wh y w e l o s t
64
image of the Conservatives as the “arrogant party” was rubbed in so deeply into the public
consciousness that it has been impossible to get rid of it until now. This was not the case
when the Conservatives had just arrived in power. In fact, at that point they constituted a
marked contrast to the increasingly corrupt and stagnation-prone LDDP.
Vagnorius’ rise in the Conservative Party contained a promise of a new-style party man-
agement. The party governing board he formed was built along the principles of unified
and efficient political command. These principles, however, were abandoned with the sub-
sequent reorganization of the party structure. As a result, power in the Conservative Party
was divided between the presidium that wielded most of the influence, and the council
that was formed chiefly, though not exclusively, along the lines of regional representation.
This reform of the party towards “democratization” through giving greater say to regional
organizations has, in fact, undermined its efficiency, insofar as provincial organizations
are apt to come under control of regional “chiefs” who have been proving to be less-than-
adequate players on the national political scene.
Moreover, Vagnorius’ period saw a rise and entrenchment of conformism and the politics
of “clan” within the Conservative Party. This practice did not entirely disappear with his
demise, insofar as the figures who came to occupy the forefront of the party thereafter were
not his opponents, but rather those who had managed best to conform to Vagnorius’ rule.
Self-enclosed party structures, especially among its lower echelons and especially in the
provinces, have continued to prevent attracting new members to the Conservative Party.
The local organizations have likewise had little use as the party’s feelers whereby it could
interact with society at the grass-roots level. The Conservative Party was also somewhat
weakened by the formation of a splinter group (the
soi-dissant
“moderate Conservatives”)
around Vagnorius after the latter’s resignation as prime minister. This has continued to
drain some small proportion of the Conservative vote.
A more serious blow was the dismantling of the Conservative-Christian democratic gov-
erning coalition just before the 2000 election. The Christian Democrats pulled out of the
coalition hoping to dissociate themselves from the Conservatives, perceived as the “estab-
lishment” party and held solely responsible for the previous government’s mistakes. This
strategy clearly backfired for the Christian Democrats (they were pretty much wiped out
in the election), but it also further damaged the Conservative reputation.
Public relations were fairly effective and well-organized while the Conservative Party was
still in opposition. It soon went downhill, however, with the ascent of the Conservatives
into power. During the Conservative government, numerous important and far-reaching
reforms were carried out in the spheres of education, health care and public administra-
tion. Foreign investment was attracted through successful privatization of state-owned
companies, and significant progress made towards the membership in the European
Union and NATO. Nevertheless, the only praise that these reforms and policies received
was from foreign experts; the press coverage was predominantly negative. Towards 2000
public opinion firmly branded the Conservatives as the party guilty of “selling out” and
impoverishing Lithuania.
In many cases this is attributable to the public officials’ incompetence and perhaps un-
willingness to engage in public relations. “Let our works speak for themselves” – such
has frequently been the dominating attitude, and thus the public was left without means
