Throughout history since the days of the crusaders the objectives of the Germans and Russians has been to get rid of these Baltic cultures. It was slay them – that happened with the Old Prussians, enslave them – we did their dirty work for centuries under duress, and assimilate them leaving as little trace as possible that such Baltic cultures ever existed so that they may never rise again. The lack of a unified political front from day one subjugated Latvians for centuries to come.

Many culturally, patriotically and nationalistically minded Latvians – Kārlis Ulmanis amongst them—recognized the plight of the fragmented Latvians and managed to unify these disarrayed Latvians into a country called Latvia. That was a start in 1918 but it hardly resembled an overnight adhesion of a collective unity under their newfound freedom. It was a democracy in name only, a political imperfection that was a weakness and a hangover from our tribal days. We experienced that from 1920 through 1934. The question remained did we want to have a Latvian culture or should we just allow our culture to disintegrate under German and Russian interests and pressures to absorb the Latvian lands. This was no novelty to the Latvian political leadership, as Zigfrīds Meierovitzs predicted World War II in 1922. It was bound to rip the Latvians apart without leaving a strong cultural core foundation.

All this may be chicanery to Pēteris Cedriņš, but Kārlis Ulmanis raised the psychological consciousness of Latvians as a nation. There were no half-way solutions. Sacrifices and hard decisions had to be made. While Ulmanis did many things wrong and not to the liking of everyone, the issue remained do we want to exist as a nation or do we simply throw up our hands and become lackeys and underdogs of Germany, Russia or split between both. The entire Latvia could have gone the way of Abrene, where today there is no trace of Latvian spirit and culture.

Even foreign historians have acknowledged that it was this Latvian consciousness that allowed Latvians to survive the occupation and established a unified Trimda with an unyielding cause to see Latvia regain its independence. It was this same Latvian consciousness that allowed the Latvians to rise up from the rubble of the Soviet Union as it disintegrated.

As a trade-off, I wonder if the books that were speculated as taken off the shelves and a hypothetical breakaway Republic of Latgale would have strengthened the Latvian consciousness to the level that Latvia today is once more a free nation with its own self-determination.

Cheers, Ivars

Graudiņa kungs wrote:

It was a democracy in name only, a political imperfection that was a weakness and a hangover from our tribal days.

This is one of the most fascinating sentences I’ve seen in a while. This is exactly what many Russian anti-democrats say about the 1990s, no? And the Latvians who ape them? They also indulge in pathetic and perverse fantasies. Historically, these things do not compare—the achievements of Latvian democracy, 1920-1934, are well-documented. Nobody but an utter dupe of the dictator would claim that democracy in Latvia was a failure. It was imperfect, of course. But the nature of democracy is argument, dissent, controversy. The nature of Ulmanis’ dictatorship was the suppression of dissent of any kind.

“In name only?” The mechanisms and the institutions don’t matter, then? I mean, the fact that Latvians had a Constituent Assembly that was popularly elected and settled upon a framework that adopted far-reaching decisions like land reform, which land lines we returned to in 1991, was “in name only”?

I can’t wait to hear about “political perfection,” Ivar. Even now, in 2008, we use the Constitution that was drafted back then. What Ulmanis did was rob every Latvian of every political freedom. He raped the democracy Latvians fought for, basically. This pleased the Messrs. LL of the time, who were seemingly led by what leads the far right now; make the illusion pretty enough and cry loud enough, and so mote it be.

But fine, Ivar, why not—except that this robs Latvia of any moral authority whatsoever. If the ethnocentric bardak that is Latvia is the Republic—then quit whining about Russians and their sovereign democracy or dictatorship of law.

The democracy was a hangover from our tribal days? Excuse me—the dictator was the hangover. He still hangs over.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Mr. Graudins, Sir:

Thank you.

L. L.

Books, yes, missing books. /Politruk shows that he cannot support his blurb about the books and their importance.  He admits: “I don’t know if such a document exists.”

If I understand /Politruk correctly, he adheres to the following scene:

President Dr. Karlis Ulmanis sits at his desk and pounds it with his fist, yelling to poor shivering Alfrēds Bērzinš (according to /Politruk - one of the principal “Ulmanists” whatever that means, and a chief ideologue of the régime),

“1 270 374 volumes must be destroyed at once!”

“Yes, sir, of course, sir,” snivels Mr. Berzins , charges out of room and immediately dispatches order to the secret police reading” Confiscate and burn 1 270 374 books at once; burn them or give to russians to roll their mahorka. I don’t care which ones.  Make sure that you get 1 270 374.”

Yes. I have to admit, /Politruk is a great bard.

Mr. L. L.

Peteris Cedriņš et all.,

Judging from the responses, it looks like you stepped into you know what this time.  Only explanation I can think of ,you must really be hitting the “krutka” in Daugavpils, oops I forgot, you prefer Dvinsk.

Visu labu,

How does one reply to someone stuck on the high note and lives by the book? Living in Dvinskitown your bound to run into fascinations and surprises every time you poke your head up. It does not take much to be removed from reality of mainstream Latvians.

