Peteris writes:  “Berzins was Ulmanis’ right-hand man and the hands-on manager of his propaganda machine.”

Well, then, Peter, I guess I am not in for much of a climax, surprise- ending and as JKS says, perhaps, I did confuse Balodis with Berzins; nevertheless, I don’t at all consider this to be a loss; on the contrary, it should prove as an interesting comparison with Jumavas’ ‘History of Latvia’.

JK, I thank you for your thoughtful post and will read this book, keeping in mind what you have said, taking it with a grain of salt.  My next challenge after this, will be taking on Pavils Klans, ‘Karsta Dzels’.

Courlander, I don’t think I quite understand your view, the point you were trying to make.  I assumed that Ulmanis chose the University of Nebraska because of its agricultural program, not because it was a “right wing” University.  Of course I don’t know what your definition of “right wing” is.  If it’s simply repubs, I don’t have an adverse reaction to them, except for the likes of the KKK, John Birchers, etc.  Like many in USA trimda, I was brought up on a repub fed diet; I don’t adhere to a strict either/or repub/dem regime, though I hear tell that them dems/libs are better lookin’.  I guess you never know, till you find out?

Irena

In my opinion, Irena, books written by people who were in the thick of historical events often come with bias but it by no means makes them worthless provided their perspective is considered, particularly as these people can often provide unique personal insights. Frankly, I’ve read a lot of books by people with specific biases. I’ve never read the Berzins book but I’d find it interesting to do so one day.

JKS:
I don’t know what the point of your earlier post really is since there’s a long road between idolization and scholarly knowledge and most people are somewhere along its course rather than at either extreme end.  Your warning to not idolize Ulmanis is patronizing.  I never knew a Latvian who actually “idolized” Ulmanis and most Ulmanis-years Latvians who honored him as their President by hanging his portrait in their Latvian halls have died.  Vieglas smiltes.  I think you jump too readily to the conclusion that any pro-Ulmanis sentiment automatically equates with “idolization,” a term I just don’t connect with Latvians anyway.  Trimda Latvians of the oldest generation experienced Ulmanis’ years personally and valued Latvia’s independence without being lost in Ulmanis idolatry; also, they were generally “book-worms” and read - and wrote - about the Ulmanis years in countless publications and books.  All those trimda Latvian books and history volumes (Bilmanis, Silde, Dunsdorfs, Andersons, etc) were written from various points of political view and leaning.  They were all remarkable for their trimda- tenacity and dedication to creating a written Latvian history, including, but hardly idolizing, Ulmanis.

History always incorporates the “storyteller.” And all people create their myths and call it “history.” In the freedom and safety of your life, compared to the much harsher reality of your senci, you certainly are free to cherry-pick your facts and evidence, form your opinions, and judge them according to your findings and needs.  It’s always a matter of cherry-picking, opinion, and subjective judgement.  It is so clear when you think about U.S. and British history.  Really knowing and understanding Ulmanis and Latvian history is a process.  I think the emphasis should be on reading history as broadly and comprehensively as possible.  Regardless, the readers will always present a variety of informed judgements. Everyone is entitled to offer his or her personal opinion and judgement; but one’s knowledge of history grows in “objectivity” by reading as many essays, novels, memoirs, autobiographies and biogaphies, history volumes as possible.

I very much enjoyed reading Irena’s insights and comments about Ulmanis from her reading Berzins’ Karlis Ulmanis and also bubite’s reaction (on the History of Latvia thread) to her reading the old classic, The History of Latvia, written in Bilmanis “Latvian” voice, and the 2006 g. History of Latvija in the 20th Centruy (Latvijas Vesture.20.gadsimts.).

Happy reading!

“I don’t know what the point of your earlier post really is since there’s a long road between idolization and scholarly knowledge and most people are somewhere along its course rather than at either extreme end.  Your warning to not idolize Ulmanis is patronizing.  I never knew a Latvian who actually “idolized” Ulmanis and most Ulmanis-years Latvians who honored him as their President by hanging his portrait in their Latvian halls have died.”

Then why were you so jumpy when Peteris mentioned the historical fact of books being removed from the libraries? Why are Latvians so often so sensitive to any criticism of Ulmanis?

