In early 2026, Social Democratic leader Mindaugas
Sinkevičius would most likely communicate stability and pragmatism to big
business, which is hoping for profitable defense and infrastructure orders
(e.g., the purchase of tanks or the construction of roads to training grounds),
while at the same time suppressing political tension in the coalition.
Based on the latest political situation in January 2026, his
answers to business could be the following:
Priority for defense agreements: M. Sinkevičius emphasizes
that he supports the national agreement on defense and its renewal. This
signals to business that strategic projects, such as the development of
training grounds or weapons purchases, will remain a state priority regardless of
internal coalition frictions.
Ensuring coalition stability: Although M. Sinkevičius
acknowledges growing concern about the actions of coalition partner Remigijus
Žemaitaitis and his “improvisations” in foreign policy, he emphasizes the goal
of maintaining a unified state course. For business, this means that the Social
Democrats will try to “control” the partner so that he does not interfere with
the state’s financial obligations and project implementation.
The state budget as a priority: M. Sinkevičius emphasizes
that the implementation and stability of the 2026 budget is a key goal. This is
a direct response to big business, that funds for infrastructure and defense
orders will be provided and protected from political fluctuations.
A clear message in the spring: The politician promises to
provide a clear answer on the future of the ruling coalition by mid-spring
2026. This gives business a specific horizon when the political uncertainty due
to R. Žemaitaitis’s influence will be finally resolved (either by continuing
work or by reforming).
Sinkevičius' own words to the big business mouthpiece
"Verslo žinios":
"The chairman of the Social Democrats, Mindaugas
Sinkevičius, admits that the party is failing to dominate public policy, even
though the Social Democrats have the largest faction in parliament.
"Somehow we are not able to overcome this, to make
ourselves dominant in Lithuanian political life," said the chairman of the
Lithuanian Social Democratic Party (LSDP).
The LSDP has a 50-member faction in the Seimas and has
formed a ruling coalition with "Nemunas aušra" and the Lithuanian
Peasants' and Greens Union.
Let's get to the point: will you participate in the party
chairman elections in May 2026?
I haven't decided yet, I will use the time to talk to
members of the departments, I have already visited several departments, the
weekends are also scheduled for visits. I will definitely talk to them, I will
feel the mood. (...) After all, I had to act as a substitute for a certain
period of time, work in this role, and I will receive some feedback – whether I
was successful, whether something was missing, how they see the situation in
general and what kind of leader the party needs. So if I see that I still meet
expectations or that they trust me, I think I will participate. But if I see
that the expectations are still different or that a different party management
and leadership is being constructed, then, apparently, we will also find other
capable leaders.
Don't you have such a strong vision yourself that you think
that despite everything, you need to participate because you have something to
offer the party?
I want to receive a free newsletter
Please enter your e-mail address
I think I have something to offer the party. I was focused
and I said all the time – maybe not everyone recorded this and maybe not
everyone understood this – that I see my role, as still the interim chairman of
the party, as one who is willing and able to strengthen the organization. The
organization has 14,000 members, there are departments, there is a board, there
is communication, there is a connecting link between the Government, between
the Seimas, between the factions in the Seimas. And I saw my role here. I did
not try to seize or overlap the work of the Seimas and the Government, but
purely to develop the organization.
Because after all, there is a change of personnel, and new
people, and new communication solutions, and adaptation to the modern world,
responding to various interest groups, public expectations and an attempt to
create a contemporary, modern organization, a party organization that would be
attractive, that would attract people – that was my desire. It has remained so.
If the party members trust the vision I have expressed, then I would really
like to continue.
But again, we must not forget about that problem, it is
somewhat the same with me. What is it? I do not work in the Government, I do
not work in the Seimas, I am the mayor of Jonava district. I have to find time
for the party while balancing work. It is not easy and perhaps it creates some
problems in my case, but it is surmountable - at least the last few months have
shown me that it is possible to cope with it.
