Ivars Graudiņs et al.,

“Rome, however, made its headway by oscillating between democracy and dictatorship as well as constitutional dictatorships approved by their Senates, from time to time, to make things happen. There was a lot of government restructuring. They left an entire cultural legacy for the western world.

Yes they did. And the legacy they left us fairly clearly predicts that the oscilation between democracy and dictatorship works successfully primarily in one direction. “

What is important that the romans came up with the idea of a republic, they invented it, the greeks came up with the idea of democracy, they invented it, never mind of the setbacks that followed.  Ulmanis became a dictator, a set back, there is no way to get around that fact.  But the idea of Latvia as an independent nation was invented by Ulmanis and his fellow compatriots.

Visu labu,

By “increasingly unpopular,” I obviously meant Ulmanis’ popularity prior to the coup: I base my views of Latvia’s dictator on concrete facts—one increasingly unpopular man usurped power and eliminated every trace of democracy. In the last free elections, Ulmanis barely made it into Parliament. As Inesis Feldmanis observes in the Jumava book, he couldn’t imagine himself outside politics and was worried that the October 1934 vote would mean a complete loss for him. To discount his personal ambition and pretend that he lived only for Latvia is ludicrous, to my mind—there are countless accounts of how overweening his ambition was. Proof positive is the absurd personality cult he created.

As to growing up in a democracy resembling growing up in a religious faith—what a fantastically silly, cheap shot, Ivar. Growing up in the US meant being taught how participatory democracy works. Civics courses. The Bill of Rights. Mock elections beginning in grammar school. Writing letters to elected officials in high school—and getting detailed responses, often with copies of relevant material enclosed. Grass-roots. Debate class. Politicians addressing the Latvian community. Captive Nations Day. Field trips to jury trials. School newspapers and clubs. The ACLU defending a Nazi march or the rights of students to wear offensive T-shirts. Petitions galore.

Not all Latvians look at political performance in black and white, as narrowly, as Pēteris C. [...] Demo[c]racy and dictatorship was far from most of their minds. Hmm. I do believe I touched upon this when I suggested that a longing for “a strong hand” is strongest to the east of us, in Russia and Belarus. Over in the “Dialogue” thread, Ambersun is harping on Russia’s culture of authoritarianism… what about ours? Consider this article by Dace Akule.

As Andrejs writes, your nebulous description of “a political party of ‘movers and shakers’ who are knowledgeable decision makers” is something that’s been offered again and again. Akule:

Manuprāt, sabiedrībai ir laiks saprast, ka tāda stingrā līdera, kas visu sakārtos, Latvijā nevar būt. Atcerēsimies, ar ko beidzās Einara Repšes un Andra Šķēles ienākšana politikā – viņi ilgtermiņā nekļuva par tiem stingrajiem līderiem, par kādiem daļa sabiedrības balsoja vēlēšanās. Tāpat, vai nav laiks apzināties, ka ilgas pēc stingrā līdera ir cenšanās novelt atbildību par politiskajiem procesiem no sabiedrības pleciem? Citiem vārdiem, tā vietā, lai sabiedrība aktīvi piedalītos politiskajos procesos, tā labprātāk ievēlētu stingro līderi, kas visu izdarīs pareizi, atņemot vēlētājiem nepieciešamību sekot līdzi, vērtēt un kritizēt notiekošo politikā.

No one commented on the article by Reetz and Spolītis I posted earlier, which discusses matters relevant to your proposed “fix,” Ivar, but does so concretely.

Turpinot nepārtraukto diskusiju par valsts uzbūves (polity) tēmām, Latvijas politiķi rada par sevi ilūziju kā par atbildīgiem darba pirmrindniekiem, kuri līdzīgi komjaunatnei vispirms sev rada problēmas, lai pēc tam veiksmīgi “bauriem” rādītu, kā ar tām jācīnās.[5] Latvijas politiskā elite, sekojot PSKP tradīcijām un nomainot komunisma paradīzi ar saukli par “pareizajiem cilvēkiem”, baro Latvijas pilsoņus ar neizpildāmu uzdevumu solījumiem[6]. Šāds novērojums pirms deviņiem gadiem bija Aivaram un Ausmai Tabuniem: “daudziem sabiedrības locekļiem ir paternāla izpratne par demokrātiju — viņi uzskata, ka, “pareizajiem” cilvēkiem nonākot pie varas, situācija uzlabosies"[7], bet acīmredzot Latvijas pilsoniskās aprindas ir pārāk kūtras, lai saprastu, kur tad patiesi slēpjas Latvijas pilsoniskās neuzticēšanās valdībai problēmu saknes. Šādi Latvijas pilsoniskās sabiedrības grupas bez spiediena uz izpildvaru, lai tā risinātu primāros jautājumus, nodarbojas ar sekundāras dabas jautājumiem, un piemēram, avīžu lappusēs sevišķi gados vecākiem ļaudīm kā vienīgo pozitīvo lietu šajā valstī ļaujot baudīt “mītiskos Ulmaņa laikus”.

http://spolitis.blogspot.com/2008/02/totalitarian-roots-of-latvian-democracy.html

One of their main points can’t be emphasized enough: Latvijas sabiedrības neuzticība valdībai patiesībā slēpjas lielas daļas iedzīvotāju zināšanu trūkumā par pilsoniskajām vērtībām, un tas atspoguļo šodienas valdošās elites astoņpadsmit gadu laikā neizdarītos mājas darbus.

