With a year and a half remaining until the elections of the municipalities, political parties and committees have implemented only one sixth of the anti-corruption goals that were set during the 2023 elections. Political forces place the greatest emphasis on enhancing public engagement, increasing transparency and openness in public finances, and improving the accessibility and quality of services. This is shown by a survey conducted among political parties and committees regarding anti-corruption goals and their implementation by Transparency International Lithuania (TI Lithuania).
Between May 20 and June 13, 2025, responses to the TI Lithuania questionnaire were provided by political parties and committees that won at least one seat in 25 of the 42 municipalities in the local government elections. 17 of them also participated in the 2023 survey, which made it possible to evaluate the progress in meeting the objectives.
Political parties and committees provided answers on the measures they are using to achieve the goals set in 2023. With the goal of fostering public participation in decision-making, 19 political forces are implementing a participatory budgeting initiative. Parties and committees are also inviting citizens to participate in municipal council meetings, complete surveys, and engage in public consultations and discussions. These initiatives were outlined by 12 parties and committees.
In order to enhance transparency and openness in decisions related to public finances and asset management, most political forces (12) indicated that they make relevant data, documents, and decisions publicly available. They do so through the media, social networks, and municipal websites.
To improve the accessibility and quality of services provided by municipal institutions, most parties and committees (7) indicated that they conduct citizen service surveys.
Additionally, parties and committees provided several specific cases illustrating their efforts to reach anti-corruption targets. For example, “Liberals’ Movement” stated that they measure municipal transparency and analyze the results in comparison with past years’ data. “The Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats” reported that the Vilnius City municipality has set up a Compliance Department, whose responsibilities include assessing corruption risks. The Political Committee “Kretingos kraštas” stated that for low-value procurements conducted via non-public surveys, at least three suppliers are consulted, irrespective of the contract value.
“I am pleased that political parties and committees in local government are pursuing anti-corruption objectives. However, in many cases it is unclear how they specifically measure the success of their implementation. I would very much like the Anti-Corruption Commission and local government leaders to place greater emphasis on better management of conflicts of interest, more effective protection of whistleblowers, and the disclosure of meetings with interest group representatives and their proposals—areas that are currently addressed by only a few parties and committees.” – stated CEO of Transparency International Lithuania Ingrida Kalinauskienė.
During the recent term, political parties and committees, in their efforts to promote transparency in municipalities, mentioned facing several challenges: lack of information and limited accessibility (8 of 25), subjective decisions influenced by party interests and potential nepotism (4 of 25), as well as bureaucratic burdens (2 of 25).
Questionnaires for parties and committees can be accessed here. The answers they provided can be accessed here, and the compiled responses for each party and committee – here. You can access the TI Lithuania survey regarding the election-related anti-corruption goals of parties and political committees here. The recommendations for the political parties and committees can be accessed here.
More information: Ingrida Kalinauskienė, ingrida@transprency.lt
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.