Let's talk briefly about the ratings. I know that you
personally pay a lot of attention to this. The ratings of Vilmorus recently
published in Lietuvos Rytas show that 11.4 percent support your party. You
yourself are favorably regarded by 35.5% of the population, the Speaker of the
Seimas Juozas Olekas – 32%, the Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė – 30%. Do you
consider this a good or bad result?
I think that this result is not encouraging. Of course, all
the time, you know, there is a classic of the genre: when the ratings are poor,
the party leaders say: “We are not working for the ratings, but for the state,
for the decisions necessary for the state.” It is clear, without going into
that, I will joke, classic of the genre, I think that this is a certain signal
that not everything we have done is good, that we are probably not able to say
everywhere what we have done, in some places we have been overshadowed by
various scandals, upheavals and the like. But yesterday I heard a phrase at a
meeting that I really liked, which my colleague from Kaunas district Valerijus
Makūnas said. They say: "You know, what is missing from our party, it
really is missing, apart from the fact that we cannot influence some things.
Sometimes a party should be compared to a chicken. When a chicken lays an egg,
it clucks." In other words, when a party does good work, it must
constantly have a duty to report, inform, say, remind. Sometimes we, the Social
Democrats, do good work, that work was done last year, (...) but sometimes we
seem to let everything go as if it were self-evident and so we are unable to
lift our tails.
If you were to read your party and faction's communication
on Facebook, press releases, you would also see that it seems that you
participate more in political discussions than talking about work. Do you think
that is a problem?
If you were to ask me what the main problem is that the
party members (...) are raising now? They are not raising the chosen vector,
not the decisions made, they say - communication is bad. Communication is bad.
They ask to strengthen it both at the party level and at the faction level, and
when talking about our party leaders in the Government, in the Seimas, they
talk about communication. But I say again that we must remember that (...) the
environment is not to blame, communication is not to blame, I think that
decisions must also follow, and communication must follow from decisions. So if
the decisions are not very good, then that communication will not change the
content of the decisions. But everything is related and we generally do not
cope very well with communication, and this is a challenge that we inherited
from last year.
Of course, government ratings are never ideal. Maybe we
cannot compare, but let's compare: Inga Ruginienė today has a rating at the
level of Andrius Kubilius. A. Kubilius governed Lithuania during the economic
crisis, the Government, the Seimas made really unpopular decisions at that
time. But what is I. Ruginienė paying for with A. Kubilius-level ratings?
Well, apparently everything was accumulating. (...) A deeper
sociological analysis should be done here, but (...) Ruginienė, her Government
did not start work from a blank slate. She already inherited a certain burden.
It was not the period when the elections were over, we won And I. Ruginienė is
starting something after the elections.
You did not start from the honeymoon.
It certainly was not a honeymoon. It was a disgusting
period, especially for us as a party. And a certain burden of heritage, isn't
it? It kind of drags on. And the vicissitudes of forming the Government, which
received a public reaction. And objectively, probably, some candidates who worked
for a very short time and managed to become famous very quickly during that
short time, created a certain background, where I think that an ordinary
Lithuanian citizen, assessing what is happening, still understands that it is
not happening as it should. There is no peace, there is chaos, there are a lot
of emotions in the public space. And they think - so who is most likely to
blame for all this? Why can't we plan, work, live calmly, stably, consistently?
That's probably when it all comes down to the president, the prime minister,
the country's top officials.
You've already talked about that chaos and it's really
interesting - despite the decisions that the Social Democrats were able to
rally support for, including the tax reform, the record defense funding, the
issue of premiums in medical institutions, where you represented the leftist
idea, the public policy narrative is controlled by others today. Remigijus
Žemaitaitis is in control, Saulius Skvernelis was in control under the previous
ruling majority... You'll nod your head, I understand that you agree with that.
But why did this happen and what can be done to control the narrative by a
party that has a 50-member faction in the Seimas?
Yes, I definitely agree and I said that at the last party council
meeting. I emphasized that we must not be reactive – not to react to what
Žemaitaitis said, someone said, and we try to fight back or justify it, or
somehow explain it... We must be proactive ourselves.
