The migration crisis has collapsed the rating of ministers and deputies from the ruling Conservative party in Lithuania. This is evidenced by the results of a sociological survey conducted by Vilmorus.
The biggest electoral losses were incurred by those politicians who most actively fought against Lukashenka’s “hybrid aggression”. However, their opponents also cannot boast of a high credit of citizens’ trust. In Lithuania, there is a total distrust of the political system as such.
The last two months in Lithuania have passed under the banner of combating Lukashenko’s “hybrid aggression”, that is, with the uncontrolled flow of illegal migrants from Belarus. All other topics faded into the background and at once became unimportant. Therefore, it is safe to say that the results of the next sociological survey by Vilmorus were influenced by the migration crisis.
It would seem that in the electoral plan, the ruling conservatives could even benefit from it.
Sociologists have long noticed that acute crisis situations often contribute to strengthening the positions of the current government. People proceed from the fact that now is not the best time for internal squabbles – it is necessary to support those who are at the helm of the state right now.
For example, the rating of George W. Bush after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, skyrocketed by 35% (a unique case in the history of the United States). How else can this be explained if not by the instinctive desire of frightened Americans to rally around the current leader?
Of course, the migration crisis in Lithuania cannot be compared with the September 11 attacks in the United States – the scale is not the same. But for the Baltic republic, this was also a serious test.
However, it did not lead to an increase in the popularity of politicians from the pro-government camp.
All the main characters in the “migration epic” have significantly lost their electoral points.
Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonyte is positively assessed by 29.9% of respondents (in June it was 39.8%), Minister of the Interior Agne Bilotaite – 22.1% (was 33.4%), Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabrielus Landsbergis – 19% (in June was 24.8%). It was this trio that most actively fought against Lukashenka’s “hybrid aggression”.
Another interesting detail.
Those who were not particularly hooked on the unpleasant story with migrants retained their ratings.
So, for example, the chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Lithuania Vilija Blinkevičiute remained with her 49% positive assessments. The mayor of Kaunas, Visvaldas Matijoshaitis, lost only 0.6%, while the Speaker of the Seimas Viktoria Chmilyte-Nielsen – about 2.5% (it is not critical for her). The pattern is obvious.
It is worth taking out the President of Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda. He remains the leader of the personal sympathies of Lithuanians – he was positively assessed by 55% of respondents. Less than in June, but quite enough to be optimistic about the future and count on re-election.
And this is bad news for Gabrielus Landsbergis, whom the Conservatives probably wanted to run for president in the next election.
Does it make sense if Nauseda’s approval rating is about three times higher? And in a couple of years, this chasm may become even deeper.
It is likely that distancing himself from the “Landsbergists” allows the president to maintain a positive balance of voters’ trust. It is beneficial for him not to be identified with the Shimonyte team, which, like a sponge, absorbs all the negativity.
However, the opponents of the current government also have nothing to brag about.
One of the trends in political sociology in Lithuania is a total distrust of the system itself, and not of one ruling camp.
Of the 24 politicians who were assessed by the respondents, only four have a positive balance. All ministers have a “drawback”, and the people do not trust the head of the government totally. The head of Vilmorus, Vladas Gaidis, does not remember when this happened at all.
And this proves that the rally on August 10 in Vilnius was not a bunch of outcasts, as the Lithuanian media are trying to show. The protest has serious social implications.
In the party rating, the Social Democrats took the first place, for whom 15.9% of voters are ready to vote. About the same – 15.6% – give preference to the Union of Peasants and Greens of Lithuania (SKZL). Conservatives are only third (13.1%).
The result is logical, considering that the ruling party is clearly not coping. SKZL was in power quite recently (from 2016 to 2020) and also did not show great success. Therefore, the leaders are the social democrats, which after last year’s elections to the Seimas received only 13 out of 141 seats in parliament.
It would seem that this was the “swan song” of a once powerful political force – its final transition to the “second league” of Lithuanian politics, whose participants can only claim the role of junior coalition partners.
But the first months of the Conservatives’ rule were marked by the rehabilitation of the Social Democrats.
It is worth remembering that in the 2016 parliamentary elections, the “peasants” made a real electoral revolution. Prior to that, they had only one majoritarian deputy in the Seimas, and conservatives and social democrats traditionally fought for power. But there was a clear demand for the emergence of “new faces”. He was satisfied with SKZL. Ramunas Karbauskis’ team won the sympathy of the part of the population that did not want to choose between parties that were equally disgusted with it. These votes were enough for a convincing victory in the elections.
Probably, even now the demand for changes in the Lithuanian society persists.
But the “new faces” are not visible. We have to adopt the principle “everything new is well forgotten old”.
Oddly enough, in the long run, this plays into the hands of all the same conservatives. Only they in Lithuania have a powerful electoral core. Their fanatical followers will come to the polls in any weather and will not even think to vote for someone else.
The maximum that threatens Landsbergis’ party is a transition to opposition, followed by a return to power. So it was, so it is and so it will be.
Alexey Ilyashevich, Rubaltic.Ru