Mažvydas Jastramskis
Mažvydas Jastramskis
© DELFI / Karolina Pansevič

The Seimas and cabinet's term has reached its halfway point. Increasingly many analysts wonder what is in store for the ruling coalition in the future.

Virginijus Savukynas believes that the "Farmers" are here to stay. Rimvydas Valatka writes about their last years of arrogance. Andrius Tapinas states that the "Farmers" "have good cards" and have good prospects in the coming elections.

Of course, the coalition also features Gediminas Kirkilas' Social Democrat Labour. To them, everything will hang on whether they can agree on a joint electoral roll with Ramūnas Karbauskis.

If they try going on their own, both in next year's [municipal elections] and in the Seimas elections, it will be tough. It would appear that after the initial confusion of Social Democrat sympathisers, the ratings have settled more in the favour of Gintautas Paluckas' party.

Returning to the "Farmers", ambitions are greater here: the post of president, perhaps re-election in the 2020 Seimas elections. It would appear that serious analysts do not feel like such ambitions are excessive. Thus, will the "Farmers" have good cards?

While the presidential elections will be earlier, let us start with the parliamentary elections. The key here, looking at data from prior elections, is simple: the ruling parties always lose.

There are two exceptions. First, speaking of individual parties, there was one, who increased its backing over its term: that is the Liberal Movement in 2012. Second, in 2004, Algirdas M. Brazauskas' Social Democrats retained the post of Prime Minister, even if they lagged behind the Labour Party.

Nevertheless, overall statistics is ruthless to the ruling parties. All coalitions, all parties holding the prime ministership received fewer votes in subsequent Seimas elections, compared to the previous ones. The same Social Democrats of Brazauskas lost impressively with the New Union in 2004 - -30%. The latest two governments lost 20% support each.

Lithuania is no exception among post-Soviet democracies in that the ruling parties are always punished in elections. In 2008, the journal Electoral Studies published research by political scientist Andrew Roberts, who described this phenomenon as "hyper-accountability." Voters demand much from the government. Failing to obtain it, they punish, the cycle repeats.

But hyper-accountability is not irrational: voters punish differently and it depends on the state of the economy. Parties, which rule during declining unemployment (this allows for the best forecasts in changes to votes), lose the least (but still lose).

Together with my colleague Vytautas Kuokštys, we continue to research this phenomenon, have renewed data. And we noticed that Lithuanians not only punish the ruling parties (which is obvious enough). Our punishment (the loss in the ruling parties' votes) average is the largest in the region.

In other terms, the "Farmers" are seeking to be re-elected in the country, which has the most unforgiving and demanding voters in the EU.

I have said that the Seimas elections are tough to predict. I do not deny this and am not seeking to model, how many votes or mandates will exactly be obtained (especially since there's still much time). But the overall trajectory for the ruling parties is easier to estimate, compared to the performance of opposition or newer parties. This is specifically due to hyper-accountability.

The "Farmers'" prospects are further made difficult in that they lack faithful voters with a party identity. Their electorate in 2016 (post-electoral study data) was assembled from those, who earlier voted for other parties or did not vote at all.

Furthermore, the first position in ratings has already been lost.

Thus, even if two years (bar snap elections) remain in the term, theory and data leads to the initial conclusion: in the coming Seimas elections, the "Farmers" will perform worse than in 2016. Quite likely, they will lose.

By how much? Specifically due to the weak party identity, the range is wide. Among the worse scenarios, we see the potential of balancing on the verge of failing to enter parliament. Entrenchment in the party system is also possible, with only a few percent loss.

By the way, we are talking about votes here, not mandates.

Their moderate image and mixed electoral system is to "blame" for the disproportionately large "Farmer" Seimas group.

In short: lightning doesn't strike the same place twice. Further discussion of our electoral system will be done in other comments.

Returning to votes and how many the "Farmers" will lose, this will depend on how the average voter views their work. The economy is the most important, but in our research, we are also trying other factors. It would appear (and is logical) that in post-Communist states, changes in corruption also have an impact.

As such, if they wish to at least not lose (not necessarily meaning to win), the "Farmers" must improve the welfare of the average voter to a significant degree and reduce corruption over the coming year. The aims are simple, but accomplishing them will not be.

This is especially true because under conditions of globalisation, by far not everything depends on the ruling parties. Over the coming year, much can happen in the world and the EU.

What of the presidential elections.

In this case, it is difficult to draw trajectories not only in Lithuania. Elections oriented toward personalities are typically less predictable. This is first of all because party identities (which we have few of already) have a weaker role.

Thus, for Saulius Skvernelis (if he runs for the "Farmers") it could be both a positive and a negative. A negative because the "Farmers" lack a consistent electorate, which could be mobilised (in the real sense), as the Conservatives or Poles do.

An advantage because Skvernelis remains nonpartisan, less associated (than R. Karbauskis) with the party.

In either case, Skvernelis is still the Prime Minister. One of a cabinet, which is already tired, that many voters have been disappointed in and whose evaluation is more so negative.

It is naïve to believe that this will have no influence on the presidential race.

|Populiariausi straipsniai ir video

Ramūnas Bogdanas. Fear of vaccination lives on since the 19th century

The first electrical lamp in Lithuania was lit on April 17, 1892 in the morning in Rietavas. Only 13...

Karolis Jovaiša. The January 13 trial process – a Nurnberg Tribunal for communists

Similarly to the Nurnberg Tribunal, the January 13 trial process is more of a political than a legal...

Second round scenarios emerge: victory margin could be narrow

Sociologists are already looking into scenarios, which could decide choices in the second round of the...

Kęstutis Girnius. What will the main candidates‘ foreign policies be like?

The key task of the Lithuanian president is to deal with the main foreign policy questions and...

Rimvydas Valatka. Ingrida Šimonytė‘s historic mission

Research cornered Kepenis , anti-vaxxers and everyone, who met with antivaxxers on the street, shops...

Top news

Coronavirus cases in Lithuania reach 437

The Ministry of Health announces that till Sunday morning, 29th March, there were 437 confirmed...

President: South Korean specialists will share knowledge, experience with Lithuania

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda says he has agreed with his South Korean counterpart that the...

Sociologist Audronė Telešienė: stay connected and choose reliable information sources

After the World Health Organization (WTO) declared the COVID-19 virus outbreak a pandemic,...

Avalanche of ideas developed in 'Hack the Crisis' hackathon

One of the most important tasks for hackathon organizers was to identify the most pressing issues,...

Lithuania and some other EU countries ask for Mobility Package postponement

Lithuania and "like-minded" EU member states are urging the bloc's bodies to postpone the...

|Maža didelių žinių kaina