The problem is not about “pareizie cilvēki”—it’s about civics. Your “fix” is actually part of the f---up.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Mock elections? That could make you in to mock democrat ................LOL

Peteris Cedrins

So here we go again, change the thread from Kārlis – Draudzīgais Aicinājums, oops, I mentioned Kārlis. And Pēteris Cedriņš is jumping out of the box again shouting dictators, dictators. And he will try to make Ūlmanis black as he reasonably can. There is always a “cherry picking” to convince his listeners that he is right and others are wrong. After all Mr. Dinsdorf says so in his book. Half the truth is better than none at all. Anyway, the other half is not to be of any interest to anybody else. Long as Peters has some followers, he is happy with his teaching those unbelievers. That discrepancy about the books? Well, mr. Dinsford, nor anybody else provided Peteris C. with any figures of books that were to be destroyed. The Great Book Purge that never happened. Shame.

There is an old saying about a dead person that has been in some way talked adversely, “if only he heard you, he would turn around in his grave.” Well, if only Kārlis Ūlmanis would hear you now Peteris, he would sit up and tell you to “shut up your big gob.”

Peteris Cedrinš, you know nothing at all about Karlis Ulmanis except what you like to read out of other people’s books.  You weren’t even about, not even thought of, to be able to say you have seen him from a distance or otherwise. Still less to give any personal account of meeting Dr. K. Ulmanis and form any opinion of you own. Very little of your own and even lot of that is borrowed from other people. All your talk is mainly hearsay.

Viva spirit of K.Ulmanis.

I find these sentiments a bit disturbing in the world of democracy and the rule of law for a country that joined the EU. But then again, one shouldn’t be surprised that Russians still admonish Stalin.

Viva spirit of Joseph “Stalin” Dzugashvili.

I just love it, Aleksejs, how you take any opportunity, usually twisted, reaching, and illegitimate, to whomp and stomp on Latvia and Latvians.  Never solutions that would involve Russians contributing to Latvia.  Always you ask what Latvia can do for you: or are the first to point out how Latvia has failed you and the Russians. Name the positive role-model Russian politicians who you think are furthering Latvia’s real interests. Who are the Russian’s favorite politicians? 
Aren’t you exhausted?  All from a person who can’t even bring himself to say he is “Latvian.” When an innocent tourist in Latvia who needs assistance from a local asks you if you are “Latvian,” what do you say?  When you’re visiting in the U.S. and curious Americans ask if you’re Ukrainian, how do you identify yourself?  “No, I’m ___________.”

Favorite politician? In a culture of politician cynicism, that is ought to be a contradiction in terms. Is there a favorite Latvian politician among ethnic Latvians? I don’t think so. There are people who are respected, yeah, but it’s not exactly the same as being a “favorite.” If I were to pick one out, I’d pick Nils Ušakovs, a 30-something leader of Saskanas Centrs. Not an ideal by any mans of imagination, but he’d be your Russian Latvian politician. And I think a positive role model.

The other one would be Aleksejs Loskutovs, the head of KNAB.

I say that I’m a Latvian in all of those cases - something that you refuse to understand. In fact, I’ve been traveling this week, spent some time in Ireland, where I identified myself as a Latvian. I was recommended to visit a Latvian store in southern Ireland because they had a Latvian flag out. And I did. In many ways, I associate myself with the Republic of Latvia and I will never tire explaining it to you as you seem to associate being Latvian with culture alone.

Surely Ambersun has heard the term “Latvian-American.” Surely Ambersun, judging from her prose style, is not a moron. Surely Ambersun might consider that the way ethnicity is perceived in ("the former") Eastern Europe is quite different from how it is perceived in America, for historical reasons. Surely Ambersun has encountered the term “Native American.” Surely Ambersun realizes that her home state and a lot of neighboring states were stolen from Mexico, itself an outgrowth of Spanish imperialism. Surely Ambersun would not object to a term like “Latvijas krievs,” which is perhaps the closest one might get to “Russian-Latvian” but even more specific—it is “a Russian of Latvia.” Surely Ambersun must realize that Latvians are at least as opposed to turning Latvia’s Russians into Latvians as Russians in Latvia are.

