The election marathon of 2024 has reached the finish line. It will end in Romania, where at the end of November they will elect a president, and on the first day of winter – a parliament. Undoubtedly, this year will go down in history as a record-breaker in terms of the number of elections and people who took part in voting. According to general estimates, it is more than 60 countries and two billion people. Of course, the “cherry on the cake” was the U.S. presidential election, which determined the new master of the White House.
Nevertheless, it would be unfair to speak only about the U.S., and leave aside the elections in other countries, which are somehow important for the Asia-Pacific region, the European continent, Central Asia and the South Caucasus. In this sense, the end of October 2024 was fruitful for popular will. There were parliamentary elections in Georgia, which we have already described, as well as elections to the supreme legislative bodies of Bulgaria and Lithuania, Japan and Uzbekistan. Each of these elections was intriguing in its own way and influenced the political balance in their respective countries. Perhaps, only Uzbekistan was out of this series, emphasizing a predictable result.
In this piece Ascolta traditionally analyzes the results of election campaigns, as well as identifies and examines the main trends and future implications for the above-mentioned states.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
Coalition puzzle
Early parliamentary elections in Japan were the result of an internal political crisis of Japan’s ruling political force – the Liberal Democratic Party. Former Prime Minister of the Land of the Rising Sun Fumio Kishida left his post because of record low ratings and public discontent with scandals around the party top. In late September, the leading LDP elected Shigeru Ishiba as its new leader. This was the fifth time Ishiba had run for the post of LDP head, but in previous times he failed to win over influential factions within the party, from whose intrigues he tried to distance himself. The new party chief has gained a reputation as a “truth-teller” because he likes to tell the truth to the eye and openly criticizes his fellow party members. Ishiba has repeatedly converged in political battles against longtime Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Before Abe fell victim to an assassination attempt in 2020, he was the only LDP member who had the courage to speak out against him at the height of his power. Ishiba has not figured in recent party dues scandals. Moreover, he favored dissolving party factions and reforming the party dues law. It was because of this that he was the most popular of the nine candidates for party leader. However, Ishiba won the party leadership election by only a narrow margin. His closest competitor, Sanae Takaichi, was only a few votes behind him and became the first woman to win the second place in the LDP chairmanship election. However, according to some experts, if Takaichi were to become the first woman to become the party’s first female prime minister, it would hardly be a stroke of good fortune for Japan. She is considered a follower of Shinzo Abe and is known for the same right-wing views, and is also considered a supporter of the “Abenomics” economic and fiscal policies that are now considered a failure in Japan. Ishiba’s victory in party elections raised hopes that a softer version of the LDP would emerge from the turmoil of recent months.
On Oct. 1, parliament approved the 67-year-old politician as head of government.
By moving into the prime minister’s chair, Ishiba, who supports same-sex marriage and the right of couples to use different last names, which conservatives in his party oppose, went out of his way to appease them. In fact, he paused on the issues, saying they “require further study.” Critics have accused him of conformism, putting the blame also on his reneging on promises to deal with the funding scandal in the LDP.
Although there is a relative consensus in the party on foreign policy, as opposed to certain aspects of domestic policy, Ishiba has his own skeletons in the closet. First of all, with regard to Japan’s main ally, the U.S., with whom he will have to negotiate as prime minister. In the past, he has repeatedly called for a renegotiation of U.S. troop deployment agreements, which he believes limit Japan’s sovereignty. For Washington, this one is like a red rag to a bull. Before that, Ishiba had proposed transforming the U.S.-centered East Asian security system. He saw it as multilateralized, and to be more specific Ishiba came up with the idea of creating an “Asian NATO.”
Washington was not too happy about it, however, not because of the idea itself, but because of its rationale: the U.S. was losing power and influence. Besides, the U.S. and Japan are already participating in Quad and AUKUS. However, the U.S. did not want to stir up a scandal, because it is not up to it, the presidential elections are ahead. However, Ishiba had no time for polemics with Washington. His main task was to win the early parliamentary elections. After all, that was the only reason why the majority of LDP deputies chose him over Takaichi.
