Abstract
The article deals with the analysis of the reasons why ideology is not important part of party activities. Even if the labels with some shades of ideology are being used nevertheless parties do not have clear ideological position and prefer pragmatism. Post-communist politics presents wide range of latent cleavages and creates unique opportunity for development and formation of politics based on of the differences of social and cultural level. Nevertheless in Lithuanian political map we can notice just one type of cleavage, i.e. Communist – Anti-Communist cleavage. In 1990 Lithuania has started its way towards both democracy and market capitalism. The transformation of centrally planned-administrative economic system to market economy fostered social and economical changes in Lithuania. Surprisingly these transformations has no significant impact on formation “Western” Left—Right cleavage with dominant socio-economic content. The non-ideological position of Lithuanian parties manifests the situation as if all Lithuanian population has the same economic preferences and as if Lithuania has no significant socio-economic problems that could be the core issue for confrontation among different Lithuanian parties. The article first evaluates the level of internal democracy of Lithuanian parties and reveals that opportunities of party members to participate in decision making process are not sufficient. Value conflicts among parties highly depend on the political will of party leaders. This article focused on the analysis of 9 interviews with the party leaders or the deputy chairmen from the 9 main Lithuanian parties. The aim of the interviews was to discuss the role of ideology in party politics and activities. The study revealed that the lack of ideology identity among Lithuanian parties cannot be explained by the freshness of Lithuania party system that actually is almost 20 years old, or by political immaturity of Lithuanians. It is a problem of system, as even the highest authorities of the parties demonstrate the lack of ideological thinking in explaining certain political party issues. Nevertheless party authorities know main value ‘labels’ of their political ideologies, party leaders themselves admitted that ideological declaration is one thing and real political activity is another one. Summarizing, it might be noticed, that ideology is important for party leaders as theoretical construction, but in party decision making or at the highest political level in Seimas and Government the party ideological values are ignored. Interviews with the authorities of main political parties in Lithuania were conducted in 2007. The results of the interviews don’t promise the long term political cleavages that could make the political life in Lithuania normal in nearest future. Though the authorities of Lithuanian parties have institutional possibilities to control party organization, however, they are not a power that may put Lithuanian parties in a clear ideological framework and foster coherence between parties and society. The main obstacle for the emergence of political cleavage in Lithuania is not a Lithuanian social mentality that is not ready to think ideologically and vote according to it, but Lithuania political parties unwilling to respond to the different interests of Lithuanian society.
Highlights
The article deals with the analysis of the reasons why ideology is not important part of party activities
The study revealed that the lack of ideology identity among Lithuanian parties cannot be explained by the freshness of Lithuania party system that is almost 20 years old, or by political immaturity of Lithuanians
Party authorities know main value ‘labels’ of their political ideologies, party leaders themselves admitted that ideological declaration is one thing and real political activity is another one
Summary
Paaiškinimas: 2001 m. atliktame Naujajame Baltijos / Europos barometro tyrime respondentams buvo užduotas toks klausimas: „Yra keletas priežasčių, kurias žmonės įvardija kalbėdami apie politinių partijų skirtumus. Dabartiniai rodikliai, pavyzdžiui, GINI koeficientas, rodo, kad pajamų nelygybė Lietuvoje yra viena didžiausių ES ir 2006 m. Kitas pajamų nelygybės (kvintilinio santykio) rodiklis atskleidžia, kad 2005 m. Augo įspūdingais tempais, skurdo lygis šalyje buvo didžiausias nuo 1996 m., kai siekė 18,0% ribą. Kad Lietuvos gyventojų nuostatos dėl tam tikrų socialinių ir ekonominių klausimų ryškiai skiriasi ir priklauso nuo respondentų socialinės padėties[23]. Tam tikri Lietuvos socialinės ekonominės tikrovės indikatoriai rodo, kad gali atsirasti socioekonominė kairės–dešinės perskyra. Išryškėjus ekskomunistinei–antikomunistinei skirčiai, Lietuvos partijos ir toliau nėra politizavusios atskirų socioekonominio gyvenimo sričių, kurios galėtų tapti politinio konflikto tarp kairės ir dešinės ašimi. Tokios partijų pozicijos rezultatas yra tas, kad, pavyzdžiui, beveik neįmanoma aptikti skirtumų tarp kairiųjų ir dešiniųjų flangams priklausančių partijų vykdomos socialinės politikos[26]. Todėl Lietuvos politinio gyvenimo ir tarppartinės konkurencijos skurdumo priežasčių reikėtų pamėginti ieškoti partijose, o ne visuomenėje
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.