We are the majority, the trust in us, expressed by the
voters in the elections, gives us the greatest mandate and the greatest
responsibility with that. We must be the dominant ones, (...) creating the
agenda, and not ourselves hostages of the agenda or hostages of certain
political leaders. When I said that, I was not only talking about myself: I was
talking referring to the party, to the entire fraction, I spoke while reporting
to the Speaker of the Seimas, to the Prime Minister, to the head of the
faction. In principle, we dominate from the positions of heads of state, we
dominate in the Cabinet of Ministers.
However, somehow we fail to overcome this, to make ourselves
dominant in Lithuanian political life. We draw conclusions and will probably
talk about this at the party congress - what is missing? Is there a lack of, I
don't know, charisma, leadership, or is the problem here in that fragmented
operation, when there are too many leaders and the attention is then not
concentrated on one center of power... It seems to me that this is a more
democratic path, but maybe then the public is no longer clear about who this
center of gravity is, who is the one who is, in principle, the decisive factor
in political life and party operations.
These questions remain unanswered, we certainly understand
that. If we do not change this, it may have long-term negative consequences. Of
course, it is possible to say goodbye to those who usurp the airwaves, but that
also has one or another consequence.
We will also talk about the coalition, but I had time to
wait at your party headquarters before the interview. I read what you wrote on
the board, when you were strategizing once, that it is difficult to make
decisions in the party because party members avoid conflicts. But politics is a
conflict, a struggle of ideas. Is the fact that party members avoid conflicts,
if this is still the case, perhaps this is the reason that those who do not
avoid conflict have taken over the narrative? I am, of course, thinking first
of all about Remigijus Žemaitaitis.
Yes, it should actually be acknowledged that historically
and, by the way, some sociological studies confirm that when voting for us,
voters usually expect a state approach, economy, stability in the state, an
emotional background that should be calm.
“Let’s not overdo it.”
... Not some chaos and roller coaster, but peace and
confidence that the state is in the strong hands of the government, and the
government understands what it is doing, because it is competent. That
confidence, of course, fades a little over a certain period of time in power,
but in principle, due to such historical characteristics, apparently, a lot of
people trust us.
But it is obvious that both across the Atlantic and in
Western Europe, new fashions are emerging, when extremes, radicalism appear,
those bubbles of social networks are created, new ways of transmitting messages
appear. In that sense, you can create your own bubble, communicate with it,
feed your followers with your own narratives. And I have the feeling that there
is still a public desire for politicians to have such a stricter tone, with a
very clear expression and can no longer be, how to say, that cutlet made of
both meat and fish. You have to choose, either meat or fish, and those
political forces that adhere more to the center-left and try to calibrate
different interests into one may disappoint in general.
Maybe my insights are wrong, but such moods apparently
exist. Because then how do we explain such reactionary leaders with eccentric
statements on the border of hate speech or sometimes crossing it, how they gain
such popularity? Maybe their support ceiling is not that high, but it seems
that society or a part of it needs it. That makes me think in a way and it is
somehow unpleasant for me to hear that this kind of transformation is taking
place in society. But, apparently, we need to adapt.
Summing up all that we have discussed, are you worried about
the prospects for next year's local elections?
I am actually worried in several aspects. In principle, the
Social Democrats have always dominated the regions. (...) Of course, several
municipalities of significant size – Kaunas district, Vilnius district are in
our basket, they are led by our mayors, but the results of the mayoral and
local government elections in 2023 were record-breaking for us – almost 400
deputies, a huge number of mayors elected in direct elections... And that
anxiety is such in several places – will we be able to maintain the bar?
Raising it, of course, would be very impressive, but there are challenges. Will
we still be able to distinguish in the minds of voters (...) – and is it necessary
– the issues of central government and local government? Is there some kind of
negative charge if the public is dissatisfied, disappointed with the central
government, or will this emotional charge be transferred to the local
government?
