| Abstract [eng] |
In 2015, the introduction of direct mayoral election granted the mayor a mandate of public trust, however, this did not fundamentally change the powers of the mayor, who remained a representative authority and one of the council members. This contradicted the Constitutional provision on the separation of executive and representative powers. As a result, in 2022, the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Lithuania was mended again, granting the mayor the status of an executive institution and separating this role from the representative authority (the municipal council). Thus, the main question raised in this paper is whether the amended legislation changed the local governance system or merely legitimised the situation that had already existed? The aim of this paper is to assess the extent to which the amendments of the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Lithuania influenced changes in the model of institutional structures and the redistribution of political power between the executive and representative authorities. The objectives are to determine whether the political balance of power between the council, mayor, and the administration changed as well as assess the extent to which directly elected mayors with greater powers remain dependent on representative political forces or coalition agreements. The study assesses the initial features of mayoral team formation, considering the new provisions of the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Lithuania – namely, the appointment of municipal administration directors, the nomination and confirmation of deputy mayors by councils, and the principles of coalition formation. The analysis looks at the factors that may influence the principles of political team formation (whether the mayor was re-elected or newly elected, whether their political force has a majority or whether a coalition must be formed), the political affiliation of appointees (whether they belong to the mayor’s political force, coalition partners, or are independent), their active political participation (participation in elections and relinquishing a mandate due to incompatibility of positions), and, in the case of the appointment of administration directors – their experience (whether they held these positions in previous terms). The study identified that the principles of political coalition formation have not essentially changed. Although, the mayor formally became the executive authority, the need for coalition majority building has remained and political posts are continued to be used for this purpose. While in the past mayors aimed to govern and control the executive branch and administration, now that they have become the executive institution, they seek to maintain influence in the council and shape political agenda. In the case of administrative head selections, personal trust and experience are highlighted as the main criteria. A significant number of appointed administration directions held these positions in the previous term. Political affiliation is not a determining factor, but in many cases, they belong to the political force represented by the mayor. The ability to appoint a director by mayoral decree has eliminated this position from the sphere of coalition formation. The position of deputy mayors weakened after the law changed – they lost their status as council members but did not acquire executive authority functions. Deputy mayors occupy an intermediate position between the mayor and the council, and the posts are essentially used for coalition building and coordination of the majority’s agenda. The possibility of appointing deputy mayors from outside the council is partially being implemented, but, even in such cases, most appointed members are from political parties. Partly, this is due to political experience and opportunities for political careers (e.g., potential candidates for parliamentary elections), as well as national interests of political forces. |
