They will fare much better, one might say, since after the recent election, the Liberal Union is the only liberal party in the Seimas. That it has no competition any more.
But let's not jump to conclusions. A stalemate lasts but a moment, as Icchokas Meras put it so aptly in one of his novels. In politics just like in nature, there is no such thing as a status quo. Only eternal fight: either you grow and take what's yours, or, should you decide you've got enough, one day you might end up empty-handed.
What has the Liberal Movement got? The 117 thousand votes that party leader Masiulis is so proud of are a nice achievement. But what if we compared them to a very similar number claimed by the Path of Courage – a party that leaves few doubtful about its imminent extinction? Or emigration? Indeed, the ballots cast for liberals are but a drop in the sea of socialism.
Second, where is the stronghold of the Liberal Movement? Where is the city that would elect liberal MPs at least half as consistently as Kaunas votes conservative? Masiulis was elected in Klaipėda, Kašėta in Varėna, Gailius (who still has to prove he is a liberal and not merely a conformist) in Joniškis. And that's it as far as the liberal “centres” go.
The liberal church in Joniškis – and probably Varėna, too – is as temporary as the protestant one once was. While in Vilnius, where God Himself ordered liberals to sweep everyone away and where they were truly popular once, not a single liberal candidate won in any of the single-member constituencies for the first time since 2000. The last time they did so poorly was in 1996, when voters elected just one liberal MP.
It must be clear to everyone: liberals have lost their citadel, the country's capital city. After decade-long in-fighting, they essentially surrendered it to the conservatives. Let's recall that, not so long ago, Kaunas, too, was ruled by liberal mayors. Now, there is but a small group of the Liberal Movement in Kaunas City Council. In Vilnius, the party does not have a single seat!
Any liberal party in any other country would see it as an ultimate defeat. Why has it befell the party that sees itself as very promising? Is it because they do not have outstanding personalities in their midst who could claim victories in single-mandate constituencies?
The Liberal Movement has never suffered a shortage of charismatic and politically well-versed people (even though it would make sense to try an lure back some of the more outstanding members from the Liberal and Centre Union). The Liberal Movement lost Vilnius not because they lack personalities, but because they bet their stakes on a rather dull functionary, Štaras, and entrepreneur Martikonis, whose only “merit” to the town of Vilnius is rather nationalistic: he named one street after Zebeden, the man who killed Christian missionary St. Bruno of Querfurt in 1009.
And now we have the results: in Vilnius, where they used to claim almost half of all seats in the City Council, the Liberal Movement only received 3.57 percent of the vote in last year's municipal elections. They let Vilnius slip from their hands – and Kaunas, too.
Does the Liberal Movement has to find suitable leaders to reclaim Vilnius and Kaunas? Certainly, but that is not enough. If the Liberal Movement continues to go with the flow which is powered by the conservative Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats, it is the conservatives who will reap the benefits, not liberals.
Doubtlessly, liberals will never be the winning party in Lithuania. But 10 seats in parliament seems an unreasonably poor result too. The Liberal Movement can at least claim 20 to 25. So where did the potential liberal votes go?
One can be quite certain that social democratic voters will never vote liberal. Nor will supporters of the Labour Party or Order and Justice. Or vice versa, of course. The only potential lies with the younger echelons of conservative voters.
The liberals might not like it, but the only way to win is by stepping up the critique of the nationalistic, churchy, and – let's face it – increasingly socialistic bases of the conservative party. There is no other way. That is how politics works: while campaigning, the one you must criticize most fiercely is not your ideological foe, but your closest ally – since he is the one you compete with for votes.
Why is it that, in 2000, after four years in power, the conservatives got four times fewer votes than they were supposed to, while this time, they did almost as good as four years ago?
True, the Lithuanian voter has politically matured and is now more consistent. But still. One of the key reasons for this is the fact that in 2000, conservative voters turned to liberals (the Liberal Union was the second biggest parliamentary party after Social Democrats), while now, those same voters could not see an alternative for the Homeland Union.
The Liberal Union did not try to sell itself as an alternative to the conservatives – they did not even put up a fight for potential voters. The Liberal Movement's campaign underscored their affinity with the conservatives, while what they should have done was to draw a cleavage. Not just any cleavage, but one on the right.
That is why not a single candidate of the Liberal Movement won a seat in Vilnius or Kaunas. The party failed to crawl out of the shadow cast by the conservatives.
Does Masiulis himself and his party realize this is a problem?
Liberals are sensible people. Even though government post sometimes clouds their good judgement. So what the Liberal Movement should do now is not talk nonsense about remaining in the ruling coalition, but use the four years ahead of them to take some of the vote away from the conservatives.
Funny as it sounds, the slogan for the party should be the one used by President Smetona: “We will not rest until Vilnius is ours!”
The shaky support in Varėna and Joniškis won't take them far. Unless the Liberal Movement reclaims Vilnius and Kaunas, the party is in for the fate that befell the Liberal and Centre Union. It was the liberal/conservative voter who was wondering before this year's elections how to vote. And the voter usually concluded: “No one to vote for.” The disposition played well into the conservative hands.
Conclusion: the Liberal Movement must create a sensible, non-hysterical, and clear distance between themselves and the Homeland Union – and perhaps MG Baltic, too. Will they have the guts to do it? One of the more interesting questions to be answered over the four coming years.
