The winds of the presidential election – sparks appear, but only a few fight

According to analysts, this year’s elections will be more lopsided than ever before. For example, President G. Nausėda, who is seeking re-election, and Prime Minister I. Šimonytė, who is again competing with him, did not participate in the Elta debates.

I.Šimonytė somewhat arrogantly explained that the voters are already well aware of her opinions and she does not expect to change her opinion.

One gets the impression that many of the 8 candidates for the post of president are competing for the seat of the country’s leader, but only dream of getting a good seat in the Seimas or the European Parliament.

It’s basically a battle for second place and then the opportunity to appear in the second round, if it happens.

According to current polls, the second round should take place, although the president may be elected in the first. But according to all calculations, G. Nausėda will be re-elected, so he is not interested in arguing with other candidates who will inevitably attack him during the debates.

G. Nausėda missed the debates in Elta due to supposedly pre-planned trips to the regions.

These increased trips by the president greatly annoy the other candidates, who see it as taking advantage of his privileged position.

I. Vēgėlė even invited G. Nausėdas to a personal debate.

Of course, he retorted that he does not consider the lawyer to be the most important competitor and sees him only as one of the candidates.

At the same time, G. Nausėda stated that he wanted to hear not only complaints and reproaches, but also new ideas during the debate.

In LRT’s debates about foreign policy, which is the essential constitutional mandate of the president, there were perhaps fewer complaints and reprimands, but no new ideas were heard either.

G. Nausėda and I. Šimonytė taught the same position in different words: it is necessary to strengthen cooperation with NATO and EU allies and support Ukraine until victory in the war with Russia.

Only doctor E. Vaitkus, who is openly pro-Russian, spoke otherwise, accusing the leaders of Lithuania of scaring the nation with an imminent war, and urged them to sit down at the peace negotiation table.

The head of the country and the prime minister received more criticism on other foreign policy issues. For example, A. Mazuronis called the lack of communication between the president and the minister of foreign affairs the biggest challenge, and emphasized that relations with China must be restored at least at the level of embassies.

I. Vēgėlė also called the faltering relations between the president and the minister of foreign affairs a serious problem, and in addition, he called the country’s foreign policy experimental, which supposedly advocates not the interests of Lithuania, but only Brussels.

The candidates’ opinions also differed regarding the sending of Western troops to Ukraine – D. Žalimas claimed that it could really be done, while I. Vēgėlė said that he categorically disagreed with this idea of ​​French President E. Macron.

The candidates took up spears for Belarus as well. From the point of view of I. Vēgėlė, due to a wrong policy, instead of maintaining a buffer zone, Lithuania has now actually acquired a border with Russia within 40 kilometers of Vilnius and even offered to maintain pragmatic relations with Moscow.

E. Vaitkus believes that the guardianship of S. Cichanouskaja in Lithuania is a provocative interference in the affairs of Belarus by Minsk. R. Žemaitaitis urged not to equate the Belarusian nation with A. Lukashenko, and A. Mazuronis basically holds the same opinion.

More arrows are likely to be fired at those in power through domestic and social policy debates. G. Nausėda will also be an extremely important target.

For example, I. Vēgėlė has already stated that the maximum allowed is 17 thousand. A. Paukštys, the owner of “Teltonikas”, who supported G. Nausėdas with the sum of 990 euros, and intends to manufacture chips in Lithuania, is said to have already received the greatest benefit from the establishment of the Taiwanese representative office.

It is ironic that the president was critical of this, in his opinion, economically very harmful decision of the rulers, but this did not prevent A. Paukščius from becoming the biggest supporter of the country’s leader’s election campaign.

By the way, the owners of “Rokiškis sūris” are among the important supporters of the president. They also supported G. Nausėda during the 2019 election campaign, although this did not prevent them from supporting his then main rival I. Šimonytė.

This is an old business tradition. B. Lubys, the owner of Achemas, who died more than a decade ago, always supported several even ideologically hostile parties during the elections.

Perhaps more important for business than ideology is a good relationship with all politicians – it is the most valuable insurance policy in the event of a change of government.

But party support for presidential candidates can turn out to be poisonous.

For example, the peasants were willing to financially support I. Vēgėlė, but he refused such support. The status of an independent candidate is probably more important than possible financial support, so the lawyer chose a higher value.

G. Nausėda similarly distanced himself from the social democrats – he stated that they did not commit to anything to each other, but saw similarities between his vision of the welfare state and the program of the leftists, and also expressed the hope that in cooperation with the future Government, it would be better to reduce social exclusion.

One way or another, the candidates’ debates will liven up the sluggish election campaign not only with personal stings, but also with political disputes.