Politologists criticise president’s apology over culture sector

Political scientists have expressed disappointment with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda’s annual address to parliament, saying his apology for the government’s handling of the culture sector lacked sincerity, LRT reports.

Gabrielė Burbulytė-Tsiskarishvili, a lecturer at Klaipėda University’s Department of Public Administration and Political Sciences, said she had expected a stronger and more direct apology. “I was really expecting perhaps an even bigger, more direct apology,” she told BNS. She criticised the speech for failing to clearly acknowledge responsibility, adding that if the president took one step, he should have taken the next by explicitly admitting fault for the situation.

Matas Baltrukevičius, an associate analyst at the Vilnius Policy Analysis Institute, said Nausėda appeared to be portraying himself as a “victim of circumstances” in the culture sector. “It was very important for the president to address this because the boycott from the culture sector was personally painful for him. He used the opportunity to apologise and now probably hopes cultural institutions will respond so that he is no longer persona non grata,” Baltrukevičius said.

In his speech, Nausėda acknowledged last year’s anger from the culture and civic communities and said he felt responsible as head of state.

More focused address

While the president’s speech traditionally lasts nearly an hour, political scientists noted this year’s address was more focused, avoiding an attempt to cover every possible topic.

“The president narrowed the scope a bit because previously it seemed there were almost dozens of topics, each given a lot of attention,” Baltrukevičius said.

Burbulytė-Tsiskarishvili described the speech as traditionally “not flashy” but still highlighting the threats facing Lithuania. However, she said it lacked a clear vision for the country and personal responsibility from the president in implementing that vision.

“The speech is more focused. This time, a lot of attention—quite quality attention—is given to what is directly the president’s responsibility. Half of the speech is devoted to foreign policy, national security, and a fairly firm position that we will not change our course, for example, on sanctions against Belarus,” she said.

Focus on security

Nausėda also stated that incidents in Lithuania’s airspace prove the country is entering a dangerous world where peace is no longer taken for granted. He said Lithuania remains a target, constantly facing hostile forces testing its resilience, with hybrid warfare ongoing for more than a decade.

Burbulytė-Tsiskarishvili noted this was the first time the president had so clearly emphasised the growing danger to Lithuania. “For the first time, such words were used to indicate that, as they say, the enemy is at the gate. Of course, the president did not use those exact words, but he quite clearly accentuated the threat—not just some external threat, but a real danger,” she said.

Baltrukevičius, however, said the issue of sanctions against Belarus and Russia could have been given more emphasis, and noted the absence of any mention of China. “The address is not just to the Seimas; it is to Lithuania. And if the president sees these issues as not too important, then perhaps they are not,” he added.