And specifically you. You are the chairman of the party, and
at the same time you work as the mayor of Jonava. Will you seek another term?
Yes, I plan to seek re-election.
I also wanted to ask you about the leadership in the party.
Since the beginning of your term, you have experienced a crisis of confidence
due to several broken election promises. Your critics also talk about a
leadership crisis after Gintautas Paluckas resigned – we do not know who
actually makes decisions in the party. Can you tell us what the dynamics of
decision-making look like?
Yes, there have been mistakes and, apparently, there will be
more. As I often say – we still have three years. (...)
However, what have we tried to construct and do I think it
works? We have constructed the following operating mechanism: when there are
many more heads, more minds, more brains and more people sitting at the table,
those decisions are more measured than if everything were made in the hands of
one person.
My vision was this: the party chairman, that is me, cares
most about the party, the structure, the organization per se. There is the Head
of Government with the Cabinet of Ministers, there is the Speaker of the Seimas
with the secretariat and there is the leader of the faction. And the four of us
acting together (...) we make decisions necessary for the state, taking into
account the party program, taking into account the vicissitudes of the faction,
discussions and the like.
I will just clarify, Mr. Sinkevičius, without
underestimating the boards, councils and other governing bodies, can we say
that the most important people in the party today are you, the Prime Minister,
the Speaker of the Seimas and the elder of the faction? This is the nucleus
that makes decisions. Right?
I would see it this way, but I say this right away
addressing the members of the faction, heads of departments, mayors and others:
they are not props or just approving voices. Everything comes down to the core:
in the activities of the Seimas – to the Speaker of the Seimas and the elder of
the faction, from party members – to me, from state governance – to the Head of
the Government. That core is, I would say, these four individuals.
It is somewhat puzzling that the Prime Minister either
sometimes really does not know, or pretends not to know, what is happening in
the Seimas. We have sometimes heard such comments in the context of the LRT
amendments and others. Does she not know or pretend to?
I think that the Prime Minister is well informed about what
is happening, and, after all, she herself is a member of the Seimas.
Should the Prime Minister state her position on some issues
being discussed in the Seimas, and not take this responsibility away by saying
that I lead the Government?
This is probably the Prime Minister's personal position and
she cannot criticize so openly. The head of the government is responsible for
the government, there is a huge bar of activity there (...) and does not always
operate within the framework of the legislative branch, trusts the Speaker of
the Seimas, the elder of the faction and, apparently, does not enter into
conflict or usurp some political directions of activity. It is possible that
she does not keep track of everything, but I think that on the main issues she
really has information at her disposal and could speak out if she wanted to.
She often speaks out, but perhaps some topics are sharp and sometimes, it must
be admitted, politicians, and I, as a politician, would like to avoid sharper
topics. (...)
More on decision-making. For example, who decided that
amendments to the procedure for dismissing the head of the LRT must be
considered and adopted with special urgency?
We decided (...) in the Seimas faction, where I also
participated. But here I would like to explain a little. (...) Our logic was as
follows: we saw the audit findings, we saw the conflict between the LRT board
and the administration, and we thought that a quick political surgery might
relieve tensions – you’ll decide quickly, little fire, little smoke.
But do you admit that this was done because of one person?
The conflict that we saw, and the audit findings… Laws are
not changed because of one person anyway. We did this to improve governance,
referring more to the summer of 2024, when the outgoing government introduced
changes. Perhaps we should admit now, retrospectively, that that haste turned
into completely unnecessary emotions and, apparently, certain political
assessments, which are reflected in the current political rating tables.
But perhaps the relationship between the LRT director and
the board and the audit findings is broader than just changing the procedure
for dismissing the director – one article of the law? That's why it seemed to
many that this was being done for the sake of one person, in order to create
conditions for the current council to dismiss the current director general. Can
you clearly confirm or deny this?
The logic was still at the initial stage last year that the
issue of dismissing the director general, regarding him as a person, needed to
be resolved more quickly, because it seemed that there was a conflict that
needed to be ended. And everything else would follow after that. That was the
logic, but it didn't work out and now we will have the result of the working
group as it will be. I don't know what it will be.
