Opinion polls show Lithuania’s improving moods

Vladas Gaidys, a physicist-turned-philosopher-and-sociologist, has been for 17 years director of Vilmorus Market and Opinion Research Center, Vilmorus, an independent private organization that employs 10 full-time employees, 20 research coordinators and 150 interviewers all over Lithuania. Vilmorus participates in various international public opinion and market survey projects, and coordinates such projects in the Baltic States, closely collaborating with Finnish market research company Taloustutkimus Oy, Estonian market research company Turu-uuringute and Latvian market research company Latvian Facts. Vilmorus conducts monthly representative surveys of Lithuania’s population. The sample consists of 1,000 respondents and includes all counties of Lithuania, its biggest towns, 10 districts, 19 towns and over 50 villages in total. In the biggest Lithuanian daily Lietuvos Rytas, once a month Vilmorus publishes data about Lithuanian residents attitudes towards the political parties, politicians and institutions. Fifty-eight-year-old Gaidys kindly agreed to reply to these questions from The Baltic Times.

Is market and opinion research always worthy of the public’s trust? What can you say to those who claim that it is possible to buy desired results of a survey or research?
Well, one should have in mind that in Lithuania, likewise in other Western countries, this kind of establishment’s turnover from public opinion polls makes up only a meager part of general turnover. To be exact, in our case, it consists of 5-10 percent of the total turnover. Frankly speaking, we undertake polls for advertisement purposes, mostly. Once we publish results of a public poll, they are published in the daily Lietuvos Rytas; we are being quoted, looked at by journalists and politicians. All major market and opinion companies cherish their reputation – it would be unheard of if any of them tried to bribe or, as you say, buy desired results. On the other hand, with 150 interviewers employed countrywide, it would be impossible to forge any results of a poll. In addition, we consider ourselves professionals, so even pondering a possibility of tilting results of a survey or research is utterly unethical. By the way, in the beginning of November, we established Lithuania’s Association of Market Research and Sociological Surveys. Its major function is self-control, overlooking all of these kinds of establishments in the country.

From dozens of surveys and polls, how can you describe the average Lithuanian? Can we be called Westerners, when it comes to our mentality and values?
This is a very fundamental and complicated question. It is very difficult to conclude what “the average Lithuanian” is, as we have huge and gigantic social differences in the country. From that standpoint, they are one of the largest in the entire Europe, let alone Germany or, let us say, Scandinavian countries. It is obvious that only a rather small part of our citizens are well-to-do, educated and happy, overall. Regrettably, a bulk of Lithuanians have linked their lives to life with suitcases – they are in a constant search for better life. However, certain conclusions about Lithuanians can be drawn. Thus, I would discern very high alcohol consumption in Lithuania. Due to that indication, as a result, Europe-wise, we have one of the worst statistics in suicide rates, auto accidents, homicides and divorces. In terms of life quality, we are lagging behind most of the European countries, overtaking only Bulgaria and Romania. Interestingly, one-fourth of our households still use outdoor lavatories – only Bulgaria and Romania go ahead of us at that point. Nevertheless, to estimate a broader current picture, starting in November, the situation regarding economic moods has been improving in the country. Lithuania, maybe quite unexpectedly, shows more optimism than eight other European countries, ahead of such countries as Hungary, and even Italy. Besides, what is attributive solely to Lithuania is its high support, above the EU average, for EU membership.

How do you explain that?
Well, like in other countries, the membership is often assessed purely from a practical application – enabling us free to travel, work and live. As we know, Lithuanians have taken big advantage of that – our immigration level is the highest in the EU. Speaking of other particularities of Lithuanians, I would like to discern our very low trust in our authorities, government and, particularly, Seimas, which sees a record low in trust over 20 years.

What, or who, has contributed to the lows?
During the crisis, probably no one could expect high support for the authorities. However, this Seimas’ tenure, I believe, particularly dismays and annoys all Lithuanian people. People are sick to their stomachs about the Seimas and its members that snitch on each other, constantly are entangled in various scandals, and mostly care about their paychecks, cars and benefits. For many people, the Seimas has turned into a circus with a bunch of clowns.

Is such a complete disappointment in government not dangerous to the statehood itself? Is the latest suggestion of Rolandas Paksas, chairman of the party Tvarka ir teisingumas (Order and Justice), to empower the nation itself to govern the state as an outcome of the disappointment?
Obviously, such low confidence in the highest authorities reflects respectively on political agendas. I have heard the proposal by Paksas, however, I am afraid that it is impossible to implement not only politically, but also technologically. Maybe the idea ‘all-vote-all-adopt-laws’ could be popular in a less democratic country, but in Lithuania, which is a member of the European Union, I doubt very much about its feasibility. I guess Paksas has brought up the idea, thinking about the upcoming municipal election.