Let’s face it Pēter, I’m sure that you did not fall for democracy just because you drink moxie. Democracy, however, is not a religious rite where you run around hollering believe, believe, have faith, hallelujah and hope to get through ‘em pearly gates. Democracy was at best a trial and error game that did not mesh with the personal goals of the political leadership. It did not tie in with the aspirations of the Latvian people. It was a troubled democracy with a revolving door where 16 ministries ruled the roost since the constitution was adopted in 1922. That’s 16 ministries in a space of 12 years! Take note that as many as 28 political parties were represented in the Saeima, each with it’s own agenda and game plan. Talk about moving things off dead center. The largest and the most popular party, the Social Democrats, hardly represented their voters as most of the time they stayed in opposition, without power, choosing not to participate in a coalition. So much for representation! Political freedom and moral authority was something people joked about. So were the missing checks and balances.

Democracy is nice to have when you don’t have the forces working against you. You’re either a big country that can fend for itself or you’re a country located at some peaceful neck of this world. Latvia is neither.

All things considered, you missed the point with your obsession over democracy. When democracy encounters the self-preservation of the Latvian nation, sustaining the Latvian culture is objective numero uno. Democracy can take the hind most. It’s a question of priorities. Besides, you’ve got your wires crossed; most Latvians did not fight for a thing called democracy. It was a strange word to most Latvians to begin with. What Latvians were fighting for was self-determination as a Latvian culture and nation, the right to be their own masters, free of German and Russian subjugation, whatever that took, as long as the leadership was Latvian. Even a Latvian king would have done the trick.

In initial stages of Trimda I heard folks talking about and engaged in preserving the Latvian culture. They dreamed about getting Latvia back, whatever it takes. There were guys that even said that they made a mistake by leaving Latvia. They should have stayed and become communists at least that way they could achieve that Latvians are there own bosses instead of some foreign Soviets. Sure it was a pipe dream and no one actually wanted to become a commie. But it at least demonstrates that Latvians were more interested in preserving their culture. Democracy was never an open aspiration as it was not a priority.

Most Latvians did not care to sacrifice their culture for democracy. What Latvians need, squeezed by big powers that not only want a chunk of Latvia, but the whole, is a flexible form of government. It’s a government that can adapt to the situations that are a threat and a challenge to the Latvian way of life. It needs to be a form of government that can roll-with-the-punches. Yes, call it the Roll-With-The-Punches government of Latvia.

Because of Kārlis Ulmanis, today we have a living Latvian culture as opposed to having a dead Latvian democracy that would not have survived the occupation pressures because its people did not learn enough pride and self-esteem. Think: after all these centuries, šodien mēs esam letiņi un tas ir kaut kas!

Cheers, Ivars

I don’t doubt that Ulmanis was influential, but I’m totally unconvinced that had it not been for his coup there would be no Latvian culture or that Latvia would not have survived the occupation pressures. Given that an independent Latvian nation emerged in 1918 after centuries of subjugation and zero history of a united independent nation, I hardly think we can give Ulmanis all the credit for Latvia’s most recent rebirth. I think Latvians deserve more credit than that.

Dear Ivar,

Interesting thoughts you have offered into the Latvian psyche, which, perhaps, serve as a vivid illustration of where Latvian elites and populace find themselves in the 2008 Latvia, a member of the European Union.

Latvians, you say, fought to preserve their culture, language and ethnicity. Latvians, you say, fought to be Latvians, first and foremost, free of foreign invaders – the Germans and the Russians. However – to use Stalin’s technique of asking rhetorical questions – how can one be truly free if one cannot chose one’s own political destiny? How can one be truly free if one cannot decide what is best for one’s country? How can one be free if one delegates all authority to one man, who will decide what’s best for the nation as a whole? A country, or more importantly, the people cannot be truly free unless they can influence the way the government and their country is run by the means of fruitful and legitimate elections and public discourse questioning the work of the government, which are the core principle of democracy. Perhaps, at its face value, Latvians didn’t fight for democracy, but for their own national identity and their own freedom. However, implicitly, they also fought for democracy, for the right to chose their own destiny without any influence from abroad, ironically enough principles laid out by Woodrow Wilson in the Right of Nations to Self-Determination principles espoused at the time of Latvia’s independence in 1918. 

Your comments sound extremely similar—if not identical—to comments one hears from Russia ahead of the presidential elections there in March. Russians trust those in authorities to make decisions for them (after all it absolves them from taking responsibilities for making wrong choices). The Anointed Candidate is now more popular than ever to the point that he doesn’t have to participate in a presidential debate. His election is secured. Russians, ruled by czars and Communists, too have this attitude as part of their psyche - they want to preserve their derzhavnost’ at the expense of their freedoms and democracy. It is why Putin is so popular after the bardak of the 1990s. He, the Russian Vadonis put the country in order and back as a major player on the international arena.

And this is why I say that Latvian attitude is so similar to the Russian, much too upsetting for ambersun’s “glorious Latvian history”. But your comments serve as shining evidence of that, Ivars.

