Such Sąjūdis-affiliated papers like “Atgimimas”, “Sąjūdžio žinios”, “Respublika”, “Kauno aidas” and many others were brave saboteurs of the Soviet propaganda machine, but, in the run-up to 11 March 1990, they became arenas of intrigues, inner fights and personality clashes.
Disagreements within Sąjūdis mainly focused on differing views on the process of liberation, its rate and directions, as well as on relations with the Lithuanian Communist Party (LKP). Oftentimes, disagreements between brothers-in-arms would erupt into open confrontations that the society, too, sometimes became aware of.
Many people who have worked for Sąjūdis media note that its structure was not entirely democratic. According to them, the press was controlled by the leaders of Sąjūdis who made sure that everyone follows the line and no one criticizes the movement and its members. If a publication strayed off the strictly-prescribed line, there would often follow radical changes within the editorial staff.
Frictions between Vilnius and Kaunas
Friction between Sąjūdis' moderate and radical wings came to the fore in summer 1989, when talks about independence became increasingly frequent. Some Sąjūdis members were in favour of a more autonomous course and supported the idea of independence, while others were willing to cooperate with the LKP and were reluctant to anger Moscow. Kaunas was regarded as the stronghold of the most radical factions. In August 1989, they openly demanded that an independent state be declared the main objective of the movement.
There were constant tensions between Sąjūdis sections in Vilnius and Kaunas, tensions that British historian Anatol Lieven links to differences in social standing. Lieven, who has devoted much attention to the history of liberation in the Baltic states, regards the Vilnius faction as having consisted mainly of academic intellectuals who were more open and flexible. By contrast, Kaunas members were people with nothing to lose, little-known public servants and technocrats with angry nationalistic fervour. These traits in character are what finally divided the ambitious personalities who became leaders and idols of the nation.
Vidmantas Valiušaitis who led Sąjūdis' paper in Kaunas, “Kauno aidas” (“Echo of Kaunas”), is critical about the attitudes that Sąjūdis leaders had regarding the press at the time. He compares it to methods of the Communist Party – both desired to control and know everything each reporter was doing.
“Many of the Sąjūdis leaders thought it sufficed to say something and everyone will somehow know it. It was a direct result of their incomprehension of what the press – free press in particular – is and how difficult it is to build one. They completely missed its importance,” Valiušaitis says.
Even though the Sąjūdis press – directed as it was “from above” and greatly lacking in pluralism – was not entirely free, it had the heavy duty of defining a united national position and therefore could not possible afford to be a ramshackle of contrasting ideas. People who were involved with it readily admit the fact, especially regarding the period of 1988-early 1989, when everything was still, as it were, hanging by a thread.
Criticism for communists did not please everyone
First indications that the press was bound to become the clashing scene for differing opinions and personalities emerged as early as July 1988, less than a month after the Sąjūdis Initiative Group was set up. The Communist Party was holding its conference in Moscow, when Artūras Skučas, editor-in-chief of the only Sąjūdis' publication at the time, “Sąjūdžio žinios” (“Sąjūdis News”), published an article “Do We Have an Alternative?”
The article, written in a rather biting tone, called for getting rid of stagnant members of the Communist Party. Unsurprisingly, the piece did not go down well with the LKP heads. Moreover, it made some sparks within the Initiative Group too. Vytautas Petkevičius, author and influential Sąjūdis member, demanded that Skučas be dismissed from “Sąjūdžio žinios.” After prolonged discussions and deliberations, the Initiative Group distanced itself from the article. On majority's decision, Skučas was relieved of his duties and philosopher Arvydas Juozaitis was appointed in his stead.
Juozaitis' appointment did not, however, mark the end of clashes between radical youngsters in the Initiative Group and moderate Sąjūdis members. The same Petkevičius and his more conservative colleagues poured, on numerous occasions, criticism against the new editor-in-chief of “Sąjūdžio žinios” for his lack of constraint during rallies and allegedly intemperate tone of the publication.
The breaking point was May 1989 when, upon the decision by Sąjūdis Council, “Sąjūdžio žinios” ceased publication. The unexpected decision was explained thus: the paper had published a mocking anti-Russian poem that raised tensions between Lithuanian and Russian-speaking populations while the alleged unwillingness of the editors to admit the mistake forced to take drastic action.
One of Sąjūdis ideological leaders, Romualdas Ozolas, stressed that the move had been pre-programmed: “From the very beginning, the publication must not have been influenced by one individual. Moreover, there was a rather pronounced conjuncture of ideological positions. From early on, we saw a divide between the bolder and the more moderate Sąjūdis members. Some of them wanted to cooperate with the Communist Party, while others openly resisted. It was felt while preparing materials for the paper.”