On October 9, the new prime minister announced his decision to dissolve parliament and set new elections for the House of Representatives for October 27.
Parties competed for 465 seats in the House of Representatives. 289 deputies are elected in single-mandate constituencies and 176 in proportional representation. A simple majority is 233 mandates. And for an absolute majority, which would allow the ruling party or coalition to pass through parliament any of its initiatives, 261 mandates are needed. In the previous composition, the LDP had 256 seats and the Komeito party, which is in a ruling coalition with it, had 32. Opposition parties had 190 mandates, 98 of which belonged to the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan.
A poll conducted by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper on the eve of the election showed that the LDP could lose 50 seats out of the 256 available before the dissolution. And even in a coalition with Komeito, the party could win fewer than 233 seats, forcing it to seek a third ally. Meanwhile, experts said the LDP’s main rival, the Constitutional Democratic Party, was expected to increase the number of seats from 98 to 140. However, despite its obvious success, it too needed partners to form a coalition.
As we have already noted, the ruling LDP’s position was shaken, first, by a high-profile corruption scandal involving financial fraud by high-ranking party officials and kickbacks in the collection of party funds. And second, the country saw a decline in the standard of living of the Japanese people. The high inflation of the last decade had reduced the purchasing power of households, even though wages were rising. Therefore, during the short-term election campaign, Shigeru Ishiba paid special attention to the problem of the cost of living. The prime minister promised to do everything possible to raise average wages (the goal is plus 43% over the next decade) and finally bring the Japanese economy completely out of deflation.
Also in the LDP’s plan was to raise corporate and income taxes to fund defense spending. Back in 2022, Fumio Kishida promised to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2027, requiring an investment of ¥43.5 trillion ($273 billion) over five years. However, the authorities have not yet decided to change the tax rate as part of the described plan. Strengthening defense was a key part of Shigeru Ishiba’s election program: as we have already written, even before his appointment as prime minister, he described in detail his goals, including achieving equal rights in the alliance with the United States, creating an Asian version of NATO, and deploying American nuclear weapons in the Asia-Pacific region.
Unlike Georgia, passions did not rage at the parliamentary elections in Japan. And in general, from the point of view of organization, they could be called ideal. There was no ballot stuffing, no one bribed or intimidated anyone. Opposition and ruling parties took full advantage of the opportunity to freely nominate candidates both on party lists and in single-mandate districts, some future legislators fought for a place in parliament as independent candidates without party support. As they say, everything is within the framework of political traditions and the law.
The LDP’s main rival was the largest of all opposition parties – the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) headed by former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. The KDP generally showed solidarity with the LDP on the issues of the Japan-U.S. security alliance and the need to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis and raise wage increases above inflation. However, the idea of raising taxes is severely criticized by them. The KDP, while supporting an increase in military spending, calls for tax increases to be avoided by all means possible.
With the general similarity of their programs, the Constitutional Democrats had a number of advantages. They hoped for a protest vote from those who were unhappy with the LDP’s financial scandals. In addition, the KDP hoped to add to their electoral piggy bank the votes of liberal voters who championed the right of families to have different last names after marriage and same-sex marriage. As Bloomberg noted, these themes resonated with the electorate even more than the KDP’s goal of lowering the central bank’s inflation target from 2 percent “to above zero.” Another circumstance playing against the LDP was electoral fatigue. Many voters voted for other parties just to punish the Liberal Democrats for their arrogance.
The outcome of the election came as a real shock to the LDP. The Liberal Democrats won 191 seats, while their traditional junior coalition partner, Komeito, won 24. Together, the two parties lost 64 seats compared to the 2021 election. But most sadly and crucially, they fell short of the 233 parliamentary seats needed to control Japan’s 465-seat lower house. “When you see the results, it is clear that the voters have given us a harsh verdict, and we must accept it humbly,” Mr. Ishiba said in an interview with broadcaster NHK.
