Evaldas Nekrašius. The Freedom Party Dilemma

  "Founded less than two years ago, the Freedom Party entered the Seimas with unexpectedly easy access. However, overcoming the first obstacle course proved difficult. The long-announced draft law on partnership has not yet been finally agreed with the partners, and it seems that some conservatives and liberals will not vote for it. Ratification of the Istanbul Convention has been postponed until the autumn. An amendment to the Code of Administrative Offenses providing for liability for hate speech has proposed but has been withdrawn immediately. It will be difficult for the Freedom Party to keep its election promises. Coalition partners are reluctant to unconditionally support Freedom Party initiatives that do not have wider public support. These are quite chaotic and, most importantly, not considered further. Even the procedure for submitting amendments to the law is ill-considered. The impression is that the Freedom Party sometimes shoots itself in the legs. It is impossible to follow the principle of "all or nothing" in the ruling coalition. 

It seems to ignore the basic rules of the political, especially coalition, game. It is impossible to follow the principle of "all or nothing" in the ruling coalition. Public doubts about the sustainability of the coalition stem from the fact that Freedom Party politicians, even after becoming parliamentarians, continue to follow this radical principle and are still in a hurry - "here and now". The party's initiatives have received many critical words. But more painful are probably the results of a recent population survey. A poll conducted by Vilmorus on April 8-17 showed that the Freedom Party is now supported by only 4 percent of voters. At the same time, it became clear that Aušrinė Armonaitė, the leader of the party leading the Ministry of Economy and Innovation, and Evelina Dobrovolska, the Minister of Justice, are the worst evaluated of all the ministers. For 4 percent the party does not seem to be too worried, as in the pre-election poll of Vilmorus she had received only 2%, although she subsequently collected 9. 

In the election, the leader's assessment is of greater concern. One can guess how somewhat windy her appearance, which was a plus during the election campaign, became a minus to the Ministers. It did not help to divide left and right, not fulfilled, promises and a strange interest in announcing and commenting on the government's pending decisions. The Freedom Party also has more serious problems that will not go away even after the end of the pandemic, forcing it to respond to a rapidly changing situation and change political decisions. 

Those problems are not so much political as ideological. The party has so far failed to define its ideological identity at least a little more precisely, to explain what separates it from the Liberal Movement, and to refine its political profile. The challenges for the Lithuanian Freedom Party are little different from those faced by similar parties and movements in other parts of the world. The members of the party do not seem to realize their seriousness. 

 The party participated in the Seimas elections with a fairly comprehensive program. In concrete terms, it surpasses the programs of other parties and looks quite solid. The program touches on many issues and topics - from the expansion of the kindergarten network (very relevant for young parents) to the constant review of state functions. However, very little attention is paid to the ideological identity of the new party - only one page out of 163. True, it is the first and is called “Why the Freedom Party?” A curious person will learn from it if he did not know until now that the Freedom Party is a liberal party. This should not be in the slightest doubt, as the authors of the program emphasize that party members take the initiative to "develop a policy based on liberal values", are convinced that "the core value of liberalism is individual freedom", see that Lithuanian politics "lacks liberal ideas" and calls on you to "become a part of Lithuania's liberal breakthrough". The word "liberal" and its derivative - "liberalism" are used 5 times on the page. 

We will not find the words "left" or "New Left" in it and the other 162. And yet the place of the Freedom Party in the Lithuanian political spectrum cannot be understood without discussing the relationship between the party's attitudes and the ideas of the New Left. I am not referring to the Left-95 initiative, which quickly faded in Lithuania, but to the New Left in Western Europe and North America. The dilemma of the Freedom Party mentioned in the title of the text is the necessity to choose between liberalism and the New Left, to choose one way or another of the party's ideological and political development.

 In case of liberalism, everything seems clear. But why the New Left? The most concise answer is this: the Freedom Party’s recent political initiatives are from the political repertoire of the New Left and are little different from the New Left initiatives in the US, France or Spain. 

It is not uncommon to hear that the New Left is a movement that was most active in the 20th century in the seventies and eighties, but this is not true or, more precisely, not the whole truth. In fact, at that time, he was born and spread his wings very quickly. There was less talk about the New Left later, but its ideas developed further. Participants in the movement withdrew from the streets and squares where noisy demonstrations took place before the Vietnam War and the waves of the Student Revolution rolled over, and moved to other spaces. Students returned to the auditoriums. 

Still, many former demonstrators did not abandon previously cherished ideals after graduating. Graduates of elite universities occupied high positions and the movement gradually overwhelmed or almost overwhelmed universities and the media. In the past, it controlled only public spaces - and that’s only for a very short time. Everyone knows that the media is the fourth power. But, from a social point of view, universities are probably even more important - they tend to have the views not only of journalists, but also of other influential opinion leaders and decision-makers, as well as politicians. 

So what is the New Left? This is the name of a movement that is not based on a cohesive, systematic political philosophy. He is guided by ideas of different origins - socialist, anarchist, feminist, postmodern. The movement also lacks organizational unity, as different participants are concerned about different issues, some about the democratization of universities, others about discrimination against women, racial, ethnic and other minorities, and others about drug decriminalization. Still, despite the diversity of currents and ideas, it must be acknowledged that one thinker made a particularly strong influence on the movement. This is Karl Marx, who is also a source of inspiration for the Socialists, Social Democrats and Communists (Old Left). This fact explains why the movement is referred to as the New Left. 

The second feature of the New Left is opposition to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is in favor of a free market, economic deregulation and a 'small', non-spending state. From Marx, directly or indirectly, and through intermediaries, the New Left has taken the view that the relationship between oppressors (exploiters) and the oppressed (exploited) determines other social relations. This approach New Left modified. Oppressors have become discriminatory and victims have become discriminated. This technical term is, in fact, rarely used in a social context. It is best, from the New Left’s point of view, to talk about the rapists and their victims.  

Marx was convinced that there must be a fierce class struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. From the New Left’s perspective, class struggle is not the driving force behind history. The very concept of two-class struggle, with the rapid growth and strengthening of the third, the middle, loses its basis. 

Rather, we need to fight discrimination. Women, sexual, ethnic and other minorities are discriminated against. The biggest anti-discrimination women, the fourth wave of feminists, emphasize that discrimination can and is be based on gender, both biological and so-called social, sexual orientation, race, class, in the sense of any stratification unit, (ie the social stratum), nationality, religion, disability, physical appearance, even height or weight. 

 There have long time been no more influential communist parties in Western Europe (there were none in North America), and the Social Democrats are also slowly losing supporters. The decline in the influence of the old left is not so much driven by the mistakes of leaders as by technological advances. As a result, its working class is shrinking and its social significance, the traditional support of the old left, is shrinking. The influence of the new left, on the other hand, is growing, although it is more pronounced not in parliaments, which have few representatives, but in the academic and media spheres. 

One of the most important goals of the multicolored New Left is the protection of so-called "socially vulnerable" groups. Protection is understood as the elimination of all forms of discrimination.

I am not going to look at all the New Left initiatives and their potential benefits. I will highlight just two features of the New Left provisions. First, they are all inspired by the progressivism inherent in the Old Left as well. Its essence is this: new is better than old. Conventional, common behaviors and ways of thinking, i. y. so-called stereotypes are bad. They need to be fought, overcome and changed. How? Well, - will answer the support of the New Left - it is not so important, most importantly - to avoid the old.

But the other attitude of the New Left is more discouraging - to treat all its opponents who do not agree with its doctrines and attitudes not as opponents with different views, but as backward and wicked. 

This attitude is taken over from the Old Revolutionary Left, from whose point of view, morality is only what serves the revolution. 

The New Left is not preparing for a proletarian revolution, but is persistently pursuing what it calls, often without thinking too much. From the New Left’s point of view, morality is only what serves progress. To think that women do not have a place in the tank units or in the boxing ring, can, from the New Left's point of view, only a hopeless backward people. Those who think that women must be gentle and caring and men must be bold and determined think stereotypically. And only the backward of the mind can not be fascinated by this year's extremely fashionable, although not this year's Unisex style was invented, especially the dresses offered to men. 

Perhaps the most famous conservatist theorist after Edmund Burke and Michael Oakshott, Briton Roger Scruton, could not find a permanent job at university at the end of his life - it was unacceptable to students and, unfortunately, even rectors not only because the author of many books occasionally wrote about wine and tobacco pleasures, and because of the fierce criticism of the gods of the New Left - Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault and Slavoj Žižek. Scruton demolished the idols of the New Left, so he behaved blasphemously, and what else, and he although was elevated to knighthood by the Queen, could not forgive him. 