“I think you jump too readily to the conclusion that any pro-Ulmanis sentiment automatically equates with “idolization,” a term I just don’t connect with Latvians anyway.”

I think you too readily jump to the conclusion that any criticism of Ulmanis is associated with denying any positives.

“Trimda Latvians of the oldest generation experienced Ulmanis’ years personally and valued Latvia’s independence without being lost in Ulmanis idolatry”

Sorry, Ambersun but I disagree with you on that, I think many were lost in Ulmanis idolatry.

”In the freedom and safety of your life, compared to the much harsher reality of your senci, you certainly are free to cherry-pick your facts and evidence, form your opinions, and judge them according to your findings and needs.”

Yes, and quite a few of my senci were discriminated against by Ulmanists - a pretty harsh reality indeed. One of my senci knew and worked with Ulmanis and was in his party - he was put under house arrest during the initial takeover. I’m ashamed to admit that there are people on this forum who know more about him than I do but I’m told he subsequently disagreed with the destruction of democracy and did not wish to work for the dictatorship.

I’m sorry, Ambersun, but everyone in trimda knows about the standard positive view but how many people on this forum knew about, for example, the removal of books from the libraries?

I am sorry to hear about your “senci”, JKS and what happened during the Ulmanis regime.  It’s a wonder you can be so level-headed, civil.  My mother did tell me once during the course of a conversation about a ‘policijas prieksnieks’, that she knew in Latgale, a young Polish guy who got bumped, downgraded from his position for singing the Polish anthem at a party.

Visu to labako.

Irena

JKS, you wrote: “Then why were you so jumpy when Peteris mentioned the historical fact of books being removed from the libraries?” In answer, I wasn’t jumpy and did not even comment, as I remember, but followed the Ulmanis “devil-hunt” as it failed to fully unfold.  Book removal and censorship?  I read the events of Ulmanis days in the context of the times.  Do you really think that only Ulmanis was removing books - or - that unlike the rest of the world - Ulmanis should not have been removing books?  I daresay you have books removed from your Brit libraries today.  How much do you know about that?  I can tell you that books are still regularly removed from schools and libraries even today in the sophisticated, evolved U.S. where I live - for a variety of political reasons. And people are still putting-up and pulling-down portraits of leaders with the winds of political change.  I didn’t realize that people were so naive around life’s harsh political realities. 

You also ask:  “Why are Latvians so often so sensitive to any criticism of Ulmanis?” I think it is insensitive to discount the numbing loss of country and family for that first post-war trimda group of Latvians who clung to their free-Latvia myths and fallen leaders, for good or bad, - in a selfish and hasty rush to a poorly-informed judgement of Ulmanis to satisfy what?  It’s one thing to study Latvian history and then critically discuss Ulmanis in context, and quite another, to press at every opportunity, one’s highly subjective personal political agenda in order to discredit Ulmanis. I previously expressed that for me Ulmanis was a complex man who lived in extremely complex times for not only Latvia but also for the whole world. That’s how other Latvians around me also perceived him. Maybe I was just lucky but no one I know idolized Ulmanis. Some just really really liked him while others just gave him begruding respect as having served Latvia as a leader in the hardest of times.  I wish those who think they could have done so much better than Ulmanis did yesterday, would apply their leadership wisdom to today’s political climate in Latvia.  Is it as tough as in pre-war Latvia?  I just see the same old factionalized-fighting and power-brokering and even less inspired tautas leadership.  And where’s the Baltic Alliance?  What a perfect opportunity to put such smart hindsighting into practice when Latvia so clearly needs it. Otherwise, this endless harping on Ulmanis is just tearing down the past without creating a better future for the effort.

I’m not trying to slight your family’s personal experience of “house arrest” under Ulmanis, but you also admit that you are “ashamed to admit” that you knowledge of this is limited.  My family also faced discrimination, but it was for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with Ulmanis.  Prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination were present in every political party.

Irena, my mother told me about her aunt in Latgale who married a wealthy Polish/Latvian who drove a fancy buggy and they probably would have lived happily ever after but for the war.  As far as I know, they sang whatever they wanted.  These clearly were different places.

Irena, my mother told me about her aunt in Latgale who married a wealthy Polish/Latvian who drove a fancy buggy and they probably would have lived happily ever after but for the war.  As far as I know, they sang whatever they wanted.  These clearly were different places.

