How to Realistically Preserve Lithuanian Citizenship for Compatriots Working Abroad: The Solution Is Two Referendums

"Surveys show that since the first citizenship referendum in 2019 neither the statistics of citizens intending to participate nor the percentage of supporters have changed, announcing a second citizenship referendum under the same conditions is simply a waste of state funds and time. Which will not solve the decades-long problem, when compatriots migrating around the world lose their Lithuanian citizenship acquired by birth.

 

As the Seimas prepares to announce the second citizenship referendum, the bar for a successful result remains impossibly high, the possibility of convenient online voting and not depending on weather conditions, poorly functioning post offices of foreign countries or the availability of diplomatic missions is zero. Only the initiator of the referendum can organize a paid "for" campaign - in this case the Seimas, which is equivalent to the absence of a professional "for" campaign. In the meantime, any political campaign participant will be able to collect and spend funds for the "against" referendum campaign. In the absence of a professional and financially supported "yes" campaign, it is naive to expect that a few hundred thousand citizens who have not previously voted will suddenly participate, or that a few hundred thousand voters will take the plunge and radically change their opinion, to say the least.

 

So while the supporters of preserving citizenship are required to convince that 85% the voters who normally participate in the presidential elections would vote "for", the opponents will be able to win by attracting only 15%. votes "against". The obviously unequal conditions for the different sides of the citizenship referendum are determined by the obligation to collect more than 50% provided by the law (not the Constitution!) yes votes from all registered voters, not from those who voted. In the absence of compulsory voting, such as in Belgium or Australia, or simply in the absence of a high level of public activity when deciding issues important to the state, the (failure) of the citizenship referendum will be determined by non-voting citizens.

 

Since the Seimas itself does not dare to take the political responsibility of lowering the legal bar for Article 12 of the Constitution to a more democratic and egalitarian level, it would be fair to allow such a decision to be made by the Nation itself by announcing a mandatory referendum on setting the bar. In this way, the Nation itself could change the current law through a much simpler referendum and provide a more humane bar for Article 12 of the Constitution, which directly determines the civil relationship between the Nation and the state.

 

The bar democratization referendum could be held together with the upcoming presidential elections, so the entire planned communication plan would not go to waste and could be adapted accordingly for this interim referendum. And if it succeeds, in the autumn of the same year, together with the Seimas elections, it would be possible to announce the second citizenship referendum, which would already have a more democratic bar. In this way, the issue of preserving the citizenship acquired by birth would have much more realistic chances of being resolved, using the path of two referendums, during the term of this Seimas."