ?enemy.?
On December 1, the Sakalas Commission
issued a ten-page report which confirmed that the State Security
Department?s report ? alleging ties with the Russian mafia and secret
service ? was accurate, that Paksas had personally leaked secret
information, and that he constituted a threat to Lithuania?s national
security. Seimas then asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the
legality of Paksas?s decision to grant citizenship to Borisov as a
payback for financing his election campaign. On December 31,
Lithuania?s Constitutional Court determined that the decree by Rolandas
Paksas granting citizenship to Yuri Borisov, the main backer of his
campaign, was unconstitutional. The reading of the court?s verdict was
broadcast live.
In the interim, 86 Members of
Parliament had signed a document stating that they would vote to launch
impeachment hearings ? 85 votes out of 141 are needed to impeach the
President. Impeachment proceeding were begun against Paksas on December
16. On February 19, 2004, following a thorough investigation, the
impeachment commission ? made up of six parliamentarians and six legal
experts ? reported that all six impeachment charges leveled against
Paksas were well-founded. The commission?s findings were read aloud to
Parliament and televised live. The reading took seven hours. Parliament
next turned the matter over to the Constitutional Court for review to
determine whether Paksas had committed a grave violation of the
Constitution and his presidential oath.
The Constitutional Court took the
matter under review and on March 31, 2004 found Paksas guilty of both.
He had breached the constitution when he granted Lithuanian citizenship
to Yuri Borisov as a payback for financing his political campaign. He
had violated his oath of office when he leaked secret information to
Borisov as well as applied personal pressure on the directors and
shareholders of the enterprise
?
emaitijos
Keliai
to have shares of the enterprise transferred to
individuals close to him. The Constitutional Court?s reading of its
finding was broadcast live.
Once the Constitutional Court had
rendered its verdict, all that remained was for Parliament to vote on
whether or not to impeach Paksas for grave violation of the
constitution and for breaking his oath.
On April 6, 2004, the Parliament of
Lithuania convened for a special session to vote on whether or not to
impeach Rolandas Paksas. The session was chaired by the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Vytautas Grei?ius, and televised
live. With 115 of 136 members of parliament in attendance, the three
charges against Paksas were read and a vote taken by secret ballot. The
fact that secret balloting was used is significant in that it assured a
fair vote ? members of parliament could vote their conscience rather
than vote according to their faction?s instructions.
On the first charge of impeachment ?
the unconstitutional granting of citizenship to Russian national Yuri
Borisov ? of the 115 ballots distributed, 114 were returned, of which
103 were valid and 11 invalid. Of the 103 valid ballots, 86 were cast
to impeach Paksas based on this charge ? one more than required by law,
had all 141 members of parliament been present. On the second charge of
impeachment ? leaking secret information ? of the 115 ballots
distributed, 114 were returned, of which ten were invalid. Of the 104
valid ballots, 86 were cast to impeach Paksas based on this charge ?
again, one more than required by law had all 141 members of parliament
been present. On the final charge ? using his office to unfairly
influence the directors and shareholders of
?emaitijos Keliai
? 115 ballots were distributed, 115 ballots were returned, of which 102
were valid. Of these 102 ballots, 89 were cast to impeach Paksas on
this charge ? four more than required by law for impeachment had all
141 members of parliament been present. Rolandas Paksas had been
impeached on all three charges against him. He had spent one year, two
months, and twenty days in office. The presidential scandal had lasted
six months ? nearly half his time in office.
Lithuania?s empty presidential seat
was quickly filled using the emergency line of succession: the
President of Parliament, Art?ras Paulauskas, was sworn in as Acting
President of Lithuania and Vice-President of Parliament ?eslovas
Jur??nas as the Acting President of Parliament. Early presidential
elections were immediately set for June 13th.
Paksas wanted to run in the
presidential elections to replace himself. Since this defied logic,
Parliament amended the election law on May 4, prohibiting an impeached
individual from running for the presidency for five years following his
removal from office. Paksas supporters in Parliament appealed to the
Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of the amendment.
The Constitutional Court agreed to take the matter under review. On May
25, the Constitutional Court ruled that the amendment was
unconstitutional and stated unequivocally that individuals impeached
for gravely breaching Lithuania?s constitution or for breaking their
oath of office could never again run for the presidency, nor could they
hold any other office that required them to swear an oath to the nation
since they had already proven incapable of honoring it.
Lithuania?s first presidential
impeachment crisis tested the strength of Lithuania?s democratic
institutions and showed Lithuania?s democratic system to be firmly in
place. Throughout the presidential crisis, Lithuania continued to
exhibit all of the traits of a consolidated democracy as defined by
Linz and Stepan (1996), two leading thinkers in democratization theory:
the rule of law remained in force; citizens continued to organize
themselves into groups and movements; its political and economic
systems continued to function.
As the crisis unfolded, lawmakers
sought to keep the public informed of the situation, striving both to
maintain transparency in the proceedings as well as to allow citizens
to gain an enlightened understanding of the matter by broadcasting
parliamentary and court proceedings live. Despite Paksas?s efforts to
instigate unrest, Lithuanian citizens maintained calm. They gathered
peacefully either to call for the resignation of the nation?s president
or to support him. In the end, only 500 people came to show their
support for Paksas on the day of his impeachment, but they voiced their
opinions freely, unhindered by those who disagreed.