My mother lived in Skangali, Gauru pagasta, which is now no longer part of Latvia.  At that time there were many Poles there, ‘vecas polu muizas’, but mostly Lithuanians and they communicated amongst themselves primarily in Russian.  But here’s the thing...my mother is generally a supporter of Ulmanis, so this is something that slipped out inadvertently, not to promote any political agenda, certainly not to negate Ulmanis; she is 86 years old going on 87, but is still very much in charge of her faculties.  She described it matter of factly, a nice young Polish fellow who used to come by and chat with the family.  Someone who apparently had it in for him, for whatever reason, reporting him to the Ulmanis regime for singing that anthem.  Certainly a harsh punishment, IMO, for what he did--curious, isn’t it??!!

Irena

All those trimda Latvian books and history volumes (Bilmanis, Silde, Dunsdorfs, Andersons, etc) were written from various points of political view and leaning.  They were all remarkable for their trimda- tenacity and dedication to creating a written Latvian history, including, but hardly idolizing, Ulmanis.

Dunsdorfs and Andersons both did amazing, enduring work. But the first two gentlemen you mention are indeed a bit pointy in their views—Bīlmanis was an Ulmanist, serving the regime as Ambassador to the US. Šilde was the leader of the underground Pērkonkrusts, a rabidly anti-Semitic, ultra-nationalist organization. Gunars Zvejnieks, reviewing Šilde’s memoir in 1990: Tiklab “Pērkonkrusts” kā “Strādnieku Sports un Sargs” - abi pretpoli - reprezentē jēdzienus, kam definitīvi nebūtu vietas sabiedrībā ar nostiprinātām demokrātiskām tradicijām. Bet te ir runa par 30. gadu Latviju. Tomēr interesanti atzīmēt, ka vēl šodien Adolfs Šilde nav gluži nosodošs, atceroties “Pērkonkrustu” un tā idejas. (Underscore mine.)

Šilde did a lot of good work and I find his massive tome on 1914-40 (available in the books thread) indispensable. I’m not saying “throw the books away” or “don’t read them”—I would just bear the biases in mind, for instance when you get to the page counting up Jewish lawyers. Spekke, who wrote what I think of as one of the best overall histories available in English, reprinted an interesting review of his book, which came out the same year Bīlmanis’ did. The reviewer observes that at least Spekke had the good sense to avoid writing about the regime he was a servant of.

I agree with what you write about reading as many views as possible, Ambersun. But I also agree with JKS—everyone in trimda knows about the standard positive view but how many people on this forum knew about, for example, the removal of books from the libraries? And I think your answer is a despicable copout, Ambersun. Tell us, please, how many democracies employed the sort of censorship Ulmanis did, in a state where every vestige of democracy was erased. And again—shouldn’t we look to democracies, like Finland, also a Baltic state back then?

As to those who press at every opportunity, one’s highly subjective personal political agenda in order to discredit Ulmanis—I assume you mean me, and I think that’s a poisonously silly phrase, too. I made one little snide remark near the beginning of this thread—you came in to tell me to “get a grip,” and your comment could be condensed to “shut up about the ‘glorious’ past.” Others then questioned what I said and started idolizing Ulmanis—sorry, but I think saying his “spirit still lives” and repeating lies about why and how he took power whilst ignoring the fact that he ran an anti-democratic police state is idolization in the worst sense. This isn’t so much about the man—it is about trying to whitewash dictatorship. You should apply your “a complex man who lived in extremely complex times” shtick to Lt. Col. Putin and defend “managed democracy” in Russia, perhaps. Same logic.

I don’t apply what I say about Ulmanis to today’s Latvia? That is exactly what I have done—did you read the Reetz/Spolītis, for example? Other than Kaža’s regular assaults on Muttistan, there doesn’t seem to be much interest here in discussing today’s Latvia—unless, of course, it involves your perpetual, insane Russkie-bashing.

I don’t think there’s anything highly subjective about my personal political agenda—not unless one frames devotion to building a democratic, civil society as being “religious,” like Ivars did. As one “snork” commented at my blog—“Overall, though, I would agree that honouring a criminal (and yes, organising a coup and detaining opponents without trial are serious crimes) with a monument is not something we should have done. [...] I do agree that a desire for ‘a strong hand’, coupled with some nostalgic wish for a return to the romantic nationalism of the old days is not something that the country needs.”

