Austerity measures have yet again helped ensure a heavy electoral defeat for a ruling political party in the EU, once more calling their political viability into question.

It was Lithuania’s turn this time, and the ruling Homeland Union ended up ranking third overall with just 11% of the vote, behind two left-leaning parties.

The Baltic state had enjoyed years of rapid economic growth until the global financial crisis brought this boom to a dramatic end.

To stave off bankruptcy, the government implemented a drastic austerity programme, one which saw taxes increase while wages and government expenses were cut.

The programme was successful by international standards, winning Lithuania praise from the International Monetary Fund and other governments. No bailout was sought or needed, the budget deficit has since been tamed, and the country is once again registering one of the EU’s highest economic growth rates.

But this came at a heavy cost. The economy shrank by a staggering 15% in 2009, and tens of thousands of the country’s three million citizens emigrated in search of work. Unemployment remains a concern, at around 13%.

So while the Homeland Union promised to improve wages and lower taxes – as did the parties that surpassed its vote share – this turned out to be insufficient to overcome public sentiment against the tough austerity measures.

The vote is in line with trends seen in other European countries: In Greece, the ruling PASOK similarly ended up in third place in elections earlier this year.

The problem is that as long as they spell electoral doom for governing parties, austerity measures will likely lack the necessary legitimacy to succeed. It is too easy for opposition parties to capitalise on the measures’ unpopularity to get one over ruling party, however necessary they may be.

This is especially the case as long as there is little to convince people of the effectiveness of austerity measures, as is currently the case.

Austerity measures may be touted as the solution to Europe’s financial woes in many quarters, but there are no concrete signs of an economic recovery in the most notable example of austerity at work – Greece. On the other hand, concerns that its deepening economic recession is cancelling out any positive effect austerity measures have on the country’s public finances are growing.

The Lithuanian election shows that even austerity measures that appear to bring results will punish ruling parties.

So ultimately, unless popular perception changes, austerity will be seen as ineffective at best, and an undemocratic imposition from above at worst: Neither option will help them succeed in the long run.

Its proponents need to develop more convincing arguments than the facile explanation that cutting services and increasing taxes brings down debt and deficit levels, or perhaps consider granting more leeway to countries which need to bring their public finances in order, lest they fail and threaten the stability of the whole eurozone.

And that assumes that austerity measures are the solution to Europe’s financial troubles: Evidence that this is the case is running low, although what viable alternative exists remains to be seen.