Elizabete...it’s good to have even a chance to hope that the #’s are lower than the estimates I’ve heard!  But, like you, they do seem at variance with everything I’ve witnessed.  I would think that the influx of multinationals will raise the compliance rate, but even now that doesn’t likely represent the greater sector of the population.  And unfortunately the arrangements for prosecution don’t surprise me in the slightest.  :-S

Increasing tax compliance is a key marker in emerging democracies, along with stability of political parties, etc.  All things, unfortunately, that Latvia still seems to have an issue with.

Roberts, in rare form.  Although I may be in your bleary eyes an uninformed western liberal, the comparison I made isn’t with the west but with the Baltic neighborhood.  I believe I’m correct in stating that Latvia is the only one of the three to choose to re-adopt the pre-occupation constitution in its entirety, with no updating or revision.  Simply a suggestion that this may have been a mistake.  And sorry to burst your bubble, but I’ve heard this from a lot of well educated Latvians within Latvia as well.  Perhaps you have a better suggestion for a system that seems to be bursting at the seams trying to withstand the current completely corrupt ruling coalition.  I will say that the positive outcome on the referendum vote directed by VVF is a point in the favor of the Latvian people, who seem to finally be able to look beyond their party loyalty to see what needs to be done.  Unfortunately that process is too unwieldy to use frequently.  So, your suggestions?

Is there any corruption in Columbia, McTee? Just kidding............
Anyway, i was curious about the question you had about
taxes, or level of under reporting.
Googled for “corruption in Latvia. Tons of stuff
on line. Maybe Dr. Z should just take a bag of cash to VID
and get it over with.
Here’s what else i found: http://latviantelecoms.blogspot.com/search/label/depraved corruption

On the referendii, i think that US has a good system of
resolving many issues with local elections, but that
would be too simple.................

I wonder if no one has seen the article that Endzins published in 1988, proving legally that Latvia had never been occupied, but voluntarily and democratically joined the USSR, and wanted to stay in it?

http://www.tpjo.lv/?lang=lv&fulltext_id=510

Aivars Endziņš noliedz okupācijas faktu
Sabiedrībai ir tiesības zināt ne tikai “Dienas, Delnas, Panorāmas viedokli”, bet arī pašu valsts prezidenta amata kandidātu domas. Mūsuprāt, nepelnīti ir aizmirsti padomju laikos tapuši gara darbi, tāpēc pārpublicējam dažus citātus no grāmatas “Baltijas reakcionārā emigrācija šodien” 2. paragrāfa, kura autors ir prezidenta amata kandidāts Aivars Endziņš.

“Viena daļa reakcionāro emigrantu uzskata, ka “okupācijai”, esot sekojusi Baltijas valstu “aneksija”, t.i., varmācīga pievienošana Padomju Savienībai. Par kādu Baltijas “okupāciju” gan viņi runā?”

“Tas, ka visi apgalvojumi par Baltijas republiku “okupāciju” ir vistīrākais izdomājums, pārliecinoši pierādīts daudzos Lietuvas, Latvijas un Igaunijas vēsturnieku un juristu darbos.”

“Tikpat nepamatoti ir arī dažu autoru apgalvojumi, ka Padomju Savienība Baltijas valstis esot anektējusi. ..1940.gadā PSRS “varmācīgi” nepievienoja Lietuvu, Latviju un Igauniju - Lietuvas seims, Latvijas saeima un Igaunijas Valsts dome, pauzdami tautas gribu, griezās pie PSRS AP ar lūgumu uzņemt šīs republikas Padomju Savienības sastāvā.”

“Par to, ka Lietuvas seims, Latvijas saeima un Igaunijas Valsts dome patiešām pārstāvēja tautas vairākuma gribu, liecina vēlēšanu rezultāti: attiecīgi 97,8%, 99% un 92,8% no visiem Latvijas, Lietuvas un Igaunijas pilsoņiem, kuri piedalījās vēlēšanās, nobalsoja par Latvijas tautas bloka, Lietuvas Darba tautas demokrātiskās savienības un Igaunijas Darba tautas savienības kandidātiem.”

“Fakts, ka neviena padomju republika nav vēlējusies izstāties no Padomju Savienības, liecina, cik pareizi PSRS risina nacionālo jautājumu un cik saliedētas ir savienoto republiku tautas.”