Vysu lobu,
/P

P.S. Re Ulmanis’ time in America and at Nebraska, you can read this article, provided by el Subcommandante [sic]. Now that’s “discrediting Ulmanis”!

An excerpt from an interview with Aivars Stranga about Latvian history and historiography:

Bet, vai viena no latviešu vēsturnieku nelaimēm vēl aizvien nav tā, ka vēsture tiek rakstīta nevis kā Latvijas vēsture, bet kā latviešu vēsture?

Latviešu vēsture var tikt uzrakstīta pat pietiekami normālā līmenī. Piemēram, izcilākais mūsu 20. gadsimta vēsturnieks Dunsdorfs bija tipisks šīs latviešu skolas pārstāvis un pat šo – visumā neakadēmisko pieeju – pasniedza diezgan pieklājīgi. Proti, tā nebija smieklīga. Lai arī dažreiz…

[...]

Šāda vēsture pirmkārt būs ļoti garlaicīga, sociāli garlaicīga, jo diemžēl lielākā daļa latviešu bija zemnieki. Tad jums būs ļoti grūti kaut ko interesantu pastāstīt. Latviešu vēsture mani tā īpaši daudz neinteresē. 1905. gads būtu interesants, tur notika daudz kas tāds, kā tas vēsturē ir, ka neviens neko negrib, bet kaut kas notiek. Absolūti neviens negribēja Krimas karu 1853. gadā, neviena valsts, neviens negribēja Pirmo pasaules karu, bet tas sākās. Un 1905. gadā bija ļoti līdzīgi. 13. janvārī neviens negribēja slaktiņu, bet tas notika. Un kad tas notiek, viss pāriet citā līmenī.

Vai tā ir nacionāla mazohisma izpausme, kad mēģina rakstīt vēsturi no konkrētas tautas pozīcijām, ignorējot kontekstu?

Mēs kā tauta nācijas galveno iezīmi – literāro valodu ieguvām tikai tad, kad Rainis iztulkoja “Faustu”. Tāpēc, ka jūs esat vēlu pienākuši pie nāciju galda un līdz šim jūsu vēsturi ir monopolizējuši citi, jūs gribat uzrakstīt savu vēsturi, un tas ir saprotams, jūs gribat pacelt savu tautu. Tas ir absolūti neizbēgami, tas nav nekas ļauns. Tā ir dzimušas visas nācijas, tam noteikti līdzi nāk mīts. Latviešu vēsture nāk ar latviešu mītiem par to, cik viss bija labi līdz vāciešiem un pēc tam slikti. Nacionālā vēsture tāda ir, bet cita lieta – vai tai tādai jābūt simts gadus vēlāk. Tai nav jābūt tādai, bet Latvijā ir faktori, kas tai liek tādai būt. Periods, kad varēja rakstīt kā jūs daudz maz gribat, bija 14 gadi – no 1920. līdz 1934. gadam. Un kas vēsturē ir 14 gadi? Tad nāca Ulmanis, nacisti, komunisti. Lūk, krievu laikā nebija latviešu vēstures.

Bet trimdā?

Trimdā bija, bet ar trimdu bija tā, ka cilvēkiem, nonākot trimdā, galvenais mērķis bija pateikt, ka latviešiem ir tiesības uz dzīvi, ka mēs esam nācija, jo šeit krievi bija sākuši šausmīgu rusifikāciju. Pat visaugstākās kvalitātes darbos parādījās ideoloģiska misija, bez kā nevarēja iztikt. Un tā parādās arī senākos interpretējumos. Pat Normens Deiviss, kurš ir Eiropas populārākais vēsturnieks, arī viņam ir tāda kā misija pierādīt, ka Austrumeiropas tautas nav tik sliktas kā krievi. Aukstais karš un okupācija neizbēgami uzlika uz visiem kaut kādu slogu, ko nopietni vēsturei tā kā nevajadzētu nest, nav jūsu uzdevums domāt, kādas ir politiskas vai ideoloģiskas sekas rakstītajam, vai jums ir kāda misija. Bet, kā teicis vēsturnieks Ērihs Hofbaums: vēsturnieks ir cilvēks, kurš kalpo konkrētam režīmam, un no tā ir ļoti grūti izvairīties.

