"Lithuanian Government Collapses" might be a sort of startling headline, and that's what's running over the newswire today. I've had a few people IM/e-mail about it, thinking that "collapses" is a "harsh" statement or that, perhaps, Lithuania might be slipping into anarchy. "Collapses" is a perfectly fine description of what's happened, and Lithuania is not slipping into anarchy.

Lithuania is a parliamentary democracy, which means that the executive depends on the support of the parliament. When the executive (Cabinet, PM) doesn't have the support of the parliament, then the government can collapse.

So what happened in Lithuania? In 2004, they had elections to the Seimas, and no party got a majority of the 141 seats. No one came even close. The top two vote getters, the newcomers Darbo Partija (Labour), and the Brazauskas-led coalition of the Socialdemokratai and Naujoji Sąjunga (social liberals) teamed up with the Valstiečiai to form a weak coalition that would have a majority of seats in the Seimas (about 80 of 141). They also distributed the various cabinet seats among the four parties. However, in April, the NS pulled out of the coalition. It gets really complicated here, and it was tough for me to keep track even then, much less now, in trying to build up a timeline.

Basically, a no-confidence vote sent Artūras Paulauskas (NS) out of being Speaker of the Seimas, and he was replaced by Labour's Viktoras Muntianas. In the meantime, dissatisfaction with Labour's founder, Viktor Uspaskich, caused some Labour members to defect and form new coalitions that threatened the governing majority.

Now subsequent investigations into Labour have caused the Labourites to pull out of the coalition as well, leaving the Socialdemokratai alone with the valstiečiai—at around 35 seats—to rule Lithuania. But Brazauskas and his ministers caused more chaos in resigning today as well, collapsing the entire government. They were constitutionally obligated to do so, as there are 14 ministers in the Cabinet, and the resignation of the Labour ministers brought the number in the Cabinet to below a majority.

What now? As reported over the wires:

Brazauskas insisted that "the government could continue its work, we could find new ministers and form a new programme".

Analysts have not ruled out the possibility of early elections, which can be triggered by a three-fifths majority vote in the 141-seat Parliament.

Elections can also be called by the president if lawmakers do not approve the new government's programme.

Again, it's not anarchy. This is the sort of stuff that happens in a truly multi-party system, and the acrimony has been building up for months now (mostly aimed at Uspaskich and the upstart DP, about which I get a sense of a Uspaskich cult of personality). What will follow? Early elections, possibly (apparently what the conservatives want), or a socialdemokratai-led coalition not featuring Brazauskas. Lauras Beilinis explains in Lietuvos rytas that the socdemai could put together an authoritative coalition by luring over disillusioned darbiečiai, and it seems like the valstiečiai have every inclination of remaining in the ruling coalition as well. . 

Finally, my own grasp of this situation is rather tenuous, since it's wicked hard for me to keep track of all these players and parties, so I welcome any and all corrections in the comments.

George Washington, American Szlachcic.

According to MSNBC, 1,500 extras were used, and the set was run more or less entirely in Lithuanian. I haven't been able to find corroboration of the rumors that the History Channel is making a bid to buy the naming rights of Lithuania.

From an e-mail forward, I've been told that Shea Patrick, who plays the young Washington, has, based on his great experience in Lithuania, joined the Vyčiai in LA. I suppose someone else can add that to his bio on IMDB once he gets one. 

I may have come on a little strong toward the end of my previous post on ALTos and JBANC's interest in adding Lithuania (and other nations) to the US Visa Waiver Program. I didn't, importantly, need to resort to suspicious speculation about motivation. Mostly, I was upset that something that Kerry made (in wider scope than now discussed) a part of his campaign—which, it seems, neither JBANC nor ALTa supported publicly—now becomes a crucial, call-your-senator action item. My irritation, however, made me unable to see the actual politics behind this, and now I wonder who's snowing Mikulski.¹

There are three questions about this issue, as far as I can tell. The first I'll answer above the fold, the second, more provocative two, below.

1. What, exactly, is the US Visa Waiver Program?

2. Why is there a sudden interest in adding Poland (and Lithuania, etc.) to it?

3. Why should I not support it?

The VWP and the EU.

The program was established in 1986 with the objective of promoting better relations with U.S. allies, eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulating the tourism industry, and permitting the Department of State to focus consular resources in other areas.

Now, of the nations in Europe that are members, all are in the EU but Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, San Marino, and Switzerland. Nine EU nations are not part of the program (in blue): the Baltics, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Greece, and Cyprus. Of the other colors used in the map, salmon is 2007 acceding nations into the EU and pink is candidate nations in the EU.

Nations in the program include outright democracies (France), constitutional monarchies (Holland, Spain, Japan), and one absolute monarchy (Brunei). The presence of Brunei is half-perplexing. It is a nation whose official religion is Islam, has no interest in democracy, but is filthy rich. Singapore is also a peculiar addition. So is, in fact, Slovenia, which makes me wonder if that's why Žižek comes about so often. But this is worth underscoring: outside of Western Europe, the only nations in the program are white Oceania and three highly advanced and rich Asian nations. No brown nations are included. But, again, you don't have to be a democracy to get in—though it helps if you're rich.

Below the fold I answer the other two questions.