A similar situation developed in Kaunas too. In June 1989, Kaunas Sąjūdis Council dismissed Valiušaitis from “Kauno aidas” editor-in-chief position. Valiušaitis, who headed the paper from the very first issue, was accused of ignoring the Council's opinions. Today, many say that “Kauno aidas” was much more moderate that most of Kaunas' members, that it had a rather calm tone and presented a variety of opinions. However, many resented that “Kauno aidas” did not stick to one unchallengeable position and encouraged debate.
Big money
Sąjūdis' leadership felt that media control was slipping from their hands and finally resolved to do something about it. It was decided that relations between Sąjūdis, as the publisher, and the publications must be regulated – even a special commission was set up. It was decided to define the relations in contracts that were to be signed by 1 January 1990. If editors refused to sign the contract, they risked losing the right to use the trademark of “Sąjūdis.” Moreover, it was declared that all Sąjūdis publications must stick to prescribed program and political line.
In his memoirs, Virgilijus Čepaitis, who was seen as Vytautas Landsbergis' right hand, admits that he was among the supporters of the move.
Čepaitis writes that he saw a much greater danger to the press in the process of commercialization that was already affecting some of the more popular publications. As Sąjūdis press would give part of its profits to the movement's leadership, many did not look favourably at ambitions to disaffiliate and work independently. Therefore seceding publications not only meant loss of media control but also drying-up of financial flows.
Petras Vaitiekūnas, currently Lithuanian ambassador to Ukraine, discusses money flows within Sąjūdis. More than two decades ago, he was in charge of printing the illegal Sąjūdis press. Thanks to him and other enthusiasts from the Physics Institute, Vilnius at the time was a media hub of democratic movements in the entire USSR.
Even now Vaitiekūnas often wonders why the KGB did not interfere with massive printing of anti-Soviet publications, even though they knew full well that it was happening right under their noses, in central Vilnius.
Rimantas Grainys also helped with printing. Much later, after Lithuania had regained independence, the controversial businessman was murdered in central Vilnius, by the Government palace. During Sąjūdis times, Grainys commanded huge sums of money and was therefore observed by the KGB.
“The KGB would periodically take Grainys in. Afterwards, he would come to me and say that the security services know everything. I would tell him to put all blame on me and we'd continue working as before. The security services probably just took part of the money,” Vaitiekūnas speculates remembering indecisiveness of the ideologically-decaying KGB in taking measures against Sąjūdis.
Conflicts broke into public
A particularly significant point of discord between the two factions within Sąjūdis was, according to Ozolas, a popular TV show “Atgimimo banga” (“Wave of Revival”). “While preparing the show, Sąjūdis leadership wanted to control everyone who spoke in the name of Sąjūdis. Landsbergis in particular was always reproachful to everyone on the show and so was director Arūnas Žebriūnas,” Ozolas recalls.
In autumn 1989, the upcoming elections to the Supreme Council, main governing body of Lithuanian Soviet Republic, raised tensions within Sąjūdis even more. It was not long before inner divisions broke into public.
In November 1989, a leading communist daily “Komjaunimo tiesa” published an article by Juozaitis who accused the Sąjūdis leadership of lacking democratic values. Another Sąjūdis member, philosopher Vytautas Radžvilas, also voiced critique over the movement's totalitarian tendencies, via “Voice of America.” These were early signals for the Lithuanian society and diaspora that Sąjūdis was not as united as it had seemed.
An even more glaring example of disunity was an incident in early March 1990, when reporters of the national TV news, “Panorama,” were thrown out of the Sąjūdis Deputy Club. It was claimed that the broadcast was leading a “pro-Brazauskas propaganda.” (Algirdas Brazauskas was leader of the Lithuanian Communist Party and later President and Prime Minister of Lithuania; there have always been ideological and personal tensions between him and Vytautas Landsbergis as well as between their respective parties, the conservatives and the social democrats.)
However, the ultimate symbol of inner confrontation was another article by Juozaitis, entitled “Historic Mistake,” published on 15 March 1990 in the “Lietuvos rytas” – the re-named “Komjaunimo tiesa” – that ran the issue at 560 thousand copies. In the article, Juozaitis regrets that Landbergis was elected chair of the Supreme Council. He also deplores the unnecessary antagonizing of the population and undeserved derogation of communist leader Algirdas Brazauskas.