Un no šāda viedokļa – kādam režīmam tad kalpojat jūs?

Es varu atļauties nekam nekalpot. Es varu teikt, ka dzīvoju normālu sīkburžuāzisku dzīvi.

Vai ir tādi vēsturiski mīti, kurus gribētu uzturēt pašreizējais režīms?

Tie jau nav gluži mīti… Tas, ko mēs tagad gribam dzirdēt ir, kā esam cietuši - tā, ka esam pirmie cietēji Eiropā. Skaidrs, ka pirmie cietēji ir ebreji, tad nāk poļi un baltkrievi, serbi, ja skatās pēc upuru skaita. Cits jautājums – vai var uz ciešanām balstīt identitāti? Ir jau kaut kāds pamats mītiem. Skaidrs, ka latvieši ļoti smagi cieta, skaidrs, ka viņi nav gandarīti par šīm ciešanām. Šo mītu uztur tas, ka ļoti daudzi cilvēki līdz šim brīdim ir nabagi. Kā tas var būt, ka visu gadsimtu mēs esam nabagi? Kā sākās no 1940. gada, tā tas turpinās… Līdz ar to izskaidrojums vienmēr būs vienkāršs, ka kāds ir nozadzis, vai krievi maitas atņēmuši.

Vai tad līdz 40. gadam bija bagāti?

Līdz 1940. gadam liela daļa bija nabadzīgi, bet tas jau šodien nav svarīgi. Kad atnāca krievi, tad tas viss notika tik briesmīgi, ka viss pirms 40. gada bija jau kā paradīze. 1940. gada 23. jūlijā sākās ziepju normēšana. Viena mēneša laikā vairs nebija ziepju. Ja šodien atnāktu krievi, tad pēc pāris nedēļām mēs teiktu – kā mēs dzīvojām Repšes laikā, cik bija skaisti… Skaidrs, ka ir pamats prasīt komunisma nosodīšanu, bet tā jau tikai viena vēstures daļa, un visumā tā jau ir ļoti vienkārša – nosodīt komunismu un pateikt, ka mēs cietām. Mēs ļoti cietām, par to nav šaubu, bet no vēsturiskās tehnikas viedokļa, tas jau nekādu lielu piepūli neprasa.

Demokrātija - kanibāli vs. veģetārieši

Just for laughs, I’ll quote (post # 164) Andrejs’ apologia: “Sorry. First I’ll have to cut out the repetition of what I wrote. Then I’ll cut out what Ivar’s claims I wrote but didn’t. Then I’ll cut out the seemingly randomly generated text. This leaves us with: Yes, people are frightened by change.”

Andrejs as usual plays his denial games: clever little tricks of now you see it and now you don’t on how to eliminate evidence that implicate his gaffes.

Next I’ll repeat what Andrejs wrote (post # 156): “Democracy and governements are not some machines for which you can flip a switch and turn them on and off as you see fit. Anyone with even a modicum of analytical understanding of best practices, [re]engineering, knowledge management, zero based budgeting and objective oriented planning, etc. should know that. You’re continued contention that you can turn around governments and redesign them as if they were some corporate reorganizations or product redesigns is just simply mind boggling. And there is virtually no evidence in the historical record, not even remotely, that it is even remotely possible. You seem to live in this alternate reality where laws and civil processes are the equivalents of pithy bullet points on some consultant’s power point presentation which can be revised on a semi-annual basis.

Now, in the next two paragraphs, I’ll repeat what I claimed that Andrejs wrote, which he denies he wrote, and color it red: “Yes, indeed, as you imagine, to turn around governments and large corporations is mind-boggling. That’s even the case for small organizations once business practices have evolved and where organization culture has been established. Yet, despite Andrejs claim that there is no evidence, even remotely possible, history has many such changes. However, to install a better “mouse trap” and to “move mountains” it does take drastic measures, as opposition to change is fierce. Yes, people are frightened by change. It is human nature to resist change, especially where you have to slay those sacred cows. Yet people want a better life and will groan and moan but for the most part will not do anything to effect change.”