In the Vilmorus survey of early December, over 40 percent of respondents claim that Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite represents their interests best. Her predecessor, Valdas Adamus, also basked in high approval ratings. How do you explain the record highs of the Presidential Palace?
Well, indeed, first we can speak about institutional trust in the Presidential Palace. Essentially, the institution is conflict-less, compared with the government or Seimas. The president is seen as the last resort, caring mostly for higher, fundamental matters, coming out as the fairest and the most truthful leader, in juxtaposition with the leaders of Seimas and government. Second, President Grybauskaite is highly considered as someone who is not in any way linked with oligarchs and parties. That, apparently, appeals a lot to our people. Third, Grybauskaite’s personal characteristics – strict, truthful, intelligent, honest, determined, non-assuming and prominent in the entire Europe – are very attractive virtues. Also, she seems quite appealing to different parties. Thus, meeting with Russia and Belarus’ heads of states, she scores well with, let us say, Social Democrats, while supporting the current government and, let us say, rejecting the amendments of alcohol excise tax, Grybauskaite suits well with the ruling Motherland Union-Christian Democrat Party. Therefore, none of the parties exposes animosity against her.

Grybauskaite has been noticed internationally, receiving the Woman of the Year nomination from the U.S.-based Glamour magazine, and the Year’s Upstart from the Economist magazine for defying the U.S.-led summit in Prague and meeting Belarus’ controversial Lukashenko. What do the recognitions speak of in your eyes about Grybauskaite?
These kinds of titles should not be exaggerated, as they are very symbolic, not binding in any way. Can you tell me how many Lithuanians heard about Glamour magazine until the nomination? I am sure not too many. As for the Economist’s nomination, acknowledging the prominence of the magazine itself, I doubt whether it is very serious with this kind of nomination. We all should have in mind that, before the end of a year, many media outlets establish certain nominations, competitions and rewards, which most are of a playful and symbolic nature and importance. If you remember, a few years ago, some magazine nominated the then-PM Kirkilas and the then-opposition leader Kubilius with the titles of “Unsung Heroes.” It also falls in the same mold as Grybauskaite’s Year’s Upstart nomination. Obviously, there is a good portion of irony in most such nominations, so they cannot be taken very seriously by anyone.

As one notices, Grybauskaite and her predecessor, Adamkus, are very different in styles, approaches and policy-making. Adamkus, in numerous meetings, would approach U.S. President George Bush by name, while Grybauskaite defied Barrack Obama’s invitation to meet him in the disarmament ratification summit, in Prague. However, it seems that Grybauskaite’s defiance, likewise Adamkus’ conciliation, rather add popularity points than chip them away. How do you explain that?
I would say that people tend to idolize their leaders not according to one feature, but rather according to a whole collection of them. We can find many antipodes in current or recent politics, not only from the pattern of Grybauskaite and Adamkus. For example, the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin and his successor, Vladimir Putin, both are very different, however, adored evenly. There is no universal type of head of state. In Lithuania, like in other countries, we can speak of different types of leaders; both Brazauskas and Adamkus, or Grybauskaite, are very different, but adored for their entire collection of characteristics. What links them is that they all are very charismatic, exuberant and knowledgeable leaders. Besides, their achievements stretch well beyond politics. Brazauskas was an acknowledged constructor, hunter; Paksas is seen as an outstanding pilot who has flown around the world, and Grybauskaite is well respected as the former EC Commissar and owner of a black belt. Therefore, to conclude, all these leaders embody sets of outstanding characteristics, certainly defining them as charismatic leaders.

The ruling coalition sees record lows in its work approvals, but the opposition parties seemingly cannot take advantage of the situation, seeing steady approval rates of 18 percent for the Social Democracts and 11 percent for the Labor Party. Why can the opposition not capitalize more on the losses of the ruling coalition?
Yes, this is somewhat phenomenal. It is hard to explain. However, I think that people feel that the opposition is not ready yet or that it does not want to take over the governing of the country. If the opposition parties had declared clearly that they are ready, or want to take over the ruling wheel of the country, they would, definitely, have much higher approval ratings today.

How could you characterize Lithuania’s main parties? What is common among them? What are their particularities?
The Mother Union-Christian Democrat Party singles out for its pro-Western stance. Its often-exaggerated suspicions towards Russia and its policies are also its hallmark. In addition, the party tries to expose Lithuania as a country of high technologies rather than a land of agriculture. Its electorate has been very steady for many years, comprised mostly of either educated, Christian values oriented people or elderly people, exiles. However, the party has tried to rejuvenate its electorate lately. Speaking about the Social Democrats, I really doubt how much the name corresponds to the content of the party. Are they really the defenders of the working people? Interestingly, statistically, there are the most millionaires in the Seimas among Social Democrats. I think that they, today, could be more defined as liberal rightists than leftists. Frankly, I do not see big ideological differences between the Mother Union and the Social Democrat parties when it comes to economic programs. Probably there are more clear-cut differences between them in regards to their political stance – the former being pro-American inclined, while the latter favoring the Eastern direction. Obviously, they differ much in the evaluation of the past. Leaders of the Tvarka and Teisingumas (Order and Justice) and Labor Party, Paksas and Uspaskichas, possess charismatic personalities, upon which the parties have been built. If they step down some day, I assume, the parties could be shaken to their core, where their integrity and cohesion would be in question. This cannot be said about the much more monolithic Social Democrat and the Homeland Union - Christian Democrat parties.

When will the end come for populist parties and political animals in Lithuanian politics?
As a rule, before every election to Seimas, we deal with a certain populist party that comes out as if from nowhere. The Nation’s Resurrection Party, led by showman Arturas Valinskas and his anecdotal company, is the latest example. Fortunately, I do not see new populist parties popping up before the upcoming municipal election. However, Lithuanians may see these kinds of “saviors” before would-be Seimas elections, as, obviously, there has so far been a niche for them.