Individual Democratic Institutions Research Fellowships 1994-1996

The research reports reproduced here are the responsibility of the individual authors. Their reproduction does not imply any form of official or unofficial endorsement by NATO. The reports are offered in unedited form, as presented by their authors, with a view to make their findings available to a wide audience. Democratic Change and Crime Control in Lithuania: Compiling New Criminological Discourses Dr. Aleksandras Dobryninas [Back to Index] Political Rhetoric on Crime Though mass media does not mirror the crime situation and creates its own distorted image of social evil, it is, nevertheless, "mirroring and maintaining the power relations of a society" (19; p.125). Mass media, because of its high reliable status in the society, could, speaking in terms of P. Bourdieu, transfigure various forms of power into symbolic one, i.e. in the power "of words and slogans", that is "capable of maintaining or subverting the social order" (5; p. 170). This aspect of mass media does it extremely engaging in another group of possessors of power -- politicians, who are directly responsible for acceptance and realization of programs for crime control and prevention in society and who create their own political criminological discourse. Like public criminological discourse, political one started to develop only after re-establishment of independence as a result of democratic change of Lithuanian political system. Though in previous Soviet Union crime always was a political subject ( 35; p. 157), neveretheless, it never had been public issue, and the line of responsibility for crime situation in the state hierarchy always run downwards, but never upwards. This lack of understanding of publicity of crime issue among new Lithuanian political parties was very clearly expressed in the first versions of their political programs. Analysis of political programs of main Lithuanian parties, registered by Lithuanian Ministry of Justice during 1990-1993, shows that only one political organization - Lithuanian Social Democratic Party - had a special, one-sentenced reference to crime problem. In a well recognizible old Soviet fashion they proclaimed the "fight against criminality" as a "vital task" of the implementation of Lithuanian legal system ( 28; p.8) . The same lack of attitude to crime problem during this period one could notice on the level of legislative activity in the governmental institutions. The following figure shows the number of Governmental resolutions concerning crime issue. Figure 7. Number of Governmental crime-related Resolutions during 1990-1995. Though not all Governmental resolutions proposed serious means oriented to reducing crime (part of them were formal, dealing only with organizational questions), nevertheless, it is obvious that until 1993 there were no serious practice to concentrate on crime problem on governmental level. Comparing all these data with previous information about crime rate in society, one could notice the same negative correlation as in the case of mass media: shift to crime problem in society had to be started not in 1993, but immediately after re-establishment of independence. At the moment, when society really experienced radical change in crime situation, anyone -- neither politicians, nor mass media -- had paid serious attention to this problem. As it was mentioned earlier, in 1992-1993 after Parliamentary and Presidential elections Lithuanian mass media and general public finally 'discovered' crime problem as extremely important and 'hot' issue. Politicians found themselves in the position when they were asked for responsibility, explanation and improvement of the crime situation in society. The gloomy fact was that politicians had not only be ready to propose their vision of national criminal policy, but also contact with the public that was not the same as in the period of singing revolution. Sociological investigations show that since 1993 Lithuanian society has definitely turned to more authoritarian socialist mentality (see: 2). In such controversial context new kind of Lithuanian criminological discourse -- political one -- came to birth. Of course, this discourse was not only new enough, but -- rough enough and without clear cut boundaries. From this point of view, three sessions of Seimas (Lithuanian Parliament) on May 18, May 26 and July 19, 1994, especially devoted to the crime problem in Lithuania, provide rare opportunity to investigate various rhetoric inside political criminological discourse. One could understand extraordinarity of this event, taking into consideration the fact that never before, nor after Lithuanian politicians discussed so fundamentally the problem of rising crime, the role of governmental institutions in preventing crime, the ways to help to reduce level of crime