By contrast, the largest and main opposition force, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan led by former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, made big gains, winning 148 seats instead of 98 three years earlier. “We achieved our goal of preventing the ruling coalition from gaining a majority, which was a great achievement,” Mr. Noda did not hide his joy. Several other smaller parties, rarely mentioned outside Japan, won between 1 and 38 seats.
According to Japan’s constitution, parties now have 30 days to form a coalition. And now the main problem for the LDP and its ally Komeito will be not so much overcoming the unpleasant fallout from the electorate’s verdict, but finding a third coalition partner to form a stable government. However, if the situation remains unchanged, the leader of the party with the most votes (PLDJ) could become the head of government, but this government would not have permanent support in parliament.
It will be even more difficult for opposition parties representing the full spectrum of political forces, from conservatives to communists, to form a coalition.
Nevertheless, KDP leader Noda said the result is proof that the LDP-Komeito coalition is “deflated” and added that his party will work with other opposition parties to bring about a change of government.
However, almost all experts agreed that political instability awaits Japan in the coming weeks. Reflecting these unhappy expectations, the yen fell to a three-month low against the dollar. The main blow the election results dealt, first of all, to the newly elected Prime Minister Ishiba, who had the opportunity not to hold parliamentary elections for another year, but risked going all-in and thereby put his entire party at risk. According to Japanese political tradition, the price for such a gamble, which deprived the LDP of a coalition majority, should be the resignation of Shigeru Ishiba, making him the shortest-serving leader of Japan in modern times.
The current record is held by Naruhiko Higashikuni, who served as prime minister for 54 days immediately after Japan’s defeat in World War II. That’s four days longer than British leader Liz Truss did in 2022.
Ishiba himself has made it clear that he intends to stay on as prime minister despite electoral losses. “National politics cannot stagnate for a moment. We will continue to steadily promote national policy,” the prime minister said at a press conference at the party headquarters in Tokyo, when asked what responsibility the LDP leadership and he himself should assume as party leader. Some experts, however, are not as optimistic as the prime minister. “Whether Ishiba steps down as LDP leader today or not, it is unlikely that he will live to lead the new government as prime minister … although it is possible that he will remain as acting prime minister,” Tobias Harris, founder of Japan Foresight, a consultancy specializing in political risk, told The Guardian.
When it comes to the implications of the election outcome, there are several. First, internal strife and rivalries within the LDP will intensify, and this will noticeably slow down the implementation of any reforms conceived by the new prime minister. The Liberal Democrats’ ability to set and implement a policy agenda will be hampered. On foreign policy, there is a consensus among Japan’s major parties in favor of a U.S.-Japan alliance treaty. Regardless of which party eventually forms a government coalition the U.S. will remain Japan’s main partner in terms of security and dealing with China and North Korea. However, problems could arise on the economic front. A weak government may find it difficult to balance the interests of Japan’s only U.S. security ally, and Tokyo’s largest trading partner, China.
Joe Biden’s government has pressured Tokyo to tighten controls on semiconductor exports and keep China out of artificial intelligence technology. Officials from Beijing threatened retaliatory measures at a meeting with their counterparts in Tokyo. The moves are expected to target companies including automaker Toyota Motor Corp. by cutting access to materials important to some Japanese industries. Therefore, the future government will have to ponder whether it is economically beneficial to follow Washington’s geopolitical strategy and agree with it. However, the government still needs to be formed. Today, the golden stocks are in the hands of the Democratic Party for the People, with 28 seats, and the Japan Innovation Party, a right-wing party with roots in Osaka, with 38 seats. Leaders of each party have rejected the idea of joining a coalition of the LDP and Komeito, but are willing to cooperate with them on specific issues.
The special session of parliament will convene on November 11, and Shigeru Ishiba and the LDP face a serious test. However, the party may sacrifice Ishiba for the sake of mandates to create a government majority and, for example, offer the post of prime minister to a leader of a smaller party. This has happened only once in the LDP’s history, some 30 years ago. Socialist Party leader Tomiichi Murayama became prime minister through such an arrangement. So why shouldn’t history repeat itself.