I'll get back to the question - you say, to end the
conflict. Does that mean dismissing the director? This was supposed to be the
end of the conflict you assumed?
It doesn't quite work out that way. (...) (The goal was -
BNS) to restore powers and return the relationship between the director and the
council to the one that existed before, which had been in place for more than
20 years. Laws are not adopted for dismissing one person. And politicians don't
fire the director general, the LRT council does. What would it do about it, we
don't know.
And who was in conflict? You say, the conflict needed to be
ended, so who was in conflict?
It is obvious that there were also statements addressed to
the chairman of the council of the director general, Mr. Mindaugas Jurkynas,
that he was walking around in the Seimas, something was going on, and then all
sorts of things addressed to (council member Jonas - BNS) Staselis. It is
obvious that even those employee signatures were collected against the LRT
council, which de jure is the essential governing body of the LRT. In such a
conflict situation, if joint work is impossible, one side must withdraw. That
is probably why the president and the prime minister of the country said that
perhaps then the LRT Council in corpore should withdraw. That vision simply did
not materialize in any way, the situation is apparently frozen like winter. The
working group is underway, I hope that there will be some kind of resolution or
that everything will end by moving it to a more distant future - the spring
session or even the autumn session.
We see the working group meetings, they are held in public.
We also see the circumstances surrounding the work of the working group - the
exclusion of some journalists from it, then their inclusion, but their own
decision not to participate, because the request to include more media
organizations was not taken into account. Bearing this in mind, but also what
is happening in those meetings, do you find that process constructive?
I only observe that process episodically. (...) You know, I
find that process strange in the sense that at the beginning it was said that
we need to take our time, that we need to sit down, discuss, and agree on the
best way. Okay, the Speaker of the Seimas heard it, the faction heard it, no
one bulldozed there. Some thought that we were stuck, but that process could
have continued.
Did you even consider for a moment changing the Chairman of
the Culture Committee during the days when Kęstutis Vilkauskas was forced to
rest?
No, we did not. Even if the Chairman or member of the
committee changes, there is an alternate member. In that sense, that process of
adopting the law in a legal sense could have continued without Mr. Kęstutis.
Okay, please continue your thought about the
constructiveness working group.
It seemed to me that the Speaker of the Seimas really showed
a desire to talk, and that desire did not disappear anywhere, he himself went
to the bonfires, he himself talked. But then, out of the desire to talk and
invite people to the table for discussions, separate initiatives emerged,
saying that something else needed to be invited... Then, it wasn't the format
of the working group or discussion itself that was questioned, but the
inappropriate conjuncture, too few or too many participants, or whether they
were inappropriate...
I think that sometimes you can get hung up on everything:
you can continue to say that it's inappropriate, that there's some kind of
negative aura in the discussion hall in the Seimas, that the moderator is
inappropriate there, the tea is too cold, there wasn't time to talk to
everyone. When you want to talk, you probably make an effort to talk to the
audience you have to talk to. It can be difficult, favorable, unfavorable, and
perhaps that's where the search for the best option between different views
comes in, not just one view. It seems to me that this was the original desire,
for someone to come and immediately interest the working group with their position.
But I'm glad that the Speaker of the Seimas has such a desire to talk in a
focused, calm manner, to stop irritating, to find some kind of third way or
some way that suits everyone. I hope that this will be possible.
From K. Vilkauskas' interview with Daiva Žeimytė, we could
hear resentment that his health was deteriorating due to the tension, but the
party leadership chose not to see it. How would you respond to such reproaches?
I don't know, Mr. Kęstutis certainly suffered a lot from
holding those meetings, maybe he lacked sleep, and his family members did not
support all the decisions. But you know, he was asked how he saw it: whether he
would continue the process or would he like to withdraw due to moral issues,
family issues, health issues. (...) He was asked such a question and he said:
"no, everything is fine with me, I am a party soldier, I will support the
dominant position, I may have a different opinion, but if it was decided that
way, then I will not withdraw." As it turned out later, we all probably
saw it and we all drew our own conclusions.