“Patiesu suverenitāti Lietuva, Latvija un Igaunija ieguva tikai pēc buržuāzijas varas gāšanas un proletariāta diktatūras nodibināšanas. Tieši strādnieku šķira Komunistiskās partijas vadībā vienmēr ir konsekventi cīnījusies par īstenu suverenitāti.”

“Lietuvas, Latvijas un Igaunijas PSR suverenitāte izpaužas arī tajā apstāklī, ka tām ir katrai savs ģerbonis, karogs un himna - valstiskās patstāvības un nacionālās suverenitātes simboli.”

“Pirmām kārtām antikomunistu uzbrukumi ir vērsti pret marksistiski - ļeņiniskās partijas vadošo lomu, it īpaši pret Padomju Savienībā pastāvošo vienpartijas sistēmu.”

“Kā zināms, antisociālistiskie spēki Čehoslovākijā 1968.-1969.gadā bija izvirzījuši uzdevumu likvidēt proletariāta diktatūru. Viņi maskējās ar sabiedrības “demokratizēšanas” un “liberalizēšanas”, “demokrātiskā sociālisma” dibināšanas lozungiem, kas tika izteikti kontrrevolucionārā programmā - manifestā “2000 vārdu”. Kā demokrātijas aizstāvji uzstājās arī kontrrevolucionārie spēki Polijā.”

“Raksturodams partijas lomu V.I.Ļeņins teica, ka “mums principā nevar būt nekādu šaubu, ka Komunistiskajai partijai jābūt vadošai”. Šādu lomu komunisti nav izdomājuši un, protams, nav arī uzspieduši sabiedrībai, kā to nepatiesi apgalvo buržuāziskā propaganda un tās ideologi. Komunistiskās partijas vadošo lomu nosaka objektīvie likumi, pēc kuriem noris sabiedrības sociālistiskā attīstība, strādnieku šķiras cīņa par proletariāta diktatūru un komunisma uzcelšanu”.


Avots: “BALTIJAS REAKCIONĀRĀ EMIGRĀCIJA ŠODIEN”. Lietuviešu, latviešu un igauņu antikomunistiskā emigrācija imperiālisma kalpībā. Rīga, “Zinātne” 1982.g. III. Nodaļa 2.paragrafs, autors - A.Endziņš.

Excellent articles and even more interesting and revealing comments with great links can be found on DELFI. While reading “Endzins: Vikes Freibergas kritika saistita ar personisku nepatiku” I found a link in the fourth comment (Ino 30:05.2007 16:21), http://www.vdiena.lv/upload/manual/delna, wherein self-identified “Latvijas sabiedribas parstavji” have issued a statement of support for A. Endzina candidacy. Among the notables signing this statement are the following: Anna Zigure, Banuta Rubess, Franks Gordons, Laima Muktapavela, Valdis Muktapavels, Vita Terauda, Dzintra Geka, Juris Kronbergs, and Imants Kokars. The statement with all the signatures in support of Endzins can be read in full if you follow the link in DELFI. Can anyone (who is not a raving right-winger, male chauvinist, homophobe, etc.) make sense of this support. These appear to be intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic Latvians. I know all the arguments, even read his own statement, that Endzins has renounced his CP past and anti-occupation writings. He may be a truly reformed, decent, and honorable man. However, is this really the best candidate Latvia can find for PRESIDENT, for Latvia’s public face, one who has denied the BIG ISSUE of OCCUPATION - and had a great political career in the Communist past life doing so? “Ka vejs pus” (how the [political] wind blows) seems too apt of a description of Endzins political leanings. To be the Latvian President and a former OCCUPATION-DENIER is pretty repugnant. It’s interesting to find prominent trimda-Latvians and Franks Gordons among his supporters.

P.S.  Watching the wayward whales, Delta and Dawn, was awe-inspiring and touched me to my Latvian, “dabas"-loving core.  It was enough to make me want to break out singing JURIN PRASA SMALKU TIKLU.

ambersun - 30 May 2007 01:00 PM

...self-identified “Latvijas sabiedribas parstavji” have issued a statement of support for A. Endzina candidacy. Among the notables signing this statement are the following: Anna Zigure, Banuta Rubess, Franks Gordons, Laima Muktapavela, Valdis Muktapavels, Vita Terauda, Dzintra Geka, Juris Kronbergs, and Imants Kokars. The statement with all the signatures in support of Endzins can be read in full if you follow the link in DELFI. Can anyone (who is not a raving right-winger, male chauvinist, homophobe, etc.) make sense of this support.

