The article examines the concept of the Seimas (the parliament of the republic of Lithuania) resolution, its legal force, and practices of constitutional proceedings. Scientific research is undertaken with the goal to reveal its essential characteristics, as well as to detect possible legal regulation gaps and practice-based issues of implementation. While analyzing the evolution of centuries-old state parliamentarism, the state of the Seimas resolution and (or) of equivalent legislation was identified in times of the republic of both nations, the restoration of the state of Lithuania and of inter-war independent republic. Therefore, the Seimas resolution is the historical source of Lithuanian constitutional law. The concept of the Seimas resolution is enriched by its significance in march 1990, when the act of independence was adopted and published, as well as its direct provision in the constitution of 1992. This legal act addresses the relationship between the state authorities (distrust of government) and operational matters of the parliament itself (pre-term elections). The Seimas resolution is not an ordinary by-law. Having analysed more than twenty years of Lithuanian parliamentary experiences, the resolution should rather be considered as the primary means of expression of the political will of the Seimas. Depending on the importance of the issue, the will could be derived from the constitution itself and its principles, as well as from the representation of people’s sovereignty. One of the most important areas of implementation of the Seimas resolution is the parliamentary oversight. By adopting respective resolutions, the Seimas may require reports from the accountable state authorities; it also may assess their performance or assign them various tasks. Some very important seimas resolutions (for example on elections results or impeachment petition to the constitutional court) could be voted with simple majority of participating members of seimas. The significance of such decisions requires renegotiating qualifications of voting to avoid unpredictable consequences in the Lithuanian politics. The Seimas resolutions also have a close relationship with the proceedings of the constitutional court of the republic of Lithuania. The Seimas can implement some of the court’s judgments and conclusions by its resolutions. On the other hand, the constitutional court itself may assess whether the disputable Seimas resolution is in conformity with the constitution. It is possible in some cases that the court can examine the constitutionality of resolution on implementation of its own conclusions.

The Estonian parliament is the only institution in the country that may call a referendum, i.e. the parliament itself can formulate the crucial question and put it forward for people to vote. The constitution, though, lacks the institution to harness the people's initiative, giving citizens an opportunity to put some questions or draft acts to vote by themselves. A large group of MP’s submitted a draft of an amendment to the constitution which would add people's initiative, with 25,000 signatures gathered, enabling them to put a draft act or question for vote. This draft act was in legislative proceedings on two separate occasions but failed to be completed and take effect within those eight years. In the parliamentary debates we could see a strong „clash of discourses“. On the one side, the proponents of direct democracy stressed different aspects of „alienation of power“; unfortunately the parliament as a representative body maintained the sole monopoly to act, while the parliamentary elections have been media-manipulated by certain interest groups. Alternately, other speakers on the contrarian-side shared the view according to which direct democracy is unnecessary, even risky, populist means to cope with the strain of governance. Curiously, the deliberations in the parliament did not change anything; previously existing relationships of power were maintained.

In 1917, because of ideological conflicts the majority of Lithuanian activists found themselves in Russia, but there they had to reorient themselves toward thinking about the future of Lithuania in more concrete terms as well as to draw the many refugees there (including women who had participated in the elections, held according to a proportional system, to the Petrapilis Assembly) into politics during the period of democracy. The Lithuanian Assembly at Petrapilis on June 3, 1917, adopted a resolution on Lithuanian independence based on a proposal submitted by the National Progress Party (Augustinas Voldemaras, Liudas Noreika), a proposal that evinced a conservative attitude of creating the state “from above.” The proposal to limit the Constituent Assembly‘s powers in the name of neutrality did not satisfy those on the political left, and the Petrapilis Assembly split. To Lithuanians in Russia, the year 1917 afforded opportunities of political participation and becoming involved in political activism. This process helped masses of war refugees and former deportees to prepare for life in an independent Lithuanian state. However, because of the strict ideologies of party leaders and the differences among political orientations it was impossible to reach a compromise consensus on Lithuania‘s future. Once independent the Lithuanian state was also negatively impacted by military interference in politics. It is well-known that differences in worldviews cause strong disagreements and confrontations in the course of solving major issues of state life, something Lithuanians were forced to endure during the parliamentary period.

The goal of the article is to identify the salience of ideological cleavages in electoral platforms of Lithuanian parties in the general elections of 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. That is, the aim is to evaluate the extent of expression of these cleavages. Only few parties, that is the so-called relevant parties are analysed. The theoretical framework for this analysis is the classification of dimensions of ideology provided by Arend Lijphart. The work of Giovanni Sartori and Ronald Inglehart is studied in the article as well. The main conclusion is that there is a possibility for six various cleavages – socio-economic, religiuos, cultural-ethnic, urban- rural, cleavage of foreign policy and postmaterialist-materialist cleavage. During the elections in 1992 the parties defended rightwing positions in most of the dimensions of socio-economic cleavage. There was no cleavage. During the elections in 1996 and in 2000 the cleavage deepened because the parties began to express their right-wing or left-wing inclinations more clearly. On the other hand, during the elections of 2004 the cleavage remained but the ideological rigidity changed for the worse: some right-wing parties, namely the coalition of Rolandas Paksas, adopted left-wing attitude. Religious cleavage was salient during the elections in 1992 and in 1996 because the Christian Democrats succeeded to win the seats following clerical strategy. Their opponents were the Social-Democrats which defended secular positions. However, the elections of the year 2000 and the year 2004 proved the decline of the longstanding cleavage. Two aspects could be analyzed with respect to the cultural- ethnic cleavage: dominant culture vs. minority culture and nationalism vs. cosmopolitanism. Lithuanian parties always agitated for preservation of the culture of national minorities.[...].