Unnoticed elections
But the parliamentary elections in another Asian country, Uzbekistan, which also took place on October 27, went virtually unnoticed and did not hold any intrigue. They were the first after the constitutional referendum, according to the norms of which the presidential term was increased from five to seven years, and the president can hold office for no more than two consecutive terms. With this change, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, who has ruled since 2016, nullifies the previous terms and can now remain head of state until 2040. Given the strong presidential power, the role of parliament is essentially reduced to passing laws drafted by the presidential team, and the electoral process itself is reduced to choosing from pro-government candidates. Although President Shavkat Mirziyoyev declared “strong competition” on the eve of the elections, there was no such competition. Real opposition parties did not take part in the elections, and the authorities created all the conditions for this.
In its preliminary report on the election campaign, the OSCE observer mission criticized “onerous requirements for party registration and broad legal grounds for refusing to register or suspending parties’ activities”. As Hidirnazar Allakulov, a fierce critic of Mirzeyev, noted in a commentary for Radio Liberty’s Uzbek Service, he has been unable to register the potentially opposition party Hakikat, Tarakkiyot va Birdamlik (Truth, Progress and Unity) for several years. In addition, since this time the elections were held under a mixed system, self-nominated candidates were not allowed to participate. In general, the elections to the Oliy Majlis – the Legislative Chamber of Uzbekistan – followed the scenario of the authorities: five parties already represented in the parliament participated in the elections, and no one else was allowed to take part in the process.
As a result, the winner of the parliamentary elections in Uzbekistan was the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (UzLiDeP), which won 35.75% of the vote. The Democratic Party Milliy Tiklanish (18.82%) came second. The Adolat Social Democratic Party received 16.20% of the vote, the People’s Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (PDPU) 17.11%, and the Ecological Party of Uzbekistan 13.12%. Taking into account the results of voting in single-mandate constituencies, UzLiDep will take 64 out of 150 seats in the lower house, Milliy Tiklanish – 29, Adolat – 21, NDPU – 20, Ecoparty – 16 seats. According to the CEC, the turnout was 74.72%.
Temur Umarov, a Central Asia expert at the Carnegie Berlin Center, said: “These elections will not have a significant impact on the country’s future. The system has once again successfully conducted a multi-layered and complex election process, mobilized all the forces to produce the necessary results and generally conduct such a complex event. But no new groups or individuals who will represent the interests of society inside the legislative body will appear – the parliament is practically powerless in the system of Uzbek power. The fact that the elections were held for the first time under a mixed electoral system will not change anything either.”
It should be said that the parliamentary elections of October 27, 2024 differed strikingly from the parliamentary elections of 2019. Back then, as Human Rights Watch noted, there was real competition: there were debates between party representatives. For the first time, local observers were able to officially monitor the voting, and the authorities relaxed their control over the media. A record number of foreign observers arrived in the country, including the participation of a full observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. “After 27 years of Karimov’s repressive rule under President Mirziyoyev, some hope for improvement in the human rights situation is glimmering,” Human Rights Watch noted.
Since his election in 2016, Mirziyoyev has built his presidency on contrasting the current Uzbekistan with “Karimov’s” Uzbekistan. Even the election program with which the head of state went to the presidential election was called “We are building a new Uzbekistan together with our people.” And it must be said that compared to Karimov’s regime, the people felt the changes. First, the country opened up, and the regime stopped controlling the movement of its own citizens. Previously, in order to leave Uzbekistan, one had to obtain a so-called internal visa, that is, a visa from the state that would allow one to leave the country. Secondly, Uzbek currency could not be freely converted. There were many such barriers, problems and restrictions in many areas, including doing business, especially with foreign partners. Now they are gone. The country is quite actively attracting investments, and citizens who have the opportunity are actively traveling abroad, and foreigners are actively coming. Many countries now have visa-free regime with Uzbekistan. But in foreign policy, there have been essentially no changes. As in previous years, the emphasis is on multi-vectorism and good-neighborliness, but now the room for maneuver has been narrowed. If at the height of Karimov’s rule Uzbekistan was of interest to the West in the context of Afghanistan, now this interest has subsided. Mirziyoyev has to balance between Russia as Uzbekistan’s main investor and China as its key creditor.
