A POLITICAL ERA DRAWS TO AN END  

PHOTO: LARS BRYNE

VILNIUS 7 FEBRUARY: Algirdas Brazauskas, the former president and prime minister of Lithuania is in very serious condition, and is in reanimation of one of Vilnius’ hospitals. Brazauskas has advanced prostate cancer and complications, as well as blood infection. As Gitana Lyatukene, the press secretary of the hospital told

“the patient is in the reanimation as he needs an intensive care.”

* * *

Hopefully, Lithuania's political giant still has many years left to live and prosper. It is however, very probable that his strong influence on Lithuanian politics, politicians and society is now beginning to fade. I've had the pleasure of meeting Brazauskas a few times over the last 20 years, and the meeting I remember most was when I interviewed him for the magazine 'Vilnius Monthly' five years ago in his then prime minister’s office at Gedimino Avenue 11 in Vilnius. I have much positive to say about Brazauskas, not least for his strong and clear leadership style, but there have unfortunately also been factors that have sometimes made me wonder if he has always been keeping his way pure.
 

The 20^th congress of Lithuania’s communist party, Dec 1989 

The most amazing story he told me from those days, was about the 20^th congress of his Lithuanian communist party in December 1989. Here is how he describes  what happened at the congress:

“That late December day, we voted that our Lithuanian communist party should break away from Moscow, and that Lithuania should seek independence. We took big risks, because we knew what force they had at their disposal in Moscow, but because we were responsible for the welfare of so many people we could not confront the Soviet Union, we had to outsmart them.”

Then about the atmosphere among the delegates:

“The mood at the congress was exceptionally fantastic... Naturally, such a positive attitude was not because we were communists, but because we were members of the organisation, which had challenged the Soviet Union and its Communist Party. The community well understood the essence of our decision. This was not the only time, when people understood us and backed us. We, then the leaders, felt their support during the entire autumn of 1989. I had to go to Moscow many times to meetings of the Politburo and Supreme Council, the Congress itself, and so forth. Upon our return home, which was usually at night, people almost always met us with flowers and smiling faces, and sometimes even with tears in their eyes. At no other time in my life I did feel such human warmth and support from my own nationals, which my colleagues and I felt during those days that carried such responsibility for all of Lithuania.” 

All fine, until the telephone rang:

“On the first day of the Congress, I was sitting at the table of the presidium, when I was suddenly called to the telephone about noon. It was a call from Mikhail Gorbachev, which came directly to the Opera and Ballet Theatre in the centre of Vilnius. Our meeting had just started. I picked up the receiver, and heard Gorbachev’s voice, sounding especially stern. Our conversations had been strained earlier, starting from the summer of 1989, when the CPSU Central Committee had issued their warning statement after the Baltic Way. Now Gorbachev was unmistakably threatening. He said, “Have you already passed the resolution on the separation from the Party?” “No, we haven’t passed such a resolution, but we shall pass it,” I replied to the Soviet Union leader. He paused for a while, and then said, “Do you know, how all this might end?” “How?” I asked him, sensing that there were various ways in which it might all end…”

He could have tanks surrounding us:

“And then, right in the Opera and Ballet Theatre, I understood that this was one more warning upon which Gorbachev is determined to act. Maybe he’ll bring in the army; maybe, he will scare us some other way, or he might run everybody out of our Congress? The last version seemed the most realistic. He could have tanks surround the Opera and Ballet Theatre, and chase us away or arrest us. I could sense such a threat from the tone of Gorbachev’s voice…”

Undertake forceful means:

“Our conversation was rather long. Then, Gorbachev told me clearly, “We will immediately summon a Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee to deliberate all the conclusions, relevant to the documents of your 20^th Congress, if you happen to pass them.” I knew that, according to the order of matters during that time, such a Plenum could fully crush us, annul our documents, and undertake forceful means. I could sense the promise in his each word to dispose of us directly.” 