We can name three Christian democratic ideology parties on Lithuania political scene: Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania, Christian Democrats Union and Modern Christian Democrats. Modern Christian Democrats seceded from the matrix (parent) party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats in 2000. Analyzing the Christian democracy process in post- communistic Lithuania it is important to state that it is one of the trends under a tradition which is difficult to assign to right or left economic frames. The Christian Democrats parties were named leftist because they contradicted the liberals and they aspired to limit the economic capital influence on politics in the XXth century. After few decades the main opponents of the right parties were socialists and the policy contemptuous human rights. The experience of politic democracy accumulated in the period of Lithuania between the two wars was a relevant factor in for mation of the contemporary system of political parties. In 1989 restored the Party of Lithuanian Christian Democrats became unambiguous reforms orientated and was classified as a right party. Experience of democracy of the party in inwar Lithuania was also a meaningful factor which formed the modernist party system. The Christian Democrats Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos krikscionių demokratų partija, LKDP) - 16 seats – was founded in 1905 and re-established in 1989 likewise the Homeland Union the Christian democrats are right of centre. Prior to the 1996 elections the party had agreed to form a coalition with the conservatives (even though it stands closer to the social democrats of the LSDP regarding economic issues). Some time in 1994 the Christian democrats were very popular - exactly when the Homeland Union became more radical. Lithuanian Christian democracy can be proud of its past experience and its successful activity after reestablishing the independence.[...].

Mokslinėse apžvalgose svarstomos Seimo nutarimo kaip teisės akto ir konstitucinės teisės šaltinio (plačiaja prasme) sampratos, praktinio taikymo, teisinio privalomomo, konstitucinio teisinio vertinimo aktualijos, taip pat pateikiama Seimo nutarimo istorinės raidos charakteristika (įskaitant kitus formalius Lietuvos parlamentų priiminėtus sprendimus, artimus šiuolaikinio Seimo nutarimo konstitucinei sampratai. Pirmojoje apžvalgoje siekiama nustatyti šiuolaikinio Seimo nutarimo konstitucinio būvio (arba tiesioginio reglamentavimo 1992 m. LR Konstitucijoje) prielaidas, atkuriant įvairių laikotarpių ir kompetencijų (LDK, ATR, tarpukario Lietuvos bei LTSR) kolegialaus/parlamentinio valdymo organus. Konstatuojami nuoseklūs parlamentinių sprendimų (ne įstatymų) priėmimo teisinio pagrindimo bei praktinio taikymo procesai, nepriklausomai nuo susiklosčiusios valstybės valdymo formos ar politinio režimo. Neapsiribojant istoriniu Seimo nutarimo suvokimu, taip pat siekiama įvertinti ir kitas jo sampratas, ryšį su Konstitucijos tiesiogiai taikytinų nuostatų įgyvendinimu, kitais teisės aktais, Seimo nutarimų įvairovę ir jais agrinėjamų/sprendžiamų parlamentinio valdymo klausimų plotmę. Ginčijant kai kurias nusistovėjusias teisinės literatūros nuomones, argumentuojama, jog Seimo nutarimas nėra vien tik parlamento vidinio teisinio reguliavimo teisės aktas, taip pat – ne tik poįstatyminis teisės aktas, priklausomai nuo savo reguliavimo objekto, galintis tiesiogiai apimti ir įkūnyti konkrečias LR Konstitucijos normas. Antrojoje apžvalgoje svarstomos Seimo nutarimo kaip teisės akto teisinės galios, jo privalomumo, galiojimo asmenų, laiko, teritorijos atžvilgiu problemos. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į Seimo nutarimų priėmimo, įsigaliojimo, galiojimo bei panaikinimo/pripažinimo netekusiais galios klausimus. Pažymima, jog Seimo statutas neužtikrina skirtingų Seimo nutarimų (pagal reguliavimo dalyką) priėmimo bei įgyvendinimo tvarkos reikalavimų, nereikalauja tokių teisės aktų rengimo/priėmimo pagrindimo (motyvų), leidžia priimti tokius Seimo nutarimus, kurių tekstas ir turinys neatitinka bendrųjų teisėkūros reikalavimų. Aptariant Seimo nutarimų konstitucinio teisinio vertinimo aktualijas, pažymimas Seimo nutarimų teisinio reguliavimo skirtingumas ir tikslingumas išskirti tam tikrus Konstitucinio teismo nutarimus dėl nagrinėjamų klausimų specifikos (pvz. dėl kai kurių valstybės pareigūnų pašalinimo/paskyrimo į pareigas) arba numatyti, jog dalis Seimo nutarimų gali būti skundžiami ir nagrinėjami tik administracinėje teisenoje. Apžvalgoje konstatuojama, jog net ir tie Seimo nutarimai, kuriais įgyvendinamos LR Konstitucinio teismo išvados (pagal LR Konstitucijos 107 str.), galėtų būti nagrinėjamos Konstituciniame teisme dėl jų galimo prieštaravimo Konstitucijai (turinio ar priėmimo prasme), sustabdžius jų įgyvendinimą.