Politically, too, little has changed. The rhetoric of renewal has not changed the essence of the regime. As experts note, the reform of the constitution, Mirziyev’s “zeroing out”, his extraordinary re-election for a new presidential term – all this testified to the regime’s desire to mothball the situation and return the country to “Karimov’s” ways, though, so far, in a light version. And the parliamentary elections became another proof that politics in Uzbekistan remains a closed club for the president’s inner circle.
Bulgarian multi-part series
The second election this year and the seventh in the last four years to the National Assembly, Bulgaria’s 240-seat unicameral parliament, has turned it into a multi-part series. And the likelihood that it will end anytime soon is very low.
The political crisis in Bulgaria began in 2020, when the conflict between then-Prime Minister Boyko Borisov (he heads the center-right Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria, GERB) and President Rumen Radev intensified. Since taking office, Radev has criticized the government for corruption, repeatedly vetoed laws initiated by GERB, and characterized Borisov’s management style as “reckless”.
In June 2020, when photos of the prime minister half undressed and lying on a bed next to a bedside table with a gun and stacks of €500 bills appeared on the Internet, Borisov accused Radev of flying a drone into his residence to take the photos (the prime minister confirmed that the room depicted in the photos was his, but denied that the gun and money were in it – he claimed it was a montage). Radev denied his involvement in the incident, saying Borisov was paranoid. Bulgarian Prosecutor General’s Office officials then searched the presidential administration as part of an investigation into two unrelated cases of corruption and disclosure of state secrets.
After that, mass protests began in the country – their participants accused the government headed by Borisov of corruption, and criminal investigations against officials of the presidential administration were perceived as an attack by the prime minister on Radev. On September 3, 2020, the protesters even tried to storm the People’s Assembly, about 80 people were injured. Borisov, despite this and several attempts by parliament to declare a vote of no confidence in his government, never left his post as head of government. The protests did not subside until April 2021, when the next parliamentary elections were scheduled. Since 2021, no party in Bulgaria has managed to form a government that would last longer than twelve months. During this time, several parties have managed to go through a complete cycle: emerge, achieve popularity, enter the government, and then – almost instantly – collapse.
The penultimate extraordinary parliamentary elections in the republic were held on June 9 (on the same day as the elections to the European Parliament). The GERB and the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) bloc won 68 seats. The second place went to the party representing the interests of the Turkish ethnic minority, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) with 17.1% (47 seats), and the reformist bloc of the parties Continuing Change and Democratic Bulgaria (PP – DB) with 14.3% (39 seats). The right-populist pro-Russian party Renaissance (13.8%), the Bulgarian Socialist Party (7.1%), the self-described protest party There is Such a People (6.0%) and the extreme right-wing Greatness (4.7%) also passed to the National Assembly.
Three attempts to form a government in the context of a fractured parliament have failed. In late August, Radev appointed a new technical government headed by Dimitar Glavchev (until 2021 belonged to the GERB party, now non-partisan) and announced early elections, which were held on October 27.
All previous parliamentary elections in Bulgaria were held with a record low turnout: about 30%. The reasons for this were the low confidence of citizens in both the elections themselves and in political institutions in general, and disillusionment with the possibility of democratic change. Bulgarian society is tired, on the one hand, of the corruption of the old parties and, on the other hand, of the constant failures of the new parties to form any kind of stable government; and thus is left de facto without options that suit anyone. According to the Central Election Commission, the turnout was higher than expected, but still very low at 37.5 percent.
Now let us focus on the key players in the Bulgarian political landscape and their results.