in the society. These three sessions could be treated as a result of the public pressure on politicians (and first of all on ruling leftist majority) that had been successfully organized by mass media. Open public debates, acquisitions of the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Justice, Lithuanian Democratic Labor Party and other political and governmental institutions, of absence of anti-criminal policy, inefficiency and corruption -- became strong factors which hastened Seimas' discussion about crime in Lithuania. Ruling party decided to justify itself and its policy in the face of decreasing popularity. Opposition, as always in such cases, decided to take its chance and to win additional political points, showing to potential voters its preoccupation with urgent crime problems. General public at least got an opportunity to learn what leading Lithuanian politicians were thinking about growing crime. In other words, all participants of Lithuanian political life came to the agreement to open official political debates about crime issue in Lithuania. ANALYSIS OF THREE SEIMAS SESSIONS ON CRIME PROBLEMS SCENARIO AND RESEARCH METHODS Scenario. All discussions of crime situation in Lithuania could be divided into four parts: speeches of representatives of executive and judicial branches of political power: President of the Republic of Lithuania (A. Brazauskas), Minister of the Interior (R. Vaitekunas), Prosecutor General (A. Paulauskas), Chairman of Supreme Court (V. Losys), Minister of Justice (J. Prapiestis); questions of members of Seimas to representatives of executive and judicial branches of political power; speeches of members of Seimas (37 representatives of ruling majority and opposition); Resolution of Seimas (prepared by ruling majority and accepted by Seimas after short discussion). First two events took place on May 18, 1994, third -- on May 26, 1994, and fourth -- on July 19, 1994. All sessions were broadcasted by Lithuanian National Radio and commented in main Lithuanian newspapers and TV news programs. All speeches were recorded and published as official material in Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo ketvirtoji sesija. No 133, 136, 155. Vilnius: Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas, 1994. Research Methods. As it was mentioned above, the main goal of current research is to evaluate the usage of 'fight'- and 'control'-rhetoric concerning crime issue in the political discourse of Lithuanian Government. This research intention is based on hypothesis that contemporary 'fight'-rhetoric inherits aggressive language of the previous communist ideology, and 'control'-rhetoric expresses the new liberal orientation to the Western democratic tradition. Dominance of the first type rhetoric could open doors to the previous semi-military form of the control of the society. Dominance of the second type rhetoric could be testified as very strong intention to choose Western type of social regulation as a model for the nation state building. According to the next hypothesis of current research, the evaluation of speeches of politicians, as oriented to 'fight'- or 'control'-rhetoric, could be done by calculating and comparing frequencies of the usage of expressions containing words 'control', 'fight', and 'crime' ('criminality') and also some related words. If in the text under investigation the frequency of the usage of 'control'-oriented words is higher than the frequency of the usage of 'fight'-oriented words, such text should be named as belonging to the 'control'-rhetoric; in the opposite case, the text should be evaluated as belonging to the 'fight'-oriented rhetoric. The investigation of the usage of 'fight' and 'control' rhetoric is based on the content analysis of the electronic version of records of Seimas' session of May 18, May 26 and the text of Resolution of Seimas on July 19, 1994. Preliminary analysis of these texts showed that they are not homogeneous, and that it is possible to point at least on three different discourses. First discourse belonged to the higher officials, who were asked by Seimas for presenting report about their activity concerning crime issue as representatives of executive and judicial institutions (President, Ministers of Interior and Justice, Chair of Supreme Court and Prosecutor General). Their speeches were presented during first session on May 18. Second discourse is created by members of Seimas, who had been listeners during first session (several of them put questions to speakers) and speakers during second session. At last, third discourse expresses common Seimas' point of view, because it is presented as the Resolution of Seimas, supported by ruling majority in Seimas (Labor Democratic Party) and accepted by Seimas after short discussions. Since executive and judicial powers in Lithuania are mainly