“There’s no need to twist something into what it is not. Perhaps it sounds more interesting to Andrejs if he can distort it. They, of course, are not machines with a switch that can be turned on and off. Anyone without even any knowledge of all of the above business tools should know that.”

Lets see if Andrejs’ ”boggled mind” can be helped to get over my suggestion that we consider Latvia Inc. as a workable democracy that assures liberty (see post # 163 for details). His initial knee jerk reaction was to respond negatively about the suggestion, as he customarily does: “there is virtually no evidence in the historical record, not even remotely, that it is even remotely possible.” If it is that dramatic to Andrejs than especially if it were the first time, Latvia could lead the way for a small country. Of course, Andrejs did not come up with any new suggestions, modifications how he would establish a workable democratic government. Perhaps to him the current government is kosher the way it is and he does not want any changes, although he has been mum about it.

Furthermore Andrejs raises a series of irrelevant and out of context questions with respect to democratic issues.

Andrejs puzzles: “So… you are suggesting that Latvia and Latvians should do ... what exactly?”

I’ll repeat, adopt Latvia Inc. as a government organization. Understandably, as I mentioned, it takes dramatic effort to change or dislodge entrenched governments, eliminate established practices and certainly it takes special people: the change makers, the movers and shakers, turnaround specialists, etc. It requires the will of the people to support such a task and they need to be sold on the concept that Latvia Inc. will benefit them as a whole. Opposition to this type of an undertaking needs to be expected as we can see how quickly the resistance appears here on LOL without offering any other alternative solutions.

Latvia is small and the Latvia Inc. type organization, as I’ve explained before, will serve its people best in a global competition to improve their standard of living and a way of life. If the U.S. Postal Service, three and a half times the size of Latvia, can function as a viable entity, there’s no reason to think that for Latvia such an undertaking is impossible.

~*~

My initial comment: “Abraham Lincoln was a constitutional dictator who broke the laws but kept United States of America together via a civil war.”

To this Andrejs smartly replies: “I can see how the American Civil war applies to Latvia. I mean the industrialized North v. the agricultural South and slavery have direct parallels to Latvia in the present day. (For those who don’t get sarcasm: No. I really don’t.)”

That’s nice that you can see, but there were no parallels drawn or applications made with Latvia to suit your sarcasm. It merely demonstrated that for a leader like Lincoln the obstacles were not insurmountable. For Lincoln the issue was to be a democrat all the way, but to act autocratic as he saw necessary to preserve the Union. During the American Civil War 618,000 people lost their lives. During Ulmanis autocratic rule 0 people lost their lives.

(To be continued …)

(… continued)

Andrejs: “Yes and and in each situation they moved away from authoritarian models to democratic ones with the exception of Spain. And even Spain eventually came around. Just to spell it out for you. I never wrote that change wasn’t possible or desirable. I wrote that moving from a democracy to a dictatorship has been historically a failure. You’ve yet to present a counter argument.”

Really! I’m having difficulty finding where you claim you wrote, “I wrote that moving from a democracy to a dictatorship has been historically a failure.” on your three posts # 156, 164, 165 on this thread. Why do you want me to present a counter argument? I love democracy when it works and it is not illiberal.

~*~

Andrejs: “Yes and each replaced an authocratic system with a democratic one and created constitutions based on the clear cut rule of law.”

In other words you use democracy as tool to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. Of course it would have been nice if you had given liberty based on principle some consideration. Rules of law ask you nothing more than that you obey. A principle requires you to do your own thinking.

~*~

Andrejs: “Actually we do need to mention it. Present day Russia is the closest to what you are and have suggested in the past. They’re the blueprint of change as you’ve outlined it thus far. A strong central executive who can implement policy and change as he sees fit. Hope Ambersun doesn’t notice. And here she thought Peteris and Aleks were the biggest enemies of the Latvian state heedless of the dangers which Russia poses.”

What am I and what have I suggested in the past? What have I outlined thus far as the blueprint of change? As usual you are misinterpreting something again. Read my proposal for Latvia Inc. again.

~*~

Andrejs: “As was pointed out a while ago Ireland’s success is far more complex than just foreign investment and 0 corporate tax. And beware what you wish for. The most likely foreign investors in Latvia will be Russians. You keep this up and you will end up on Ambersuns list of enemies of the state.”