As in the June elections, the winner was the GERB-SDS coalition, which won 26.4 percent, winning 69 seats in the Bulgarian parliament and demonstrating an enviable political unsinkability. And this is despite the fact that GERB failed to fulfill its anti-corruption promises. Bulgaria has fallen in the international corruption index, foreign companies have left the country en masse, and government contracts and EU grants appear to have been simply plundered. Borissov and his government have been repeatedly accused of links to the Bulgarian mafia. And more recently, Borissov has been increasingly criticized for “walking the line” between the EU and Russia. Nevertheless, GERB not only won, but also slightly improved its result compared to the June elections.
Now Boyko Borisov, who has already been Bulgaria’s prime minister three times, has announced that he will form the new government. Experts estimate that to form a majority in the 240-seat parliament, Boyko Borissov will need to form a coalition with at least 3-4 parties, which will be extremely difficult. However, Boiko Borissov’s first step in forming a new cabinet was expected. He made it clear that he would try to reach an agreement with the pro-European coalition Continuing Change – Democratic Bulgaria, which came second with 14.3% of the vote and 37 seats.
It is often referred to in the media as the “Harvard Brothers” party: its founders, Kiril Petkov and Asen Vasiliev, were both graduates of Harvard University. “Continuing Change” based its program primarily on anti-corruption messages, but economically and politically offered nothing radically new. However, Petkov and Vasiliev positioned themselves and their program more “professionally” as a centrist and unifying political force. The Harvard Brothers party managed to form a government – and even twice. But the first time it collapsed a year later due to the unexpected unilateral withdrawal of the populist “There is Such a People” (ETN) party from the coalition.
And the second time Continuing Change was forced to unite with its main opponent, the GERB party, under unprecedented conditions: a so-called “rotating” premiership, passing from one party to another every nine months. As a result, when GERB won the premiership after the first nine months under the leadership of “Keep on Changing”, Borissov tried to form a government without regard for partners. A political crisis ensued, which affected the party’s popularity, and it ended up losing two mandates compared to the June elections.
“Let’s Continue the Change” in Bulgaria is categorized as a so-called reformist party, as is the ‘There is Such a People’ party. The party, founded by former TV presenter Slavi Trifonov, peaked in popularity in the July 2021 parliamentary elections, where it won first place with a record 24.8% and 65 seats in parliament. ETN and Trifonov promised sweeping anti-corruption reforms, with no clear political program. In the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, he was actively anti-vaccination. This, plus Trifonov’s new face in politics, was enough for voters to entrust him twice with a mandate to form a government, despite the fact that there were no fundamental differences from GERB in terms of policy. However, both times the party failed to do so – or, rather, did not even try to do so.
Trifonov refused any coalitions, demanding a minority government. He himself, as the Bulgarian media noted, behaved in an epathetic manner – he refused to appear at parliamentary sessions, and all his communications with the politicos were built through Facebook, in a word – “freaky”. This behavior led to the fact that the party began to rapidly lose the support of voters and this affected its results. In the June 2024 elections it scored 5.96%, and in the last October elections it slightly improved its result, scoring 6.8% and winning 18 mandates.
The third place of the openly populist pro-Russian Renaissance party was not a surprise. Moreover, numerous polls before the election gave it the second result – 14.2%. In the end, 13.4% voted for Revival, and it won 35 mandates, two fewer than in the June elections. Many attribute the Renaissance phenomenon to the fact that the hope for political stability in Bulgaria is fading with each new election, and the falling turnout only increases the influence of radical movements as their voters try not to miss elections. However, this trend is not Bulgarian, but European in general.
“Revival” was founded in 2014 by historian Kostadin Kostadinov. It first entered parliament after the 2021 elections. However, it gained wide popularity during the pandemic, as its representatives actively opposed vaccination. “Revival” is considered close to the Kremlin, in particular because of the position of its representatives regarding the war in Ukraine. In April 2022, Vozrozhdenie organized a mass rally “Together for Bulgaria” in the center of Sofia. As a result of the rally, a demand to refuse military aid to Ukraine, as well as the deployment of weapons on Bulgarian territory, “the range of which could threaten any of the warring parties,” was submitted to Parliament.