Sure Suns, glad you asked!

I’d be more than happy to shed some light on this one.  This group is (more or less) akin to the Hollywood Lefties, a.k.a. “The Usual Suspects.” This is a core group of pseudo-intellectuals who believe that their achievements in other endeavours, such as arts, qualify them to speak down to the common Lett.  Note that last month the same core of characters signed off on this: http://www.vdiena.lv/lat/politics/readers/paraksties_par_latviju .  Some are notorious left-wing kooks (Baņuta Rubess, for example, is best known for her play Varoņdarbi which openly mocked folk hero Lāčplēsis), others have serpentine ties to the Soros organization (Tēraude).  You’ll find them in the pro-EU, pro-gay pride camp.  When these people congregate in larger numbers, something foul is usually afoot.

/R

p.s.—Spectator, great heads-up on the quotes from Endziņš’ book!  One can only imagine what Latvia’s NATO allies in The Czech Republic would think if the man that wrote such horrid things about the Prague Spring were actually to become President of the Republic of Latvia.

Sveiki!

Ambersun wrote:

„The statement with all the signatures in support of Endzins can be read in full if you follow the link in DELFI. Can anyone (who is not a raving right-winger, male chauvinist, homophobe, etc.) make sense of this support. These appear to be intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic Latvians.”

Some may be remembering the Motte apartment scandal in the late 1990’s when government-owned apartments in Vecrīga were made available for a pittance (1% - 16% of their market value - at that time) to members of the correct parties, e.g., Raimonds Pauls, Gundars Bērziņš, Jānis Straume, etc.  Frequently, the apartments were not offered for sale to the evicted, long-time tenants – or anyone other than the ‘chosen few.’ Ultimately in 1999 two related suits were brought to the Constitutional Court, which was headed by Endziņš.  The court did not find in favor of the ruling coalition, and despite the fact that Šķēle, premier at the time, threatened to dissolve Satversmes tiesa entirely, Endziņš stood his ground.  Endziņš even went so far as to name publicly those who’d tried to intimidate him and influence the court’s decisions – the attorney Grūtups, as well as politicians Krištopans, Straume, and of course Šķēle.  There was just enough of a public outcry that the coalition could not disband the court, and thus it continued to develop into an independent court that’s highly respected both in Latvia and abroad.  Endziņa gara bērns.

I’m not sure, but Endziņš may also have been the first to stand up against LV’s political elite - and win.  Times haven’t really changed all that much – but, many would prefer that the next president have a dedication similar to Endziņš’ so that the office of the presidency is kept independent of party manipulation and doesn’t turn into a rubber stamp for the coalition. 

It would probably be good to keep in mind that those endorsing candidates are focussing on the current choice: Endziņš vs Zatlers - who now has admitted to accepting money-filled envelopes prior to operating on patients, which reportedly is prosecutable.  Endziņš has already announced that he’ll drop out if Levits enters the race.  But, we’ll know soon enough whether this presidential race ends with only one round of candidates.

Visu labu,

Elizabete

PS It struck me that some of my ‘named names’ elsewhere – ie., those involved in the cabinet meeting decision concerning Abrene – also appear in the Motte skandāls: Gorbunovs, Krištopans, Poča, Šķēle.  How little changes, alas.

Well...it’s all moot now.  Dr. “Konverts” has staved off the challenge by Mr. “Komunists” and has been elected by 58 of Latvia’s “best and brightest” to be the new, proud President of Latvia.  What a nightmare for the Latvian people.

Suns, don’t be fooled by Roberts blathering.  These are not Latvia’s “pseudo intellectuals,” but a well known group of the most famous men and women of arts and letters in current day Latvia.  It is a mixture of trimda and non, all highly involved in the resurgence of Latvian arts, folklore, folkmusic, literature, etc.  Although I get the “Hollywood liberals” comparison (a bit), most are quite serious people, and well thought of both in the academic and creative circles in Latvia as well as outside.  For instance, Valdis Muktapavels is well thought of enough that he is a regular/annual guest professor at Stanford University, hardly a bastion of left thinking crazies.  The key to some of R’s displeasure may be that they are not only often affiliated with the left, but at least one (to my knowledge) is also quite closely connected to Soros activities in Latvia.  Although your appellation notes that you are a newbie, perhaps you’ve noticed that Roberts foams at the mouth at the mere mention of anything Soros-related.:-)