The early elections showed how deeply
the citizens of Lithuania have internalized democratic norms and
values. In the first round of voting during the early presidential
elections, three of the candidates were eliminated, leaving two: Valdas
Adamkus, the candidate reflecting Western values, held 30.18% of the
vote, and Kazimira Prunskien?, the candidate backed by Paksas,
espousing closer ties with Russia and thus reflecting a return to
Eastern values held 20.6% of the votes. On June 27, 2004, Valdas
Adamkus was voted into office with 51.51% of the votes and a peaceful
political transition occurred.
In the six months that followed,
Lithuania reestablished its international prestige (Ba?ulis 2004c, p.
14; Kulakauskas 2004, p. 82; Sakalas 2004, p. 23). International
dignitaries resumed visits to Lithuania, and President Adamkus is a
welcome visitor abroad. In November 2004, President Adamkus was invited
by the Ukraine?s outgoing President, Leonid Kuchma, to assist in
negotiations between Viktor Janukovich and Viktor Yuschenko following
the second round in Ukraine?s presidential elections. Adamkus promoted
a plan that called for Yuschenko and Janukovich to repeat the disputed
second round of the presidential elections. This is the route that the
Ukraine took, and President Adamkus has been widely congratulated in
helping to resolve the crisis (Ba?iulis 2004a, p. 36). Six months after
Lithuanian voters confirmed their commitment to a democratic future,
Lithuania established itself as a champion of democracy in the region
(Ba?iulis 2004b, p. 34). The presidential crisis proved to be just
another bump in the road to Lithuania?s democratic
consolidation.
Conclusions
Evidence shows that all of the
post-Soviet Central and Eastern European countries have democratic
institutions that work; it also shows that democratic culture needs to
be internalized more deeply by the people of the region. EU and NATO
membership implies a trend in that direction, as does increased
international recognition of the countries as democracies.
1. ?Nations in Transit: New Democracy Score Rankings 2004,? available
from
http://www.freedomhouse.org
; ?Seven New
Members Join NATO,? available from
http://www.nato.int/
docu/update/2004/03-march/329a.htm
; ?The Member States,?
available from
http://www.eurunion.org/states/home.htm
https://www. schengenvisainfo.com/eu- countries/
2. Ibid.
3.
Veidas
, 11 March 2004:32.
WORKS CITED
Ba?iulis, Audrius. ?U?duotis ? susigr??inti ?mogi?k?j? orum?.?
Veidas
53-1 (December 30, 2004): 36?37.
???. ?Ukraina lemia demokratijos ateit? visoje Ryt? Europoje.?
Veidas
50 (December 9, 2004): 34-35.
???. ?U?duotis ? susigr??inti ?mogi?k?j? orum?.? Veidas 53-1 (December
30, 2004): 14-15.
Bugajski, Janusz.
Political Parties of Eastern Europe: A
Guide to Politics in the Post-Communist Era
. New York: M.E.
Sharpe, 2002.
Dahl, Robert A.
On Democracy
. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1998.
Hannigan, David. The Viability of Democratic Consolidation in
Post-Soviet Russia. The Ixyl Institute, 2002. Available from http:
//www.ixl.co.uk/poli/demo-consol.
Kubilius, Andrius. ?Keturiolikta sukaktis ? paauglyst? ar branda??
Veidas
11 (March 11, 2004): 33.
Kulakauskas, Antanas. ?2004 met? balansas.?
Veidas
53-1 (December 30, 2004): 82.
Lietuvos Rytas
. Issues spanning October, 2003 ?
June, 2004.
?The Member States,? available from http://www.eurunion.org
/states/home.htm; Internet; accessed 14 July 2004.
?Nations in Transit: New Democracy Score Rankings 2004,? available from
http://www.freedomhouse.org; Internet; accessed 31 May 2004.
Palubinskas, Ginta T. ?Economic Transformation ? The Full Societal
Transformation Thesis.? Ph.D. dissertation. George Mason University.
???. ?Testing the Strength of Democracy: Lithuania?s Presidential
Crisis.? Paper presented at the 2004 Midwest Slavic Conference, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio, February 26-27, 2004.
??? ?Desovietization: Democratic State-Building in Lithuania.?
Presented at the 9th Annual World Convention of the Association for the
Study of Nationalities (ASN), Columbia University, April 15-17, 2004.
???? ?Democracy?s Growing Pains in Central and Eastern Europe:
Lithuania?s Presidential Crisis.? Paper presented at the Nineteenth
Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (AABS) Conference,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 3-5, 2004.
Ro??nas, Art?ras, and Audrius Ba?iulis. ?Sunkus atsisveikinimas su
Rusija.?
Veidas
11 (March 11, 2004): 28-32.
Sakalas, Aloyzas. ?Nebaigto apsivalymo metai.? Veidas (December 30,
2004): 23.
?Seven New Members Join NATO,? available from
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/03-march/e0329a.htm; Internet;
accessed 14 July 2004.