Pilietinio įgalumo iššūkiai : dviejų simptomiškų piletinių bylių tyrimas

Abstract

This article discusses citizenship, civil society, and its empowerment. Michael Walzer‘s thesis that “public interest issues and dedication to public purposes are key signs of civic virtues” can be a good starting point for constructing a definition of citizenship. What conditions have been created for citizens to participate in, and to conduct, public affairs? Is there an officially accepted provision for such activities and channels, or can they be guerilla-like? Finally, what are the rewards for the most active citizens to practice “civic virtues” and what are the motives for other citizens to engage in such activities? With regard to the empowerment of civil society, the focus here is not on the formal, official (associated) participation of civil society organizations, but on the informal movement of civic organizations. By analysing two well-known civic defense cases involving two cinemas in Vilnius and Kaunas, we can see that civic space is monopolized by two other sectors of society: government and business. Government does it by not providing any clearly defined institutional and legal representation for the public interest and for the defense of the public good. And business does it directly by using the power and resources available to it in order to create artificial barriers and indirectly by using clientilistic contacts to put pressure on government so that it does not clearly define the channels enabling civil resolution and thus inhibits civic expression. In this way, the “cost“ of citizenship can be set according to the obstacles for civic expression; i. e., if there are clearly defined and ensured channels for civic expression we can say that the “cost“ is not big, but if in order to protect the public interest and public good such channels are not available, they do not work, or there are additional obstacles to the process, we can say that the “cost“ increases. [...]