What are your personal conclusions?
I think that the person could not withstand the tension and
perhaps overestimated his capabilities, trying to control that situation. Now
it is difficult to say anything. I think that the process in the committee is
over, he will return to the committee after the working group finishes its
work. We will see what the result of the working group will be at the end of
February.
The “15min” portal wrote that K. Vilkauskas has lost your
trust. Can you confirm or deny this?
This is your colleague, probably Tadas...
Tadas Ignatavičius.
I do not know who is spreading these rumors, but there were
two things – about Kęstutis and about (faction elder – BNS) Orinta (Leiputė –
BNS).
Can you clearly deny that you do not trust them about both?
I can clearly deny that I do not trust them about both. I
hope that they trust me too. Trust must be mutual.
You are probably tired of questions about the ruling
coalition, but I can't help but ask, because we have again seen new statements
from both you and the chairman of the "aušrieči" party. Should we
view this as the beginning of new deliberations, or as informational noise?
To be honest, I am one of those people who avoids that
informational noise, because I don't like to chatter, to attract attention with
that chatter, but not do anything. It is better to do it, and then talk. Not to
pollute the airwaves with constant deliberations, because those deliberations
are like a legacy from the past years.
Only the coalition was formed, questions
about when the coalition will be reviewed, when the divorce will take place,
have been following us from the very beginning and we have spoken about it more
than once. I want to say that, apparently, there will be such partisan exits
with doubts, both anonymous and open. And this means that we are not entirely
sure about the future of this coalition. We see the ratings, we see the
public's dissatisfaction, which we see not only through the ratings, but also
on the street we are sometimes addressed and accosted, remarks are made. The
fact is that party events, conventions, party discussions will be held in the
spring, the departments will discuss in March and April.
I think that those positions will be expressed that will
potentially allow those discussions to be transformed into some kind of
decisions. But there are no solutions yet, and that's why, not because we want
to run away from that topic, I want to say that for now, to say something new
to the public, something so fundamental, not because we are considering, we
have doubts, we have grievances, we are not satisfied with the statements,
behavior, rhetoric of (one - BNS) coalition leader, I can't say anything new on
this front yet. But I can say that discussions within the party are taking
place and will take place quite widely until spring, for sure.
What's new on this issue? We are trying to understand
whether the discussion about the future of the coalition is not simply a
permanent discussion, because if you ask you, one way or another discussions on
this issue are taking place. Why is spring becoming important in this context
now?
Everyone seems to be asking, directly, indirectly or more
correctly, diplomatically, somehow subtly, when will the relationship with
"Nemunas Aušra" end. It is often forgotten that there are not two
coalition partners, not just the Social Democrats "Nemunas Dawn",
there are three coalition partners. That third one somehow usually remains on
the sidelines.
But he is passive, declares that he is waiting for decisions
from the major partners.
What I miss in this context, both from colleagues sometimes,
and from those who are very strongly agitating for that coalition to be transformed,
is what it is, not the one formed with "ChatGPT", (...) but what is
the real, state-operating alternative that ensures the stability of the state?
Normal, not some hypothetical one. (...) When I consider it internally and talk
to party members, I do not put so much emphasis on the first part, that the
coalition is far from ideal, we have everything in it, those relations are not
so unambiguously assessable, I would say. But okay, if that does not suit us,
then the question for me is, what real alternatives do we see then? Real ones.
Let me tell you one, it seems to me, very real alternative –
the social democrats, S. Skvernelis, “peasants”. Is it unrealistic?
It is worth considering and we do not rule it out. But in
this context, it should be said that when we initiated the discussion on
forming a coalition in the summer, we did something, a very nice democratic
process, we included the maximum number of people – my wish here was that it
would not be Sinkevičius who decided here or some political elite in Vilnius
decided here... This is the dominant coalition format at the moment. (...) This
is a question, and we will definitely check that, we will probably not make a
public bubble out of it, we will probably do it as quietly as possible,
although we have spies everywhere.