There’s no need to wave your white flag yet Andrej. What complexity are you specifically addressing? There needs to be a plan to attract the desirable elements. You promote to the countries that you desire to have as investors. You can always play political games and take Russia off Latvia’s “favorite nations” list.

~*~

Andrejs: “I know you don’t owe me anything, but do us all a favor and please show us how Singapore is similar to Latvia? How the lessons of Singapore can be applied.?Why not Dubai? Finland?”

Again you’re drifting. Why should Singapore be similar to Latvia? Consider Latvia, Inc. as a government model. Lessons that are appropriate can be applied from anywhere. It does not need to be restricted to specific experiences or cases.

~*~

Andrejs: “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.”

It would be helpful if you could clarify your claim and how it works. The Ancient Rome started with a dictator and ended with a dictator.

~*~

Andrejs: “I did not work on the Grace Commission, but I did ride in an elevator once. And I can tell you with an absolute degree of certainty that it always goes up and down. When it stops, you get out. If you don’t like the level, get back on and press the button. If it gets stuck, pick up the phone and ask for help.”

Sounds like you achieved a high in your life.

~*~

Andrejs: “Lots of people are fans of zero-based budgeting. Few have actually made it work as if applies in governmental organizations. Another favor? Please? Do apply zero-based budgeting to Latvia? Lets say the Education Ministry. It would work how?”

Like with anything there are successesses and there are failures. It calls for educating those that will be responsible for the budget. A lot depends on the company culture, department culture, et cetera – the can-do attituted of its people. There can also be outright sabotage of the project where change is resisted. Instead of spinning your wheels Andrej you’re welcome to google for the positive results and pick out the success stories. Here’s one that will give you some pros and cons on zero-based budgeting - http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=5928 It sums up the experience I’ve had at two Fortune 500 companies with ZBB.

~*~

“You’ve just described the political platform (in theory if not practice) of every single political party which exists in Latvia. Well, the entire history of politics. All over the world. Now how about something concrete. If you would, a last favor, make a single concrete choice “quickly and efficiently”.”

Not so Andrej. I’ve made my proposal all along. Only the political parties with the mover and shaker culture and entrepreneurial culture have with it takes to make Latvia Inc. work. It is not an easy task or something that can be done quickly and efficiently, as you seem to think, and certainly it would be the first of its kind as a different type government organization since the ancient Roman days. It will not be an instant miracle that you seem to harp about.

~*~

“Andrejs, slow and wasteful”

Yes Andrej, different strokes for different folks.

Cheers, Ivars

Pēteris C. describes his indoctrination into democracy: “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.”

Cheap shot, Pēter! I call it right on the mark, in the mush. I was just wondering how anyone could be so pathologically rigid about democracy like many folks are rigid about religion without turning over any other stones, reflecting on possible consequences or considering the causes. You have just explained it; it’s the drill in the subject of democracy that you have received just like the drills one receives in religion – call it political dogma. Afterwards for most people it becomes very difficult to think in a different framework. Anything else or different becomes unholy. Pēteri you worship democracy as long as the name is tagged on it, to you it is something holy despite its many flaws, thus, to you, it can never be wrong in any shape or form.

It is important to get out of the trenches from time to time and reconnoiter the terrain, get to smell the flowers, hear the birds sing and count the stars.

~*~

Pēteris C. calls for a screen job that he has delegated: “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 politik”

Who is Dace Akule? Whatever, never say never! Don’t be so quick to wave the white flag and to throw in the towel. I can’t emphasize strongly enough that this is not overnight undertaking. Poltics has been Latvia’s weakness throughout history. I would prefer a team effort as opposed to having one strongman.

Perhaps we can back down one level and instead of having a political party champion the idea of Latvia, Inc. it can championed by an NGO or some other civic interest group that is less encumbered by political obligations. An ideal person to lead such an undertaking could be VVF because she is sincerely interested and dedicated in revamping the government. She also has built up trust among the Latvian people.

Consider the latest move by VVF: Eksprezidente: Satversmē ierakstītais uzstāda nereālas prasības Saeimas atlaišanai - http://tinyurl.com/yvh55k The net affect is that it would add some sense of responsibility and obligation in the parliament as well as the executive branch of the government. It introduces meaningful checks and balances in the constituion, the democratic way.

~*~

Here is another complaint by Pēteris C: “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”.”

(To be continued …)

(… continued)

“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.”

Your use of the term “fix” is something that someone without any experience in creating, establishing or running organizations would imagine as a solution. There is no “fix,” “quick fix,” or “expedience” for moving mountains. There are many aspects and considerations that need to be recognized from seeding the idea, to promoting, motivating, selecting the right people for the right responsibilities, building teams, action planning, creating a can-do political culture; far too many to list without writing books on the subject. Yes, lessons in civics for the citizens and the educational system would have a significant roll in fostering understanding, participation and leadership. Here’s a worthwhile article from Foreign Affairs. It explains why democracy does not turn out all that it is billed to be. The article will provide some understanding what went wrong with Latvia’s first democracy and what can be done differently not to repeat the same mistakes.

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy – Fareed Zakaria
http://tinyurl.com/d3fg8

~*~

As for Latvia’s president Kārlis Ulmanis he still gets credit for taking action against an illiberal democracy and for raising the cultural awareness of Latvians to new levels that established a strong sense of self-preservation through the occupation period at home and abroad.

Without doubt Ulmanis made mistakes, wrong decisions, failed to build a viable government for the future and there were reasons. Despite security measures and safeguards, it unfortunately appears that his Foreign Minister Vilhelms Munters sabotaged his government. From my perspective Munters easily replaces the much-misunderstood Kaupo, from the early 13th century, as Latvia’s # 1 traitor.

Growing up in trimda, I never observed Ulmanis idolized, as some seem to harp on that aspect. In fact he was not singled out amongst other Latvians that were held in high esteem in my part of trimda. In the Boston Latvian school he was one of the five large portraits that we had on the walls. He was fourth in the row from left to right on the presidential wall after Jānis Čakste, Gustavs Zemgals, Alberts Kviesis and only than # 4 Kārlis Ulmanis. No preferential treatment was accorded Ulmanis. An adjacent wall had the painting of Oskars Kalpaks. To me Oskars Kalpaks seemed to be the most important of the group as he was the one most revered. Kalpaks this and Kalpaks that, despite his short service to his country … there was Kalpaka piemiņas diena and Kalpaka balle. Of course, Ulmanis was remembered most during Draudzīgais Aicinājums. That was his big and only day where he was remembered for his emphasis on education and culture.

During my Latvian school days the prominent groups of individuals stood out in this order: (1) writers, (2) military leaders, (3) 13th century leaders and (4) politicians.

Getting back to Ulmanis, the net result, however, is that the majority of the Latvians felt that he served Latvia well and that’s what democracy is all about to satisfy most of the people most of the time. {:~)

A recent report by Latvia’s President Valdis Zatlers on the status of Kārlis Ulmanis is in this link: Zatlers neredz iespēju atrast un pārbedīt Kārļa Ulmaņa mirstīgās atliekas
http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/72/articles/122784

Priecīgas Lieldienas, Ivars

Peteris Cedriņš
“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.”

Peter, your wild statement really surprised me. I was not going to open your disagreements with your mother-in-law in public, but as you seemed to be so eager to put her and myself on the same lowest shelve of your crummy desk; I decided to put the story right. It is not a “cherry picking” out of somebody else’s book. It’s all truth and nothing else but truth.  So here it goes.
In not too long past there was a social Whitsun gathering of true Latvians. There were about 100+ people. After a short service we were introduced to a guest from Latvia. It was a lady, a well known author. In her referent she told us her life story. As the lady was of most of the listener’s generation, it was very interesting. Towards the end she mentioned Daugavpils as her home town. At the end we had short chats with the lady. I too managed to have some pleasant conversation until I asked her if she knew a person by the name of Peteris Cedrinš. The lady did not answer and turned away. Only much later, after a nice meal, we exchanged few more pleasant words. Ever since I wondered why the lady so abruptly terminated our pleasant conversation. Slowly I began to see that it must be something with your character and now, your outbursts about Dr.K.Ulmanis, dictatorship, books and the rest of it, gives a clear picture of you and your relationship with your mother-in-law.  It’s a real shame it all had to come out this way. Sorry Peter, but you started it all.

BTW, I’m NOT a good friend of your mother-in-law. She is a friend of my friend, who has known her since early childhood days.