supported by ruling majority in Seimas, current research does not differentiate the rhetoric of their representatives. Texts of representatives of executive and judicial power are treated as a single block, expressed general official attitude to crime, realized in concrete policy. In opposite, the discourse of members of Seimas could not be treated as expression of single political position, because it combines at least rhetoric of ruling party (Labor Democrats' Faction and its supporters), Left-Centrist opposition (Social Democrats' Faction and members of Centrist Party) and Right opposition (Sajudis', Laisve's, Charter of Citizens' Faction and members of small Rightist Parties). These differences in political roles and positions in political area determined the separation of all textual material on five groups. They are: texts of representatives of Executive and Judicial branches of power (TEJ), texts of members of Seimas belonging to ruling majority (TPRO), texts of members of Seimas belonging to left-centrist opposition (TLCO), texts of members of Seimas belonging to rightist opposition (TRO), text of the Seimas' Resolution (TRE). For 'control' or 'fight' evaluations of discussions and calculations of frequencies of appropriate words program "HAMLET" (Beta version)(2) was used. CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS As it was mentioned above, current research had to deal primary with terms 'crime' ('criminality'), 'control' and 'fight' and related words. Related words consisted of following terms: words with the same roots, synonyms, words that were close by meaning or usage to these above-mentioned terms. Preliminary context analysis of all five texts was done using the program KWIC, and five groups (vocabularies) of words related to 'crime', 'control' and 'fight' were set. (TEJ) Vocabulary: gang (gauj*)(3) , control (kontrol*), corruption (korupc*), fight (kov*), crime (nusikal*), organization (organizavima), condition (padet*), 'Synonyms': control -- prevention (prevenc*), corruption -- contraband (kontraban*), crime -- evil (blog*), organization -- job (darb*) and system (sistem*), condition -- process (proces*) and situation situac*). (TPRO) Vocabulary: control (kontrol*), corruption (korupc*), fight (kov*), Mafia (mafij*), crime (nusikal*), condition (padet*), 'Synonyms': control -- absence of control (nekontr*), fight -- lack of fight (nekov*), crime - appearance (reiskin*), condition -- situation (situac*) and structure (strukt). (TLCO) Vocabulary: control (kontrol*), corruption (korupc*), fight (kov*), Mafia (mafij*), crime (nusikal*), condition (padet*), 'Synonyms': control -- absence of control (nekontr*), fight -- lack of fight (nekov*), crime -- their (ju) and appearance (reiskin*), condition -- situation (situac*) and structure (strukt). (TRO) The same as in (TPRO). (TRE) Vocabulary: control (kontrol*), corruption (korupc*), fight (kov*), crime (nusikal*), 'Synonyms': control -- prevention (prevenc*), corruption -- drugs (alkoh*), crime -- its (juo). On the basis of these vocabularies, frequencies of the usage of words 'crime', 'control' and 'fight' were calculated in each corresponding text. As the pattern context for calculations, sentence, separated from other sentence by period ''.'' was used. The main results of calculations are the following(4): (TEJ) The frequency of the combination 'crime-control' in the texts is 15. The frequency of the combination 'crime-fight' in the texts is 16. However, the combinations of word 'control' with other related words -- 'crime', 'organization' and 'situation' are met with frequency 32, and the frequency of the combination of 'fight' with 'crime', 'gang', 'organization' and 'situation' is only 23. On the basis of these results, one could rather evaluate rhetoric of current text as 'control'-oriented, than 'fight'-oriented. (TPRO) The frequency of the combination 'crime-control' in the texts is 2. The frequency of the combination 'crime-fight' in the texts is 11. Again, the combinations of word 'control' with other related words -- 'crime', and 'condition' are met with the frequency 5, and the frequency of the combination of 'fight' with 'crime', 'Mafia', and 'condition' is 16. In that case, one should evaluate this text as 'fight'-oriented. (TLCO) The frequency of the combination 'crime-control' in the texts is 3. The frequency of the combination 'crime-fight' in the texts is 13. There are no new combinations for 'control', except 'crime'. As to combinations of the word 'fight' with other related words -- 'crime', 'Mafia, 'corruption' and 'condition', they are met with frequency 28, and the frequency of the combination of 'fight' with 'crime', 'Mafia', and 'condition' is 16. As in the previous case, this sort of the text should be recognized as 'fight'-oriented too. (TRO) The frequency of the combination 'crime-control' in these texts is 3. The frequency of the combination 'crime-fight' in the texts is 30. The combinations of word 'control' with 'crime', Mafia and 'condition' are met with the frequency 6, at the same time the frequency of combinations of 'fight' with 'crime', corruption', 'Mafia', and 'condition' is 41. The difference between two kinds of rhetoric in the text in question could be presented in sharper way, if one notes that 'control'-expression was used at least two times in negative sense, as an attempt 'to control, what is not subject of control' (MP Jarasiunas) This text again is evaluated as 'fight'-oriented. (TRE) In this small text the frequency of the combination 'crime-control' is 1, and the frequency of the combination 'crime-fight' -- 6. Combinations of the word 'control' with 'crime', and 'corruption' are 2, and the frequency of the combination of the word 'fight' with 'crime', and 'corruption' is 6. As in previous cases, this text should be evaluated as 'fight'-oriented. Along with these results it would be helpful to compare the usage of 'control'- and 'fight'- rhetoric in investigated texts, using the corresponding standardized joint frequencies parameter: Sij=Fij/(Fi+Fj-Fij), where Fi -- the individual word frequencies, Fij -- joint frequency for all possible pairs of words. Results are presented in following figure: Figure 8. The distribution of Standardized Joint Frequencies Parameter in the five groups of texts. On the basis of current results it easy to notice the sharp difference between rhetoric produced by representatives of executive and judicial power, from one hand, and representatives of legislation -- from another. The first type of rhetoric is much closer to Western-style 'control'-rhetoric, the second one reminds old fashioned exercises of former Soviet propaganda. Taken into account the fact that executive and judicial power play more important role in Lithuanian society than legislative branch, one could argue, that at least on the level of political elite Lithuania is more oriented to the democratic model of criminal policy than to the restoration of previous one. However, this conclusion should not be treated as the final description of the current political situation on the governmental level. Firstly, though from general, institutional point of view texts of representatives of executive and judicial powers were interpreted as homogeneous, there were visible differences among the texts of each representative. From this perspective 'control'-rhetoric of the Minister of Interior sharply stand out from the other texts, that are more oriented to the 'fight'-rhetoric. Secondly, though generally, rhetoric of members of Seimas could be treated as Soviet-style 'fight'-rhetoric, one should consider that this type of rhetoric is often used in political competition in Western states. American conservative rhetoric ('fighting crime', 'combating crime') against liberal rhetoric regarding crime issue is only one example of this kind (see: 31). Indirectly, this aspect of political competition in Lithuanian Parliament can be presented, if one investigate more carefully differences among rhetoric belong to different groups of factions of Seimas. Differently from representatives of ruling party, who preferred to concentrate themselves mostly on the abstract 'fighting criminality' (not 'fighting crime'!), their opponents intended to combine 'fight'-rhetoric either with 'Mafia' (Left-Centrist Opposition) or with 'corruption' (Right Opposition). It is easy to understand that such type of rhetoric has accusatory intention and 'fight' is used here as mean that has to dramatize this accusation of ruling majority of corruption and relationship with Mafia's structure. Thirdly, there is an open question about the role of Seimas in the forming of the real criminal policy in Lithuania. Formally, by the Lithuanian Constitution, Seimas has enough legislative means to change current policy of the Cabinet and influence Court. If in 1994 the last had more impact on the society than the Parliament, it does not mean that this situation could be endless(5). Potential threat of 'fight'-rhetoric that comes from legislature's discourse, could be realized into actual threat of concrete semi-military criminal policy that will come day after elections. All these problems should be carefully considerated. Current analysis can not be treated as complete without deeper analysis of the impact of mass-media and specialists (lawyers, criminologists, police officers, etc.) on the forming of crime rhetoric in the Lithuanian political discourse. Nevertheless, the author hopes that presented results bring a small spot of the light on the tendencies in current Lithuanian criminal policy, and together with other results could help to evaluate the prospects for democratization of Lithuanian society.