A VOTE AGAINST CORRUPTION AND A VICTORY FOR PRO-WESTERN PARTIES IN LATVIAN ELECTION

by Ingrid Zemitis

It’s asking a lot to expect foreign editors of the media to understand Latvian politics. I’m fairly impressed when I meet a Canadian or American who even has a clue where Latvia is on the map. No, it’s not a Balkan state, it’s a Baltic state, just south of Estonia, which is just south of Finland. The population is tiny, a little over two million, the highest hill isn’t quite as high as Toronto’s CN Tower, and any rapids exceeding two metres in height are worthy of a detour from the highway to view the ‘sights.’

But Latvians are a people and a nation. They have their own language, in fact the second oldest living indo-european language in the world. It is a poetic language. When Latvians send birthday cards or Christmas cards, they almost always write in a poem. If it is not a modern poem, it may be one of the 200,000 folk verses compiled by the perspicacious Krisjanis Barons, who spearheaded an effort to collect the verses in the late 1800s. The verses cover every facet of life, from birth to death, work, love, wisdom and philosophy. Like haiku, each verse is a crystallized thought or observation, and they are impossible to translate. Besides National Independence Day on November 18 and perhaps Christmas, the major national holiday is the Summer Solstice or ‘Jani’, i.e. John’s Day. At ‘Jani’, women wear flower wreaths, men oak leaf wreaths, people get together to eat and drink (specifically home-made cheese with caraway seeds and beer), jump over bonfires, and sing folk songs all night long. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it! Latvians have a strong tradition of singing, at family gatherings, in choirs, and in national song festivals. It is very much a culture of ‘participaction’.

After centuries of rotating foreign domination by Germans, Russians and Swedes, Latvia finally established an independent state in 1918 and was a member of the League of Nations. But in 1939, foreign ministers Molotov, of Stalin’s Soviet Russia, and Ribbentrop, of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, made a secret pact where they sliced up Europe, placing Latvia in the Russian sphere. In 1940, Soviet Russia under Stalin occupied Latvia along with Estonia and Lithuania, then from 1941 to 1944 Nazi Germany occupied the country, and in 1944 the Soviets re-occupied the countries. So began almost fifty years of Soviet occupation until the Soviet Union finally crumbled, and Latvia regained its independence in 1991.

Unfortunately, Soviet occupation did not put Latvia in a time capsule, and it did not come out intact. While the independent Latvia of 1918 to 1941 was racially and religiously tolerant, the Soviets quickly got to work to russify Latvia. In 1941, 35,000 Latvians were murdered or sent to Siberia, three of my uncles included. During the 1941-1944 Nazi German occupation, 90%, i.e. 60,000 Latvian Jews and another 10,000 Latvians were murdered. 200,000 people fled during the war to escape the threat of death or deportation, hoping to soon return to a free Latvia. In 1949, Stalin exiled another 43,000 Latvians to Siberia. This was followed by a Soviet economic program which created new factories in Latvia, even though Latvia didn’t have the raw materials, and there weren’t enough Latvian workers to work in them. Oh, wait a second, that wasn’t a problem. The Soviet Union just shipped the raw materials into Latvia and organized the migration of one and a half million Russians from Russia to Latvia to work in the factories. For the Russian migrants, it wasn’t such a bad proposition - the climate in Latvia is much more pleasant and the beaches are stunning. As a result of the deliberate russification of the Latvian state, there were five times as many Russians in Latvia in 1989 than there had been in 1939, and thanks to murder, escape, and deportation, there were less Latvians than there had been in 1939. The percentage of indigenous Latvians in Latvia had been cut from 80% to 52%.

On top of that, Soviet-occupied Latvia was not exactly a morally upstanding sort of place. You did not get ahead by working hard. You got ahead by stealing, betraying your neighbour, or working ‘under the table.’ One for you, one for me, and one for the kolhoz. Honesty was not the best policy. You had to teach your children to lie to the teacher so that the teacher would not report you and get you blacklisted for such crimes as listening to Radio Free Europe or celebrating Christmas. By 1991 when Latvia finally regained its independence, a whole generation had grown up in a psychologically warped, unhealthy environment, Latvians and Russians included.

The impact of the years between 1941 and 1991 did not evaporate when independence was regained. The first parliament in 1991 proved to be mostly corrupt, as was the next, the next and the one after that… Everyone was so starved for financial gain that they grabbed what they could get. Whether former KGB, Russian, or Latvian, a position in parliament meant an opportunity to put your finger in the pie and share in the spoils of privatization. And taxes? Well, you were an idiot if you were in business and paid all your taxes. A number of positive things did happen: Latvia joined the EU and became a member of NATO, but self-interest was still the ruling principle for most members of the government.

