The Centenary of Lithuania's Independence: National Mobilization and Democracy Development Throughout Modern Lithuanian History

Modern Lithuania developed consistently in response to external and internal challenges. During the rebirth of the modern nation in the 19th century several vectors emerged that constantly influenced intellectual discourses, politics, and resistance. First, there was the development of national ideology, which aimed at guaranteeing the rights of the Lithuanian nation to establish an independent state. Secondly, the direction of democracy became increasingly evident in the projection and development of the independent state. This article seeks to show the development and overlap of national ideology and democracy, highlighting the main challenges faced in the history of modern Lithuania, discussing the periods of interwar Lithuania, World War II, the Soviet occupation, and contemporary Lithuania, and describing the country’s political and ideological trajectories, including the local politics of history. By taking the concept of the nation as a “category of practice” one notices that nationalism became an important factor not only in the liberation from the occupying empires (Russia and the USSR), but also in justifying the new order in the new state or even when challenging democracy. However, development of democracy in many situations coexisted with manifestations of nationalism. Yet during certain periods of modern history it became problematic and embraced experiences similar to those of other Central and Eastern European countries dealing with autocratic tendencies during the interwar period or responding to growing populism recently. The dominating presence of Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union, and Putin’s Russia always played a significant role in the determination of Lithuanians to have a nation-state, and these experiences strongly affect not only the current geopolitical orientation of the country, but also mobilization of patriotism (nationalism) and the politics of history. The responsibility of the Soviet past is often based on totalitarianism as a practical category, exposing the constant threat of “the evil empire”, which helps to legitimise today’s political, cultural and economic development. At the same time, this politicization of history serves as a tool in confronting and resisting Russia’s policies in the region.