Politinė krizė Lietuvoje 2003-2004 metais

LTŠi analizė skirta reiškinio, kuris dažniausiai tevadinamas Lietuvos Respublikos Prezidento institucijos krize, pirminiam apibendrinimui. Iš tikrųjų krizė aprėpė visą politinę sistemą, drauge paliesdama ir visuomenę. Analizės tikslas - Lietuvą sukrėtusios ir iš dalies tebekrečiančios politinės krizės priežasčių aiškinimasis, jos tėkmės tyrimas ir padarinių prognozavimas [...]. Svarbiausia problema - išaugęs populizmas ir didėjantis radikalizmo poreikis. Galima priežastis - lėti gerovės pokyčiai. Perdėtų besivejančios visuomenės lūkesčių fone daugumai žmonių perdėm lėtai gerėjantis gyvenimas tampa realia nepamatuotų iliuzijų priežastimi. Didelis korupcijos mastas (korumpuota tampa pati politika) tik didina visuomenės nepasitenkinimą. Tokioje aplinkoje galutinai išsirutuliojo prezidento institucijos entropijos - negalėjimo panaudoti realiai didesnį politinį potencialą, nei tai formaliai numato Konstitucija, valstybei valdyti - reiškinys. Neatmestina prielaida, kad R. Paksas pasinaudojo apkalta populistinėms ir radikalioms jėgoms mobilizuoti turėdamas tikslą pakeisti valdžios struktūrų santykį prezidento institucijos naudai. Bet pasirodė, kad R. Paksas pavertė prezidento instituciją pačia anomiškiausia, t. y. labiausiai nesilaikančia politikos normų, bet sulaukiančia dalies visuomenės pritarimo. Tad didžiausias pavojus tas, kad prezidento institucijos entropija, sumišusi su anomija, trikdo visą Lietuvos politinį vyksmą. Straipsnyje prognozuojama, kad prezidento apkalta užbaigė pirmąjį krizės etapą, o antrasis krizės etapas bus susijęs su Konstitucijos revizija ir valstybės sąrangos reforma, kurios tikslas - minimizuoti skirtumą tarp formalių konstitucinių ir realių politinių prezidento institucijos galių. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Politinė krizė Lietuvoje; Apkalta; Prezidento institucija; Political crisis in Lithuania; Impeachment.

ENArticle treats a 2003–2004 political crisis in Lithuania as not confined to the Presidential institution. This is the crisis of an entire political system, that had been maturing since long before. Four groups of factors are identified: 1) exhaustion of the intellectual resources f the political process and the lack of regularity, characteristic to the newly emerging political forces, first of all; 2) political anomy, which spans all the levels of the political system; 3) entropy of the presidential institution, stimulating the redistribution of authority among separate state structures; and 4) populism and radicalism. The first three groups of factors may conventionally be called prepaksist, whereas the fourth was particularly activated during the Paksas presidential tenure. Paksas personal characteristics and the external Russian factor are treated as the accompanying circumstances, to some extent multiplying the scope of the crisis. Exclusive attention has been drawn on the entropy of the presidential institution. In Lithuania the President is not as influential and powerful institution as, for instance, Seimas or the Government; the symbolic power the President holds as well as the moral support he enjoys from the nation, however, creates an illusion of presidents powers. This means that the Presidential institutional accumulates certain political power potential it cannot avail of. Efforts to make use of this power destroy the constitutional status quo of the presidential institution.Crisis revealed the existing sins of the political process, its amenity. Violation of rules regulating the financial aspects of the electoral campaigns, preponderance of falsifications, defamation became widespread and unpunished. The crisis matured once the Presidential team undertook to solve the problem of entropy of the Presidential institution availing of populism and radicalism. An assumption could be made that to some extent Paksas himself sought to proceed with an impeachment as a means of mobilising populist and radical forces. The danger is that the entropy of the presidential institution, merged with anomy, hinders the entire political process. In Lithuania certain confusion arises from the fact that capitalism and populism are the major orientations Lithuania development is concerned with, alas irreconcilable. These orientations split Lithuania society into two. Author subscribes to the thesis that a pro-capitalist democratic political regime took hold in Lithuania. The political system is too closely tied to the capital. Radicalism becomes dichotomous is such an environment. Both anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist motives merge within a marginal radicalism construct. Modest trend of the political process in Lithuania became impossible after 2002 again. Paksas electoral radicalism created a pretext to begin the re-arrangement of the relationship between the political forces. To sum up, Paksas political rivals managed to transform his image of a reform- prone radical into the one of an extremist, an usurper, a defector, etc.Beyond showing the internal state-of-affairs of a political force, the crisis demonstrates the characteristics of the political process in Lithuania. The problem of an alternative between the procapitalist democracy and populist democracy in the post-communist transformation is analysed in the article. An option that the latter option could be replaced by procapitalist authoritarianism and populist authoritarianism is maintained. The political phenomenon of Paksas is the one of destroying a bridge between the procapitalist democracy and populist democracy. A 2003-2004 political crisis in Lithuania may put a question to the fore whether a democracy that fails to control the political forces and processes created by itself should not consider discussing the question of the limits of the political freedoms. The article argues that the impeachment of the President brought to an end anything but the first stage of the political crisis resolution process. That is why the author leaves the results of the Presidential impeachment aside in this research. The second stage commenced along with the early presidential elections. In general one must note that the political crisis in Lithuania is solvable by democratic and legal means. [From the publication]