In an atmosphere of dangerous threats:

“I hung up and went back to the auditorium. The Congress was going on; people were speaking. After consulting with my closest colleagues, I told them, “We must speed up our decision-making. We have to pass the resolution under deliberation. We cannot drag things out.” I forwarded this idea to all the participants. They all felt a great responsibility, and we worked late into the night, passing documents on self-reliance at a rapid pace. This was our victory, the result of our determination. It was a great event in an atmosphere of dangerous threats…” 

The text of the Lithuanian Communist Party’s resolution that December in 1989 was as follows:

“The most important basic goal of the party is an independent, democratic Lithuanian State, implementation of humanistic, socialism ideals – human freedom and social justice – and formation of conditions for the historical continuation of the Lithuanian nation and all residents of Lithuania.”

I left my meeting with Brazauskas with the clear feeling that in his opinion he and his party had contributed at least as much to the saving and liberation of Lithuania as Landsbergis, the freedom movement Sajudis and the masses of Lithuanian people who surrounded the parliament in January 1991. But I also felt that he had been sincere in his explanations and descriptions on how he had lived through and experienced the events of those days.

In January 1990, just a few days after the dramatic events

at the 20^th Communist Congress, Mikhail Gorbachev came to

Vilnius for a final attempt to convince Brazauskas

to change his mind, but in vain.  

Brazauskas and Landsbergis 

One of my questions in my interview with Brazauskas in 2005, was how he experienced the difference between him and Landsbergis during the liberation years. This he replied:

“I became answerable to both Moscow and Vilnius and had to keep both sides happy. There was a real danger of bloody intervention from Moscow, while at home the calls for independence were getting ever louder. Vytautas Landsbergis could say whatever he wanted, and he was a better speaker than me, but I had to be more careful. That was the big difference between us.”

I have also had the opportunity to meet Landsbergis a number of times, interviewed him as well, and I have asked him about his main concerns when it comes to Brazauskas. This is how he summarises their relationship:

“My rivalry, as you say, with Brazauskas was evident even before 1990, and though we have cooperated on some issues, we clearly disagree on our major choices. I still think he is too appeasing towards Russia.”

Music professor Vytautas Landsbergis and Brazauskas have been the post-Soviet

era's most prominent opponents and personalities in Lithuanian politics. 

Nomenclature tendencies and corruption

In the winter of 1993, privatisation was officially resumed but never came any closer to regaining its pre-election character and momentum due to a shortage of political will from the highest echelons of power. According to some assessments, privatisation stopped altogether, especially land restitution in agriculture which used to be of the farmer-type in the interwar period of independence.  

However, this also meant that the country's political élite remained almost intact, with the consequence that independent Lithuania inherited the soviet political culture to a greater extent than other republics. The nomenclature was again in power.

I can obviously never get confirmed the veracity of the following story, but this is what a local businessman told me in 1993 as an example on how the late-communism corruption had been re-adopted by the then newly elected parliament, government and president. This is what the man told me:

"When we walk into the office of Brazauskas to discuss a privatisation project or similar, we usually bring with us a briefcase filled with about 100,000 U.S. dollars. We put the briefcase on his desk, he opens it and calls for his closest co-workers to come to the room, each getting a stack of notes. Afterwards he closes the briefcase and puts it on the floor under the table. The conversation can begin."

one of Brazauskas’ sharpest critics.

Retired General Jonas Kronkaitis, who was Lithuania’s vice minister of national defence and Commander of the country’s armed forces for the period 1999-2004, has been one of Brazauskas’ harshest critics. Here is what he told me in an interview some years ago, when Brazauskas still was Lithuania’s Prime Minister and Adamkus the President:

“Many of our Lithuanian politicians, civil servants, judges, the court system and the prosecutor’s office are still the children of the old Soviet nomenclature, and there is a great need for fresh blood and new thinking in order for Lithuania to catch up with Western Europe”. 

I then asked Gen. Kronkaitis what in his view is wrong in and within today’s Lithuania, and he answered: 

“Very much the leadership. One of the main principles of leadership is that “you lead by example”, and when the very top leaders set a bad example, then they infect the whole country. When the very top is corrupt, such behavior is pyramided throughout the bureaucracy, tends to be tolerated and becomes normal. That was the soviet system; no one questioned it. It was expected that nomenclature has privileges, which others do not.  Many people in this country are angry and unhappy about such a system, few because they don’t get their share, but luckily most because they believe it is wrong and are working to bring about necessary changes.”

In the interview Kronkaitis also went back to the early years of regained freedom for Lithuania, saying:

“When Lithuania regained its independence a law was passed to return property to their rightful owners.  The process was complicated for a variety of reasons; in some cases it was not possible to return the same land to its owner because something was built on it, so the people could chose either financial compensation, or land somewhere else.  In some cases land was simply taken away from the rightful owner to give it to someone else who wanted it as compensation. This process created hundreds, if not thousands, of morally unjustified acts of land takeovers by public officials, or administrators. In one of those cases, two blind people, a father and son, lost land in a very desirable location that belonged to them to Prime Minister Brazauskas. The blind man wanted only to provide for his son’s future from the sale of the valuable land. His pleas were disregarded.  These most vulnerable people, who should expect protection from their government, were left to fend for themselves.”

Failed Euro zone adoption, little interest in foreign investments

Today many say that if Lithuania would have had the euro instead of the litas, the painful measures currently being taken by the Kubilius government would not have been necessary. Three years ago Lithuania was very close to the adoption of the euro, but the effort became a victim of the strict adherence of the so-called euro convergence criteria by the European Central Bank and the lack of performance by the Brazauskas and Kirkilas governments and their ‘Commission for the Coordination of the Adoption of the Euro’.

The same banker also told me that they in each meeting with Brazauskas tried to convince him to do more to attract foreign investments to Lithuania, but always got the same answer: “We have money enough in Lithuania, we don’t need foreign investors here.”

The conclusion the bankers had drawn from this statement and the general attitude of Brazauskas, was that he, together with a certain group of people in this country, had stronger interest in protecting their own interest than to help the Lithuanian economy grow quicker.

Brazauskas, Kirkilas and new social-democratic leaders

The appointment of Gediminas Kirkilas as Prime Minister in 2006 ended a lengthy political crisis in Lithuania after first the Social Liberals and then the Labour Party left the Brazauskas-led coalition government, making the PM's position almost impossible. The Labour Party was also under police investigation on suspicion of having received economic backing from Russian interests and for embezzlement of EU-funds. The Labour Party chairman, Viktor Uspaskich, who had gone into exile in Russia, then resigned the leadership of his party. One of the key scandal factors was the fight for control over the Mazeikiu Nafta oil refinery, which strong Russian interests were keen on buying.

potential crown princes, was probably suffering under the lack of authority.

The fact that Brazauskas over the last 20 years has been the undisputed and dominant leader of his own party, has made it difficult for the younger forces to find room for their own development. Kirkilas was to a certain degree a victim of just that, and I will assume that the party is now eagerly under way to coach leaders who can fill the void Brazauskas inevitably will leave behind.

Brazauskas and Adamkus

I have heard people speculate that Brazauskas decided to support Adamkus in 2004 in return of an agreement allowing him to participate in decision-making processes with regard to the selection of advisors and also other decisions the President wanted to make. It is probably too far stretched to suggest that Adamkus was a kind of puppet-President for the last five years of his rule, but it is certainly remarkable that Brazauskas' criticism against Adamkus died down so suddenly in 2004, and one can rightly ask if this was due to that Brazauskas had got what he wanted, and actually sat with even greater force than what is portrayed officially. But maybe this is too much speculation and fantasy ride?

private covenant, which is not known to the public?  

And now?

In the interview with him five years ago, I asked him why he had remained popular among so much of the Lithuanian population for so many years. His answer was:

“If you are good to people then people pay you back with goodness. I have always had a connection with ordinary people and I listen to what they have to say and, and wherever I can, I help them. My generation of politicians were valued by what they achieved, and it just happened that my twenty odd year career coincided with the most important events for the country. In the old government and in the new I was concerned mainly with economic and social problems, people’s living problems. I am not telling you any secrets – people have confidence in those that work for them.”

Editor

 Algirdas Brazauskas biography