Tālivaldi—I gave the relevant citations repeatedly. As to meeting Ulmanis… nope, haven’t, wasn’t conceived yet even in a glint in my parents’ eyes. I think we’ve been through this. I see no reason to think that a person growing up in Ulmanis’ totalitarian Latvia would learn anything more by meeting the man. Again—I bring up concrete facts. If there was not pervasive censorship in the Latvia of the Vadonis—why employ so many censors? I’ve read the papers of the era—you can, too; they’re freely available now. Was there any democracy at all in Ulmanis’ Latvia? The answer is a vehement, fact-based nē. Does that matter? My answer is a vociferous jā.

I do not need to meet Hitler or Stalin to tell you that the Holocaust or the Soviet nightmare were real. Most of the people in that era never met the big boys. A soldier in battle rarely knows the battle plan, much less the failed diplomacy that led to the war. In a dictatorship like that of Ulmanis, one knows a lot less than you or I do—because everything from the press to education is strictly controlled by the dictator. That’s not an opinion—that’s fact. If you scroll back through this thread—I presented a lot of facts and sourced them.

You’re a good friend of my mother-in-law, and I disagree with her as much as I do with you. I think your thinking stinks of doom. I think Ulmanis’ project was all about doom. It consisted of depriving people of all of their rights, lying about everything, and full speed ahead. People like Valters—again, a best friend of Ulmanis, who stood admiring his portrait whilst trying to explain to him that he must restore democracy so that the Latvian people could express itself and prove itself to be a nation capable of self-government—had a very clear conception of the Republic.

The people of Latvia—reņģēdāji and elitists together—hold the fate of Latvia in their hands, always. The Ulmanis regime was based upon lies and relied upon poļitruki. That’s just plain fact. Anti-Soviet sentiments were censored under Ulmanis. Jews trying to boycott trade with Nazi Germany?

But my basic point is that Ulmanis was a dictator in every sense of the word. Do you deny this? You could maybe try to prove that he was “benevolent,” whatever that means—but back to the point: he was a dictator—he crushed the opposition, shut down a free press, and relied upon security services to keep the opposition from mouthing a word. He tried to reconstruct Latvia in his image. If you have any information suggesting otherwise, please submit it.

Is it healthy to venerate a dictator? Again, scroll back—I think I’ve offered a lot of reasons for why it is not. To be stuck inside of Rīga with those Smiltene blues again? It does not work that way. What you have instead, as historical evidence, is Valters arguing that the Latvian people would have said “nē” to the “mutual assistance pact.” Ulmanis’ answer was shaddap. Ulmanis’ answer was always shaddap—“I know better.” Nothing got better. His totalitarianism prepared “the people” for a far worse totalitarianism.

Vysu lobu,
/P

And so we circle around again to:  was Draudzigais Aicinajums a good thing in that it brought in a lot of supplies to Latvian schools?  It was, and so many years later, still is.  Peteris has repeated that several times.  Did a number of good things occur during his administration?  Undoubtedly.  But was Karlis Ulmanis a dictator?  Yes, he was.  And pointing this out is not in any way unpatriotic.  The past is what it is.  Not acknowledging it is ostrich-like at best, revisionist at worst.

As to not having met Ulmanis - I sold Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley the elder a “senmaizite” (mushroom finger sandwich, not ancient finger sandwich) at the International Folk Festival over on Navy Pier back in the late 60s.  I gave him the maizite, he gave me 20 cents and patted me on the head.  I don’t presume to think that for that reason I understand the complexities of his tenure at that turbulent time.  For that matter, I don’t presume to think this gave me any insights into that man different from those of a person who never had such a fleeting contact, except that I know for a fact that those jowls were not due to camera angles.

Apparently, nowadays, anyone who opposed the construction of the new library is the enemy of Latvia… so one wouldn’t be surprised if Ulmanis was up there, or even higher than Gaismas Pils…