Democracy is a flawed system of government. Democracy works through the means of trial and error, as you rightly pointed out. But flawed democracy will never justify or excuse a perfect dictatorship no matter how benevolent it may be. The fact that Ulmanis couldn’t push any legislation through the Parliament cannot be a justification for dissolving it altogether. Rather than suspend it, one changes the Constitution through a political consensus to force political parties to come to a compromise. Although Ulmanis did suspend the parliament under the pretext of revising the Constitution, no effort was made in the six years of his reign as the Latvian king to revise the document that should have preserved the right and liberties of the Latvian people.

And today, we see exactly the same struggle between European principles of democracy and the rule of law and what I call Russian principles of the managed democracy through a local king. Former Prime Minister Aigars Kalvītis called himself “a guarantor of stability,” the phrase that became a candidate for the Aphorism of the Year in 2007. He exhibited nearly the same principles as you espouse here: the government knows what’s best and to question it (which is a democratic principle) is unpatriotic and un-Latvian. 

All the best,

Here’s a quote from Winston Churchill I like:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Nothing to do with Ulmanis or LOL but here’s another Churchill quote I like:

“I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. “

Thank you, Ivar, for your posts, kurs bij sakarigs’- make good practical sense.  And Aleksej, while I am inspired by your ideals (no sarcasm intended), I don’t think that you can compare Ulmanis to Putin.  The latter, I see, as disreputable and looking into those eyes of his, as someone said the other night, only see those big, bold letters--’KGB’; while Ulmanis, on the other hand, though no angel ,was certainly a much more complicated figure, as Ambersun stated.

There seems to be much disagreement, ambiguousness about whether or not democracy was really working before Ulmanis’ coup, even in the book that I am reading,’ History of Latvia.’ And then there’s the crux of the matter--true or not, whether that gives someone the right to take matters into his own hands? 

Speaking for myself, I am hoping this discussion will generate more thought and not degenerate into name calling, old axes to grind.

Ar Cienu,

Irena

Irena:

In my diatribe, I attempted to compare people’s attitude toward democracy and lack thereof, not necessarily launch into a study of comparing and contrasting Ulmanis and Putin. All I’m saying any excuses (or reasons) used to justify the lack of democratic principles in Latvia from 1934 until 1940 can be used to justify an immense popularity of the Russian President between 2000 and 2008. in other words, I’m not comparing the Great Leaders, but the people’s attitude toward the Great Leaders.

Unlike Ulmanis’ Latvia, Putin’s Russia still has some freedom of the press left.

But I think Lukashenka is a better comparison in some ways.

About a film about Belarus...

I highly recommend watching the movie. Ivars Graudiņš’s sentiments abound.

Vysu lobu,
/P

I think this is possibly the most key part of Aleksejs’ earlier post:

Although Ulmanis did suspend the parliament under the pretext of revising the Constitution, no effort was made in the six years of his reign as the Latvian king to revise the document that should have preserved the right and liberties of the Latvian people.

There are many who supported Ulmanis’ initial coup who later became very disillusioned by his refusal to restore democracy including Janis Balodis and Margers Skujenieks. There may or may not be an argument for the initial coup but I find the refusal to restore democracy or show any signs of doing so unacceptable.  What about all the other fierce Latvian patriots who were pro-democracy, who were involved in Latvia’s initial independence fight in and around 1918, and who helped to build Latvia? The idea that they could simply be shifted aside by Ulmanis is an insult to the sacrifices and risks they took. And what kind of chaos might Latvia have descended into had Ulmanis died suddenly?
The censorship is unacceptable too. At one stage during a 6 month peiod it was forbidden to publish any new articles by Skalbe. Skalbe is quoted as saying: “Pat cara laika ta nenotika; es jau tagad esmu kluvis illegals”.

Ivars writes that the only way to maintain Latvia in the face of pressure from large surrounding countries was by a dictatorship but 6 years after the coup it was Ulmanis himself who allowed the Russians in to Latvia, even if it was under threat. I’m not saying he should have fought them, but an official surrender under protest followed by an official government in exile would have done more for Latvia than pretending that everything would be OK leaving people to the mercy of the communists. He should also have allowed those that were in danger to leave Latvia but instead nobody was allowed to leave (unless they had the German connection). Consequently many who would have had no illusions of the danger they were in would have been able to escape rather than wind up killed, tortured or deported. Noticeably though some of Ulmanis’ closest allies didn’t stay in Latvia to their fate. I don’t know how but Alfreds Berzins managed to escape (I think this was in 1940, correct me if I’m wrong) whilst Krisjanis Berkis also did so before being lured back.

I don’t consider myself to be an “Ulmanis basher” - I’m more than willing to accept that Ulmanis did many positive things both before and after the coup and I particularly admire him for his role in the independence war period but in the end I think he lost it, and there were many fiercely patriotic Latvians who even at the time also felt so.

How many of the original reasons for the coup in Latvia in 1934 turned out to be true? The screen shot from the special edition of the newspaper Latvijas Kavalieris, May 16, 1934.