Anyway, it would be interesting to see how the votes fell on Zatlers.  I believe the populace in general wouldn’t be too fazed by the bribe taking...as a doctor/surgeon that is fairly normal in a broken government health care system that pays doctors a meager monthly pittance.  And as I’ve said the non-payment of taxes, not unusual either.  However the cavalier attitude conveyed in the front page article of LOL...I was surprised to hear that he announced AFTER his election that he would now be meeting with tax officials to “settle up” as it were.  AFTER!  I do give the man credit for even stating these misdeeds in the interview...it is either a new level of honesty...or a new low, in which this kind of stuff is so acceptable in society that even public officials don’t see it as a real negative in their background.  I mean, isn’t the usual action on something like this, to try to head off a public outcry by meeting with the tax officials to correct the situation BEFORE the election?

And comparing the effect that an allegation of accepting bribes in the health care field (actually, I think they are seen less as bribes and more as “additional” private payments for services) to the effect an allegation of being a communist/sympathizer/fellow traveller would have in the general populace.  Hmmm...hard to say, but I would think if most people hear nothing else about these candidates they will be satisfied with the choice of Zatlers.

My personal opinion, though, is that I can’t believe a better candidate couldn’t be found than either.  And I am a bit stunned that Sandra Kalniete’s nomination appeared to be so dead in the water.  Can anyone in Latvia comment?  Is that based on her affiliation with JL?

And I am a bit stunned that Sandra Kalniete’s nomination appeared to be so dead in the water.  Can anyone in Latvia comment?  Is that based on her affiliation with JL?

It’s based on JL’s position in the government. JL, as you know, is in opposition and the four-party gang would like it to stay that way. Kalniete’s candidacy was announced before the fall election last year and JL was hoping it would get them enough votes to be in the coalition, alas it didn’t work.

It’s not only with the Kalniete candidacy, the same was with the border agreement.

However the President is supposed to be ABOVE party politics in Latvia.  The nature of the position is that the person elected is supposed to be able to mediate between party politics.  Sandra Kalniete is clearly the most qualified of the three, a real senior diplomat, but has lost out because the ruling coalition is playing politics as usual. 

This is why I wonder about whether Latvia shouldn’t consider making the President a popularly elected position.  Yes, it involves a consitutional change, however it would certainly bring some balance to an out of control Saima.

Theoretically, yes, the president is supposed to be above the party politics. He’s supposed to be an independent candidate and public attitude to Endzins, for example, in the lead-up to election suggested that merely because an opposition Saskanas Centrs introduced him, he’s got a proven track record to call spade a spade. Not so with Zatlers, who has been coached one weekend on what to say in public and to the media.

While Sandra Kalniete may seem like a better candidate of the three, I think because she’s been introduced as a candidate so early in the process and before the parliamentary elections last fall, her reputation may have suffered a bit. However, she has recovered when she recalled her candidacy in favor of Endzins.

I’ve been pondering the question of popular vote all day today since I heard today’s news. As someone had suggested to me, most electorate is dumb. In the case of Latvia, we may elect Raimonds Pauls as the president if the popular vote alone is the deciding factor. And, I mean, those people too elected Tautas Partija last fall.

So, me personally, I would prefer a system where a referendum may overwrite the parliament’s decision to elect the president—much like it’s now done with the national security laws. In this system, the public is not left out of the process and the Parliament cannot elect some doctor whom most of the public opposes.

I’m not sure I understand why you think Raimonds Pauls would be a worse choice than a Dr.Zatlers (also with no political/legal background) who has decided to make a career change/that he’s exhausted the opportunities for money-making in the medical field and will move on to politics? :-)

And I’m not sure about your trust in the referendum process.  Can someone explain, yes again, how the referendum process works in Latvia?  For some reason I was under the impression that it is fairly different than what we call referendum in California (for instance)… the president has to call for a referendum and that it must then be confirmed by the signatures of a percentage of the voting population.  If this is the case, then what is the likelihood that an outgoing president would interfere this way in the selection of his/her successor?  I would think highly unlikely.  And even if it works similar to the examples in the US, that a grassroots movement can start the process, do you think you will find a strong enough grassroots ovement in Latvia’s relative inexperienced and unconfident voting population?

