Lithuania by Aneta Piasecka
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Lithuania by Aneta Piasecka Capital: Vilnius Population: 3.3 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$17,310 Source: !e data above was provided by !e World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Electoral Process 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Civil Society 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Independent Media 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Governance* 2.50 2.50 2.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic 2.75 Governance n/a n/a n/a 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.75 Local Democratic 2.50 Governance n/a n/a n/a 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Judicial Framework 1.75 and Independence 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Corruption 3.75 3.50 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.75 3.50 3.50 Democracy Score 2.21 2.13 2.13 2.21 2.21 2.29 2.25 2.29 2.25 2.25 * Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects. NOTE: !e ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. !e opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). !e ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. !e Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year. 340 Nations in Transit 2011 E S n 2010, Lithuania celebrated the 20th anniversary of the restoration of its independence. Over the past two decades, the country has established a functioning democracy with well-protected political and civil rights and a Irobust market economy. Lithuania joined NATO and the European Union in 2004 and the Schengen visa-free zone in late 2007. Following impressive gains and recognition in the foreign policy arena, much- needed public sector reforms in Lithuania have been stagnating. Public apathy and alienation from the political process have deepened, and trust in major democratic institutions—including the parliament, government, political parties, and courts— has continued to decline. !e dramatic economic recession of 2009 continued throughout 2010, resulting in growing unemployment, expansion of the country’s informal economy, and rising emigration. !e center-right ruling coalition of the Homeland Union –Lithuanian Christian Democrats (HULCD), the Liberal and Center Union (LCU), the Lithuanian Liberal Movement (LLM), and the Rising Nation Party (RNP) survived its second year in power, despite squabbling among smaller coalition members and frequent criticism from President Dalia Grybauskaitė. President Grybauskaitė— whose 2009 election campaign focused on reducing corruption and fighting energy sector monopolies—has been vocal in her criticism of the Lithuanian government for lack of progress in these and other areas. Government efforts to cut spending began reining in Lithuania’s public sector deficit, though this figure remained high at year’s end. !e state also conducted an unprecedented appraisal of all publicly- owned commercial assets. National Democratic Governance. !e center-right ruling coalition continued to focus on Lithuania’s economic and fiscal challenges. Although the coalition lost its parliamentary majority in the spring of 2010, it garnered enough support to pass the 2011 national budget. President Grybauskaitė enjoyed solid public support as she undertook a sweeping reshuffle of top officials. After a dramatic fall in GDP and budget revenues in 2009, the economy and inflows into the nation’s coffers stabilized as the government continued to squeeze the bureaucratic apparatus. Lithuania’s national governance rating remains unchanged at 2.75. Electoral Process. As of 2010, non-party members were allowed to run individually in local government elections in 2011, but the parliament did not uphold the Constitutional Court’s ruling to allow civil movements to run for local government office. Political parties remained the most unpopular public institution in Lithuania, supported by only 3 percent of the population. !e parliament Lithuania 341 received a blow in late 2010 when it failed to impeach one of two MPs, partners in crime who, according to the Constitutional Court, had breached the constitution and parliamentary oath. Lithuania’s electoral process rating remains unchanged at 1.75. Civil Society. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were affected by the economic crisis and severe shortfalls in funding. New grassroots movements were established with obvious political ambitions in light of the dramatically low public trust in existing political parties and the upcoming local government elections in 2011, where non-party members (albeit not grassroots movements) may participate for the first time. Lithuania’s civil society rating remains unchanged at 1.75. Independent Media. Lithuania’s media market suffered from growing taxes levied on journalists, as well as low advertising revenues. !ere are no signs of open censorship in the mass media, and most outlets remained highly critical of both the national and local governments during the year. However, independent media often presented one-sided views and lacked investigative depth. Meanwhile, the use of online media continued to expand rapidly. In 2010, 60 percent of the population used the internet, a slight increase from 2009, with the most popular use being the online reading of newspapers and journals. Progress in online media development and usage offset a continuing decline in the quality of media programs and watchdog media; Lithuania’s independent media rating remains unchanged at 1.75. Local Democratic Governance. In 2010, Lithuania’s ten regional administrations were abolished, yet the reform was strongly criticized for not removing ambiguities in the division of power or making governance at the municipal level more transparent and accountable. !e long-running debates on direct mayoral elections again failed to produce a result, although the parliament finally allowed non-party members to appear on proportional ballot lists in local government elections. Owing to a lack of visible improvements, Lithuania’s local democratic governance rating remains unchanged at 2.50. Judicial Framework and Independence. Despite Lithuania’s widely acknowledged need for court reform, no breakthrough was reached in 2010, with only minor, slow-paced changes accomplished. Public distrust of courts grew dramatically during the year, reaching 44 percent. Reform of the penal system began in 2010, entailing prison mergers and cuts in the prison management apparatus. Lithuania’s judicial framework and independence rating remains unchanged at 1.75. Corruption. Lithuania’s national anticorruption program, updated in 2009, stipulates clear-cut objectives, tasks, and assessment criteria for anticorruption work, including an increase in the number of e-services provided by the State Tax Inspectorate, publication of land-planning projects online, and anticorruption advertisements in the media. However, the implementation of the content of the 342 Nations in Transit 2011 anticorruption program has moved slowly. Lithuania’s corruption rating remains unchanged at 3.50. Outlook for 2011. Lithuania’s government is expected to survive another year, although it would find itself subject to reappointment by the parliament if even one cabinet member were to change. Local government elections will be held in February 2011, where the opposition parties are likely to perform better than the members of the center-right ruling coalition. Prospects for healthcare and court reform remain fairly dim, while the coalition may strengthen its push in the fight against corruption. Although the economic situation is predicted to improve in 2011, the current wave of emigration may persist. Unemployment will continue to be an issue, although it may start to gradually decline. A search for a strategic investor in a new nuclear power plant will likely dominate the energy-sector agenda in 2011. Lithuania 343 M R National Democratic Governance 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 n/a n/a n/a 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.75 2.75 Since the onset of Lithuania’s recession in 2009, economic and fiscal challenges have been the focus of the center-right ruling coalition between the Homeland Union–Lithuanian Christian Democrats (HULCD), the Lithuanian Liberal Movement (LLM), the Liberal and Center Union (LCU), and the Rising Nation Party (RNP). Polarization and infighting among the smaller coalition partners did not significantly undermine the work of government in 2010, though it left analysts and even coalition members in constant expectation of a coalition breakdown. !e ruling coalition lost its parliamentary majority in the spring of 2010 after the defection of one HULCD party member. However, this change was preceded by a support agreement between the coalition and the Lithuanian Peasants’ Popular Union (LPPU), a party with three parliament members. LPPU promised to support the coalition until after the vote on the 2011 budget, but withdrew its support when the draft budget law was submitted to parliament without first being negotiated with the cabinet. In the fall of 2010, the LCU and RNP parliamentary factions merged into the United Group, thus enhancing their stability. Before the merger, each of the two parliamentary factions possessed only the minimum number of members (seven) required to establish a faction. !ree ministers left Prime Minister Audrius Kubilius’s cabinet in 2010.