Will you conduct a survey of departments?
Apparently, we will do it, not necessarily a physical
survey, but we will find a form to somehow check whether what we said in the
summer is still valid, or is it just another matter. On the other hand, I, as
the party leader, say: you know, we can model here with polls, we conduct a
poll every six months. Isn't that right? Okay, we change everything, but let's
not forget that in this context, not only the coalition, the partisanship, the
chaos and that emotional background are important. What is also important is
the stability of the state, its functioning, consistency, decision-making, not
some even greater chaos. The geopolitical situation is complicated, the
security situation is complicated. Let's see that context, let's just not
ignore it. Let's not say that now we are destroying one or two, and we will see
how it will be. This approach is unacceptable to me.
I want to see immediately and I don't want to have a gap
(gap – BNS), that something, let's say, is not working, we say that it is not
working, then we take a gap and, I don't know, we drag on for half a year. Then
the same people who just campaigned to change the coalition will immediately
say that early elections are needed, that the Social Democrats are unprepared,
incapable, and are exhausting the state with their decisions and their
inability to govern.
Why is spring important in this case for the future of the
coalition?
(...) A new spring political cycle will begin on March 10th,
and my goal is to have a very clear list of main tasks. (...) I want to say
that this is our TOP ten main tasks for this spring session, and to say whether
we have the political will to adopt it, or whether we will just get distracted
again - another law, another "let's get the reins, start over again",
running to each other, looking at each other, getting angry and asking the
opposition for help. If it doesn't work, then let's conclude that it doesn't
work. I would like to to leave the political cycle in the spring with a very
clear message – do we continue, or are we just (going – BNS) each for himself.
Your spokesperson points to my watch, we don’t have much
time, but I would still like to touch on both the president and the government.
It was quite clear to us what the relationship between the ruling majority and
the president was at the beginning of the term. I think no one will deny that we
saw a kind of honeymoon.
How is it now? It’s as if the president is not some very
ardent critic of the coalition, but at the same time the coalition is having a
hard time appointing the candidates proposed by the president to positions – a
judge of the Constitutional Court for the second time, Nida Grunskienė was
barely appointed to the position of prosecutor general. Tell us about that
dynamic, what point are you at now with the president?
I still believe and sincerely believe that we have good
relations with the head of state. Naturally, we are not, how to say, fellow
party members, the president represents the institution of his country, (...)
we are a political organization. Naturally, I have no doubt that the president
works and communicates with all political organizations, (...) he certainly
maintains relations with both the opposition and the position. I certainly do
not feel any coldness, I do not feel it either through myself or through the
Speaker of the Seimas or the Prime Minister. I think that the vision, the
vector of political activity coincides in many places, in some places perhaps
those positions differ, but there is no friction, there is no conflict of any
kind.
We are interested in that this relationship remains as long
as possible, if not for the entire term, then as long as possible constructive,
businesslike. And we are completely open and ready to work tete-a-tete, hand in
hand with the leader of the country.
It seems to me that I will not lie when I say that the
appointment of Inga Ruginienė as Prime Minister was a kind of experiment - she
is a new member of the party, she has not been tested by the government in a
certain sense. Did the experiment work?
I think that there are positive aspects that I see. The
ratings may not be completely encouraging, (...) but there are three years
left. Let it not be three, but two, because in the last year before the Seimas
elections, this work is already somewhat underway, and coalitions are falling
apart, and there is little left of the ruling majority. But I think that the
three or two years left are really enough time to rebuild and increase trust,
in other words, to both improve and worsen the situation. I will do everything
in my power, as a party leader, to support the activities of the Head of
Government, the activities of the ministers, the activities of the Seimas
faction, and we will try to raise those positions in the ratings. But some
decisions and being in power have a price - usually this is the price of
ratings.
Speaking of the members of the Government, do you have any
criticisms of them individually?