I somehow get this uncanny feeling that some here wish that this thread would just die--quickly, a natural, painless death, especially, since there’s so much excitement going on elsewhere on this forum (I can hardly contain myself--type straight!) But...it just keeps rolling on, though by the time I’m finished with my Alfreds Berzin’s, ‘Karlis Ulmanis’, it will probably cease to decease.  I still do find value in this thread, however, because Ulmanis to me, is tied in with so much of the Latvian psyche, the trimda, at least and I think it important to know where we’ve been (history) in order to understand who we are, where we’re going, want to go.  And unlike some, I can relate to the ‘sentiment’, attachment or call it what you will--the hold that he has over Latvians, because he seems to personify so many of the values that Latvians esteem, hold so highly; patriotism (and I mean that to be in a positive light--very simply love for one’s country, whithout all the unfortunate baggage, attachments, which have made that term, a dirty word, unpolitically correct), self reliance, the work ethic--not being afraid of heavy, physical labor.  I am just in the very beginning phases of the book, where Ulmanis is still in Nebraska, but I really can’t but help being impressed by, admiring this character; his coming to America on his own, with little help from any one else to a rural place in the midwest with little money, no friends, fellow Latvians for support, since at that time, unlike in later years to come, there were virtually no Latvians there--no trimda.  Working long hours, doing back breaking work to save money to get an education, just to lose all his savings and becoming indebted to a doctor because of succumbing to illness.  And yet, that didn’t break him, make him give up.  He picked himself up and got back on his feet and kept going, kept working to get that education.  So, I ask myself, how can one not admire and respect such a person?  And I also wonder how many people of my own generation (not to mention the ones that follow) fully realize, understand what that’s all about, what that means.  We, who have mostly lived a cosseted life, “the soft American life” as my father often pointed out, on the backs of our parents, who knew far better about the meaning of hard work, who sacrificed for us, their children so that we could get the best education, have all the opportunities in order to have the privilege and luxury of indulging in our intellectual discussions/pursuits of what’s right and what’s not about this world.

continued

In the book there’s an interesting little tidbit about a young girl in Latvia who has just finished ‘gimnazija’ and is coming back to her parent’s home.  While in the railway station, she meets a tall, young stranger who helps carry her bags.  The two start up a conversation and she reveals that now that she has finished her schooling, she plans on going to Russia to find work.  This is not met favorably by the young stranger who urges her to stay on in Latvia; the young girl doesn’t appreciate his remarks and finds him to be ‘uzbazigs’, telling him in so many words.  Yet, he doesn’t seem to be in the least bit put off, giving her his business card and asking that she call upon him if she has trouble finding a job in Latvia.  His words to her, “Latvija uzaudzinajusi...latviesu zemes un tautas talab esot jaatdod atpakal, pa citu celu, tas ko vina ieguvusi.” The young girl thinks about his words and ultimately decides to remain in Latvia.  Many years later, she still has the card and though it has yellowed, faded, the name still reads, Karlis Ulmanis.

All this is not meant as a rebuke, BTW and I agree with what you said, Anita.  These are merely my own observations, an honest attempt to take a look at different sides of the same picture.  Thus far, Berzins seems to have a favorable attitude toward Ulmanis, though I am not sure what will follow.  According to Peteris, or someone here, Berzins becomes disenchanted with the Ulmanis regime, changing his views.  It sounds as if Ulmanis was remarkable in his accomplishments and started out with the best of intentions, but perhaps became side-tracked along the way, carried away by his own power, as JKS said, losing it in the end--something that often happens to the best of people.

Irena

I can see your view for many people seem to forget that Ulmanis got his education at the University of Nebraska U.S.A. , A right wing University. Of all its graduates I have yet to find a Democrat graduate from there. I live 150 miles from there and should know.

According to Peteris, or someone here, Berzins becomes disenchanted with the Ulmanis regime, changing his views.

Wasn’t me who said that. Bērziņš was Ulmanis’ right-hand man and the hands-on manager of his propaganda machine. I would say that reading Bērziņš on Ulmanis is like reading Goebbels on Hitler, but that might be offensive…

Vysu lobu
/P

Yes, you might be getting mixed up with Balodis, Irena, who was one of a number who fell out with Ulmanis in the end. Be careful with how you interpret Berzins because he will be extremely biased.

It’s interesting what you say about Ulmanis being tied in with the Latvian trimda psyche and I think that’s very true. I’d have to say that in my opinion this was based on a one-sided view, much of which seems to be based on Ulmanist propaganda. Much of this also comes from the fact that many people who lived through the period lived a genuinely good life and so remember it with fondness, particularly when compared with what followed, but their view was nevertheless often a narrow one. That’s not to say that their opinions have no relevance but they only give part of the story. Peteris has been accused of cherry-picking but in reality it seems to me that for years the cherry-picking has been done by the pro-Ulmanists. The “official” trimda line was that Ulmanis stepped in to save Latvia from the chaos of democracy and the danger of an extremist coup, and with his all-knowing wisdom proceeded to create a happy, unified and prosperous country in which education and culture were emphasised. I think that many of the people who had a good life under Ulmanis had no desire to question any aspects of this or dig deeper and this view was regarded as fact and as pretty much the whole story. Consequently, Ulmanis was seen by many as an inspirational figure to be revered and this view was passed down to younger generations in trimda. To me, too much of the standard view is based on myth, opinion and a narrow view, rather than objectivity. It seems to me that one reason why people are often so hostile to anyone questioning this or digging deeper, is that there is an almost religious aura surrounding Ulmanis and people who have for years believed in a certain version, don’t want their beliefs to be shattered. Undoubtedly, Ulmanis had many admirable qualities but in my opinion he also did far too many things wrong to deserve idolisation. In fact the idolisation itself represents one of the faults of his regime.