In October, on the eve of the elections, Renaissance organized a rally in Sofia under the slogan “Give Peace a Chance,” demanding a return to dialogue as the main instrument for achieving peace. Vozrozhdeniye strengthened its position gradually, offering a conservative and anti-liberal platform, and eventually reached the point of being able to really influence the socio-political agenda in the country. In August 2024, Revival carried a law banning LGBT propaganda in schools, similar to the Russian one. The initiative was supported by the majority of parliamentarians, with the active participation of the GERB party. Unlike short-term surges of interest in parties such as ETN and “Let’s Keep on Changing,” Vozrozhdeniye has shown steady growth and shows no signs of falling popularity anytime soon. The party appears to be consistently building a stable audience that is sympathetic to its anti-European, nationalist, and conservative rhetoric, and this is paying electoral dividends for the party.
The scenario in which Borisov and Kostadinov form the government, despite the fact that this was much talked about on the eve of the elections and considered quite realistic, does not look realistic today. Borisov does not see Vozrozhdenie in the coalition. Therefore, what remains relevant is a coalition with Continuing Change and other smaller parties, among them two parties that emerged from a split in the predominantly ethnic Turkish party Movement for Rights and Freedoms. “Movement for Rights and Freedoms – A New Beginning,” led by oligarch Delyan Peevski, won 11.4 percent, while the Alliance for Rights and Freedoms won 7.4 percent. However, the Harvard Brothers have already set several conditions: the new government should not include people of Peevski, against whom the US and UK have imposed sanctions on charges of “corruption and influence peddling.”
The second condition was that cooperation with GERB should start with the adoption of anti-corruption laws. Boyko Borisov is faced with a difficult choice, apparently choosing the lesser evil for himself. Perhaps he will wait until after the US presidential election. And if Trump wins, who may show less loyalty to corruption, Borisov may form a minority government with the tacit support of the parties of disgraced oligarch Peevsky. And while the path to a government coalition is not entirely clear, new elections in 2025 are very real, which means that the Bulgarian electoral series will have a continuation.
Contrary to the trend
The results of the Lithuanian parliamentary elections held in October run counter to the European trend. While right-wing forces have been increasing their support in the European Parliament elections over the past year, as well as in Germany, Austria, France and Portugal, left-wing parties triumphed in the Lithuanian elections.
Elections in Lithuania are held in two rounds. In the first round, 70 Seimas mandates are distributed, and voters vote for party lists. In the second round, voters vote for candidates in single-mandate districts.
According to the results of the first round of elections, the opposition Lithuanian Social Democratic Party took the first place with 19.3% of the votes. The conservative Fatherland Union of the incumbent Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonīte took the second place with 17.9%. In third place (14.9%) was the populist leftist party “Zarya Neman” of Remigijus Zemaitaitis, which is known for its blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric.
The fourth and fifth places were taken by two more left-wing parties: the Union of Democrats in the Name of Lithuania with 9.2% and the Union of Lithuanian Peasants and Greens (SKZL) with 7.7%. Three more parties passed the required 5 percent threshold. According to the results of the second round, the victory was once again celebrated by the Social Democrats, who won in 32 out of 37 single-mandate districts and in total received 52 seats out of 141. Now, according to the legislation of the republic, they will have to form a ruling coalition, as none of the parties gained the number of votes necessary to form a majority.
The success of the left-wing parties was the result of the failure of the ruling right-wing coalition that came to power in 2020. At that time, it included the center-right bloc of the Union of Fatherland – Lithuanian Christian Democrats (TS-LKD), the Liberal Movement (LRLS) and the Freedom Party (LP), which broke away from them on the eve of the election. As a result of this year’s elections, the coalition lost a total of 33 mandates. The Freedom Party was left out of the Seimas altogether, and the only one of the three who performed well was the Liberal Movement.
The fall in the ratings of right-wing forces in Lithuania began against the background of ambiguous decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the center-right managed to stabilize the ratings somewhat, but by the fall of 2022 the decline began again, mainly due to the EU energy crisis and inflation. In September 2022 it was 24% at its peak with EU inflation at 10%. COVID-19, the economic problems caused by the war hit more the people living in small towns not central areas and in rural areas, which are the ones who chose to vote for left-wing parties in this election.