I think that everyone is really coping with their work, I
would not express any criticisms, probably the greatest burden now falls on the
Minister of National Defense, especially with the enormous trust and huge
amount of funding. A considerable burden probably falls on the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, because those geopolitical relations are unpredictable,
international law, the order established after the Second World War, the United
Nations, in general, those formats are becoming, I don't know, I would even say
museum-like, because processes are underway, the power struggle is open, not
even under the carpet, not under the tables. I think that it is not so easy for
us as a state to maneuver. The security, foreign policy component is very, very
important here.
I see efforts not to forget our internal issues: education,
health, social security, because that security, like the goals of our EU
presidency, you probably know, in 2027 – security is both external and
internal. People need to feel safe, so efforts are being made for that, and I
think that all ministers are doing their job properly.
But do you really feel that all of them are team players?
Three ministers who were delegated by the Social Democratic Party are still not
party members, although they were asked to join – Minister of Health Marija
Jakubauskienė, the same Kęstutis Budrys, Minister of Energy Žygimantas
Vaičiūnas. I will ask you this, is this a necessary condition for them to
continue their ministerial work and, if so, when is that “deadline” (last term
– BNS), by when do they have to do it?
We expressed a really open enough, such a non-categorical
position for them to join our organization. We allowed them to get used to it,
to get to know each other. And I am pleased to see that the people you
mentioned participate in party formats, they come to party council meetings,
sit, listen, see what is happening. In a way, they may not have a party ticket
in their pocket, but they feel that they are members of our community. They
will not be given any categorical position. I will say this, and working in my
municipality, I say, what would come of it? In principle, as it is possible,
perhaps people in the administration can be forced, I am now the mayor, I have
some influence, to force someone to become a member of the party. But that
coercion or that coercion does not become something benevolent. You can force
something, but maybe that person or that politician will even do the opposite.
So I would rather spend time with M. Jakubauskienė and other
colleagues who are not yet party members, convincing them, inviting them to
discuss formats, so that they get used to it, so that they like it. And when
they are willing to do that, we will wait for them. And if they think that it
is necessary to maintain some political neutrality due to professionalism,
future career appointments, then this is their will.
Finally, one question is completely related to Jonava. The
president of the Jonava basketball club was caught drunk driving for the second
time in two years. The municipality allocates more than half a million euros to
the club every year. Did you talk to the president? Did you have something to
say to him, and maybe you will take some action?
We had agreed, I don't know if it was this week or next
week, that I asked the vice-mayor to initiate a conversation with both the club
president and the coach. Because there are those personal, but loudly voiced
and dishonorable topics of drunk driving, they are recurring. There is also the
club's situation, because it is not pleasing to be in ninth place out of nine.
The number of victories is modest, players rotate, but some leave, not many
come. So I want to understand the whole situation: and the president's
situation, more personal, but it creates a negative background for the entire
club, Jonava, which supports that club with taxpayers' money. But I also want
to understand the situation of the "Jonava" club, as the coach sees
it, because there were times when we were higher (we were - BNS) in the
tournament tables and looked better. Now we look modest and that is not
pleasing. We will draw conclusions, that issue and that situation will not be
left, ignored and invisible. I think that we will have a very serious and manly
conversation with both leaders.
What kind of conclusions are these? Related to financing,
its size or termination in general?
We will talk about it. I think that there is an opportunity
to ask the president how he sees his behavior, whether he would like to
continue, or should he somehow draw conclusions and make at least some kind of
break for the period of time during which he will not have a driver's license.
That is what we will talk about. I do not want to get ahead of events and say
more than will be said, but we will definitely inform the public.
You began your chairmanship of the party in the summer with
an apology for not meeting expectations and that you did not start your work
governing Lithuania very smoothly. And do you have anything to apologize for in
the last six months?
I will say this, speaking to the faction at the end of the
year, I said: "You know, if I offended anyone, I apologize, but at the
same time I forgive and thank you." Those were the three main words: I apologize,
I forgive, I thank you.
Thank you very much for your time."
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą