Lietuvos dešiniųjų jėgų idėjinė takoskyra socialinės politikos pagrindu po Steigiamojo Seimo rinkimų 1920 m

ENThe article examines the fierce ideological clash between the representatives of the Christian Democrats and the National Progress Party, both of the rightwing political spectrum in Lithuania, in the summer and autumn of 1920, which we have tentatively called the ‘grand dispute’. The interest in this episode was prompted by the fact that, on the one hand, it is highly expressive and covered in detail in the press of the time, but at the same time it was very little studied in the historiography and not well known to the general public. The basis of the dispute lay in the differing views of politicians and public figures to the implementation of the inevitable social reforms in the nascent state, in particular, in the agricultural sphere. However, the course of the dispute showed that it was not limited to the issues of social policy, which were closely linked and intertwined with general aspects of domestic and foreign policy, law, morality, and even the direction in and the strategy of the development of the state. Thus, the narrative of the ‘grand dispute’ brings to the foreground and reveals the complex overall approach of the then rightwing politicians, who belonged to different groups, to the creation of independent Lithuania, its administration, its relationship with society and its individual strata, and, finally, to the perception of their own individual mission as leaders of society and the nation. The study is structured in two quite independent parts. In the first part, the entirety of the polemic between the Christian Democrats and the Progressives, which was covered in surprising detail in the press (the ‘grand dispute’), is presented in a coherent way both chronologically and along individual polemical lines.The second part outlines and highlights the conflict between the representatives of these parties as expressed and reflected in the dispute and public and political circumstances. The research shows that the Christian Democrats and the National Progress Party cooperated quite constructively during the initial period of the creation of the independent state between 1917 and 1919, when there was still no need to test the support among the general public and when the actual balance of power could only be predicted. However, the upcoming election to the 1920 Constituent Assembly was changing everything. It then became apparent that the two parties were of different natures, which inevitably lead to contradictions. The Christian Democrats based their activities on the principles of social partisanship and democratism and quickly adapted to the postwar environment radicalised by the revolutionary spirit; based on traditional Christian values, they boldly went out into the nation that shared those values and quickly became the largest force in the land, with political ambitions to match. Meanwhile, the National Progress Party particularly emphasised the role of the intelligentsia – the nation’s leaders – and believed that the traditionally passive, conservative majority of the nation should not be suddenly thrown into a democratic environment that was alien to it, but that it was necessary to educate, mature, and educate this majority in advance. The Progressives therefore perceived their party primarily as an organisation of the intelligentsia with a special mission of educating the nation, to which the mass scale was alien. It is only natural that in this situation, after the democratic elections, they were sidelined from leadership roles, while the Christian Democrats became the ruling party.The National Progress Party did not accept defeat and tried to influence the decisions of the Christian Democrats in various ways, even taking on the role of the initiator of such decisions. Failing to become the ‘brains of the government’, they began to attack and constantly criticise their former partners, primarily in the field of social policy. Tensions grew, and in the summer of 1920 the aforementioned ‘grand dispute’ broke out in the party press. On both sides of the argument, the clergy played a leading role. Much depended on the personal stance of individuals. The tension reached its peak in September 1920, when the political differentiation of the clergy became overt even at the national level. Yet by the end of 1920, an improvement in relations between the Christian Democrats and the National Progress Party was observed.