And finally, why would you be willing to trust the voting population to uphold the president’s judgement of the need for a referendum, but not trust them to choose their next president?  As has been said, “Democracy subsitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.” In other words, who would you rather rest your faith on?  ...an “incompetent many” that at least has the redeeming value of being educable...or the “corrupt few” that follow the religion of personal gain and thus are unlikely ever to be reformed?  I definitely would opt for the “many”...at least the sheer numbers participating in the decision would tend to dilute the negative effect.

It’s clear, and has been since even before the Ulmanis time, that the organization of the Latvian Saeime does not work effectively to further the Latvian Nation’s interests and that reform is needed.  The open debate about political reform and actual parliamentary changes should have taken place a long time ago, and certainly should have been a priority in the first years of renewed independence. It appears this was just too unpleasant and difficult a task and there were no real leaders to show the way.  Instead, it was simply easier and more beneficial for greedy, corrupt, and selfish politicos to flock to the Saeime feeding trough and get power for the party and for the party animal.  I think because President Freiberga was a pleasant and positive aberration in the dysfunctional system but at the same time part of the clumsy, corrupt machinery, the public was mislead into believing and trusting that reform would take place with each new promise and election cycle.  I think it’s very telling that while LOL was hyperventilating about the failure of old Ulmanis-Vadonis back in time, the lessons that should have been learned from that failure were not addressed.  More later, must run. Read public comments on DELFI.LV.

One question at the time…

McTalzeme - 31 May 2007 10:34 AM

I’m not sure I understand why you think Raimonds Pauls would be a worse choice than a Dr.Zatlers (also with no political/legal background) who has decided to make a career change/that he’s exhausted the opportunities for money-making in the medical field and will move on to politics? :-)

I used R. Pauls as an example of a person who has limited political experience (apart from his muddy thoughts on occupation), yet he is extremely popular. I don’t think he would be the worse or better choice than Zatlers MD. I think he would be the wrong choice for the position, in spite of his popularity.

McTalzeme - 31 May 2007 10:34 AM

And I’m not sure about your trust in the referendum process.  Can someone explain, yes again, how the referendum process works in Latvia?  For some reason I was under the impression that it is fairly different than what we call referendum in California (for instance)… the president has to call for a referendum and that it must then be confirmed by the signatures of a percentage of the voting population.  If this is the case, then what is the likelihood that an outgoing president would interfere this way in the selection of his/her successor?  I would think highly unlikely.  And even if it works similar to the examples in the US, that a grassroots movement can start the process, do you think you will find a strong enough grassroots ovement in Latvia’s relative inexperienced and unconfident voting population?

There are many ways to call a referendum in Latvia. VVF, for the first time in Latvia’s history, used presidential powers to do so, which will take place in July. Whether Latvia ought to join the EU was a referendum.

A referendum can be called by collecting signatures on a particular issue, or bill, as it was with citizenship laws in the late 1990s. Today, in Latvia, a debate rages on whether regional referenda ought to be allowed. So the president is not a necessary part of the equation to hold a referendum.

What I’m suggesting is to adjust the system in such a way that allows the people have their say in electing their president. I’m suggesting that following the Saeima’s election of the president, a refendum to be held where people could give thumbs up or down the parliament’s choice. That would allow people to express their opinion, while limiting useless promises of a presidential campaign. If people disapprove, it would go back to Saeima, where fresh new candidates be voted on.

McTalzeme - 31 May 2007 10:34 AM

And finally, why would you be willing to trust the voting population to uphold the president’s judgement of the need for a referendum, but not trust them to choose their next president? 

Because of the dirty presidential campaigns and empty promises. I think if both the people’s representatives who ought to do their job and wisely represent the people and the people themselves agree on one person, it limits empty promises and campaign spending on presidential campaigns. In other words, the Parliament would say, “Tauta, look, here’s who we think ought to be our president, do you agree or not?” That way, we wouldn’t have a situation like we do today—unpopular parties voting in unpopular person to be the next president. And it shows that people don’t really matter.

In presidential elections, you can have many candidates. In a referendum, you usually have one or two questions.

McTalzeme - 31 May 2007 10:34 AM

As has been said, “Democracy subsitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.” In other words, who would you rather rest your faith on?  ...an “incompetent many” that at least has the redeeming value of being educable...or the “corrupt few” that follow the religion of personal gain and thus are unlikely ever to be reformed?  I definitely would opt for the “many”...at least the sheer numbers participating in the decision would tend to dilute the negative effect.

Are those my two choices? Why can’t we have the incompetent many vote thumbs up or down on the decision of the corrupt few?