Remember the story in a TV interview with Meghan Markle? Just a day after the interview, a journalist from a country that is very proud of democracy was fired just because he dared to publicly question the truth of her story. In fact, Meghan Markle really lied in explaining why little Archie is not a prince. But the bosses didn't care - after all, Meghan is a three-time victim for a large audience: (1) a woman, (2) an African-American, and (3) not a noble. 

Only the last villain can question the correctness of the story of the victim of discrimination. 

These two examples should suffice to understand what I mean when I say that the New Left in the West today controls - at least in part - areas that it did not control during the Student Revolution. 

What is the impact of these ideas on the Freedom Party? Since the texts of other laws promised by this party are still being drafted or harmonized, and it seems inappropriate to analyze a leaked working project, I will discuss an attempt to ban hate speech. At the initiative of the Freedom Party, or perhaps the Minister of Justice Evelina Dobrovolska, a draft amendment to the Code of Administrative Offenses was recently submitted to the Seimas.

 It is proposed to add an article to this Code providing for an administrative fine for anyone who “publicly mocks, on grounds of age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, race, color, nationality, citizenship, language, origin, ethnic origin, social status, religion, beliefs or views". 

In the face of a lot of noise, the amendment was withdrawn a day later after acknowledging that it had been rushed and promising to publicly consider it before submitting a new draft to the Seimas. 

 The main obstacles to this project are: (1) a ban on "mocking" beliefs and views, and (2) the use of the police to persecute dissidents. 

What is a particularly offensive mockery to one, especially the reprimanded, will be a reasonable, well-deserved critique for the other. Is the statement "only a stupid can think so" a mockery, or rather a formula for disagreement? Also, it must be not forgotten that one of the definitions of hate speech sounds like this: it is a language that is hated by the government. In a democracy, dissidents, even those who criticize the views of the Minister of Justice, cannot be persecuted. 

Looking at any screen for a long time, sooner or later you will see the smiling Aušrinė Armonaitė, with the answer to the first question of an ordinary interlocutor, which begins with the words "I am a liberal-minded person ..." However, there are people of different views in the Freedom Party. Their views should probably be described as closer to those of the New Left than to the Liberals. In fact, sometimes it is not very clear which ideas - liberal or New Left in the party are taking the lead. After all, calls to ban hate speech, to decriminalize drugs, to legalize partnerships not only for heterosexuals but also for homosexuals, to ratify the Istanbul Convention are standard (barely "stereotypical")  the New Left's demands , elsewhere they were made much earlier, some of which were even met. 

Perhaps only the intention to use the police to supervise prohibitions and punish perpetrators immediately, here and now, without any judges and lawyers, is an original Lithuanian effort to apply the experience of the police state to ensuring freedom in conditions of democracy. 

After all, in the USA or France, demonstrators usually consider police officers not as friends, but as enemies.  It was a very gross political mistake of the Freedom Party to start parliamentary activities by offering other people to shut up, to punish them for their beliefs and views. I think that in order not to do this any more, the party should probably pay more attention to the development of the ideas of classical liberalism, first and foremost to the problems of establishing and protecting universal human rights, and not to discrimination against minorities. 

The most important thing in defending the rights of socially vulnerable groups is not to violate fundamental and, most importantly, freedom of expression. The Lithuanian Freedom Party stands out from the European context in that its two founders and most influential politicians - Aušrinė Armonaitė and Remigijus Šimašius - are former members of the Liberal Movement and not of any Old Left Party. In the eyes of many voters of the Freedom Party, this party is another Lithuanian form of expression of liberalist ideas. Therefore, not only voters, but also politicians were not particularly surprised by the coalition of the TS-LKD, the Liberal Movement and the Freedom Party. These parties seemed to be related, as in recent years the TS-LKD has evolved in the direction of liberalism, and the attitudes of the Freedom Party have taken shape in the environment of liberal ideas. 

However, I think that in the near future the Freedom Party will still have to choose between drawing new ideas from a source of liberalism that has not yet been exhausted, or continuing to follow exclusively the New Left's repertoire, which, as we have seen, is difficult to reconcile with the liberal views. The future of the Freedom Party, the coalition and, in part, even Lithuania will depend on the solution of this dilemma."

To the Emeritus Professor, our esteemed author, perhaps we should forgive the naive hopes to turn the Lithuanian New Left into real, not false, liberals. Nothing will happen. Rich and powerful in the West adopted the New Left ideas to hide their backwardness. Our monkeys, Šimašius and Armonaitė are aping the same, hoping rich and powerful will pay them to promote these lies.