Another blow to the right-wing Conservatives was caused by the so-called “check scandal”, when it turned out that three ministers, who had previously held different positions in local councils, could have spent the funds allocated to support their parliamentary work for personal purposes. They could not confirm the legitimate spending of these sums with bank statements or checks, but they refused to resign. Reputational problems also haunted the leader of the Conservatives. Gabrielius Landsbergis, grandson of Vytautas Landsbergis, one of the heads of the Lithuanian Perestroika movement “Saiudis”. He was caught up in the scandal of buying a villa in Greece in 2022. He justified himself by saying that the Landsbergis family bought it as a “reserve airfield” in case the Kremlin invaded Lithuania. This scandal cost him the post of European Commissioner for Lithuania in the EU, and nevertheless he went to the parliamentary elections. However, even here he was disappointed. After the defeat in his constituency, the leader of the conservatives announced his resignation from the post of the head of the party and in general from politics, and even refused even the mandate of the Seimas deputy.
In the parliamentary elections in Lithuania, another left-wing, rather even left-radical party “Neman’s Dawn”, somewhat similar to the German left-populist party “Sarah Wagenknecht’s Union”, was successful. “Zarya Neman” was created only this year and was founded by Remigijus Zhemataitis, who had previously been expelled from the Seimas for anti-Semitic remarks. He has stated that Israel should apologize to Lithuania for the Holocaust of Lithuanians, published anti-Semitic poems and criticized Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Shimonite’s visit to Israel.
Party leader Zemataitis and his team became actively involved in the campaign. He traveled several times to all Lithuanian districts back in the summer, when most parties had not even started campaigning. During these trips, he actively held meetings with voters in villages and small towns. “Zarya Neman” emphasized populist statements about restoring social justice, defending the rights of ‘ordinary people’ and fighting corruption. In his criticism, he spared neither the incumbent Lithuanian government nor other coalition political forces. Žemaitaitis skillfully took advantage of the fact that the central government ignored the problems of the regions, and he became their real defender. Therefore, voters living mainly in district centers and rural areas who were concerned about the socio-economic situation and became the main donors of Zari Neman’s success.
In the first round, the party received the most votes in Žemaitija, including in the largest city, Šiauliai. As noted in the Lithuanian media, the Zarya Neman party has become a shining example of how regional problems and economic inequality can create the basis for new political movements. However, it is unlikely that Zarya Nemana will join the ruling coalition. Social Democrat leader Vilija Blinkiavičiūtė has already stated that she sees her coalition partners as the Union of Democrats in the Name of Lithuania (14 mandates) and the Union of Peasants and Greens (8 seats).
However, even here the leftists may have problems. The fact is that the leader of the Democrats Saulius Skvernialis, who earlier split from the peasants, refuses to work with the “Peasants and Greens”. Instead, Skvernialis proposes to take the “Liberal Movement of the Republic of Lithuania” into the coalition, but the head of their list, Viktorija Chmelite-Nielsen, believes that negotiations to create such a motley coalition between the center-left and center-right will be complicated. Adding to these difficulties is the fact that the leader of the winning Social Democratic Party, Vilija Blinkyaviciute, has already announced her refusal to become prime minister and proposed the candidacy of former Social Democrat leader Gintautas Palutskas instead. As local media note, this information became known after Blinkyaviciute’s meeting with Lithuanian President Nauseda.
However, in any case, the future Lithuanian government will be to the left than it was before. And this may lead to a serious adjustment of domestic policy towards its social orientation. But the country’s foreign policy will remain unchanged under the new government. First of all, international relations will be handled by the president of the country to a greater extent than in the neighboring Baltic countries. This post is now held by Gitanas Nauseda, who was successfully re-elected this spring. Second, the leader of the Social Democrats, Blinkyaviciute, has already stated that she plans to continue to support Kiev, and any easing in favor of the Kremlin is out of the question.