[cont’d]

Corruption within parliament continued, to the point where this spring, parliament voted against allowing KNAB (Latvia’s Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau) to search the home of one of the most notoriously corrupt members of parliament, Ainars Slesers. This was a tipping point in Latvian politics, prompting the president of Latvia, Valdis Zatlers, to use his power to recommend the dissolution of parliament, to be confirmed by a national referendum. The objective was to rid parliament of the influence of oligarchs, namely Mr. Slesers along with Aivars Lembergs and Andris Skele. On July 30, Latvian citizens voted overwhelmingly in favour of dissolving parliament, with 94% in favour of holding new elections.

All of which is a lengthy lead-in to say that I am upset at the way some of the international press has reported on the September 17 elections in Latvia. A number of headlines that I’ve seen say something along the lines of “Pro-Russia Party wins most votes in Latvia Election” (that’s from the BBC), demonstrating a total lack of understanding of what really transpired.

The real story stemming from the election is that Latvia is a step closer to having a government that cares about governing. The oligarchs have been ousted from parliament: Messrs. Slesers and Skele no longer have seats, so they no longer have parliamentary immunity. The party that supported Mr. Lembergs, the ‘Greens and Farmers’, dropped from 22 to 8 seats, losing their influence in parliament. This is a victory for morality, righteousness and fair play, qualities that desperately need to be restored in post-Soviet eastern Europe. Latvian or Russian, the citizens and residents of Latvia are winners.

As for media headlines such as “Pro-Russia Party wins most votes in Latvia Election”, a more illuminating statement would be “Pro-Western Parties win most votes in Latvia Election”. In the previous parliament, the Kremlin-associated ‘Harmony Centre’, and oligarch-controlled ‘Latvia’s First Party’ and ‘Greens and Farmers ’ had 59 of 100 parliamentary seats in total (29, 8 and 22 seats respectively). After this recent election, ‘Harmony Centre’ gained two seats for a total of 31, but Latvia’s ‘First Party’ with oligarch Slesers at the helm (cynically renamed ‘Sleser’s Reform Party’ for this election), dropped to zero, and ‘Greens and Farmers’ lost 8 seats, for a total Kremlin/oligarch influenced party total of 44, or a drop of 15 seats. Lest anyone protest that ‘Harmony Centre’ is being lumped in with the oligarchs, it is because those are the three parties that voted to protect the aforementioned oligarchs from investigation.

Conversely, in the previous parliament, the pro-Western parties had 41 seats, and now they have a majority of 56. In the previous parliament, the 41 seats were split between 33 for the ‘Unity Party’ and 8 for the ‘National Alliance’. After the election was called, former president Zatlers (who predictably was not re-elected by the corrupt parliament to serve a second term as president) formed his own party, the ‘Zatlers’ Reform Party’. With these elections, the pro-Western Latvian parties gained 14 seats - but because of the new Zatlers’ party, the pro-Western vote was split among three parties - Zatlers took an impressive 22 seats, the ‘Unity Party’ dropped from 33 seats to 20 seats, and the ‘National Alliance’ increased from 8 to 14 seats. The final result of this election is that the pro-Western parties are up to 56 seats compared to 44 for the pro-Kremlin parties.

It is worth noting as well that the political parties do not run along strict ethnic lines. There are Russian members of parliament elected in the pro-Western parties, just as there are Latvians in ‘Harmony Centre’.

The question now is which parties will form a coalition, with the balance of power in former President Zatler’s hands. Zatlers campaigned to rid the government of oligarchs. If he lives up to his promises, that means a coalition of pro-Western parties and exclusion of the parties that protected the oligarchs. To do otherwise would be demoralizing, and dishonest to those who voted for him.

We are not yet at a place where the indigenous Latvians can be confident that their nation, their language and their culture are secure. Most of the Russians (both citizens and non-citizens) in Latvia today are the descendents of yesterday’s imported workers, KGB, or of the Soviet armed forces . They are personally not to blame for the Soviet russification of Latvia between 1941 and 1991. Although their parents and grandparents were brought to Latvia by the Soviets, now that they are in Latvia, no one is forcing them to leave or asking them to give up being Russian. But it is not unreasonable to ask that Russians and other non-Latvians respect that they are living in Latvia, and for them to teach their children the official language of the state, which is Latvian. It is not asking a lot for them to not undermine Latvia, and to support Latvia’s efforts to safeguard its state, its language, culture and identity. This is the norm for any country in the world.

And it would be great to see the less-informed members of the press educate themselves on the history of the area before coming up with catchy, but misleading headlines. If your nation were to be decimated by murder and deportation, and your ethnic group diluted by the forced influx of a foreign group, what spin would you put on that?

So back to where we started: Latvians are the indigenous people of their country, with their very own ancient language, and a unique ethnic identity. It’s time for Latvia to climb out of the devastating Soviet era and out of the demoralizing and corrupt post-Soviet era of the last twenty years. The elected parties are about to show their true stripes. Let’s hope it’s for the good of the Latvian state this time, so that Latvian citizens can survive and thrive and prosper in their country.

Ingrid Zemitis was born in Canada and is of Latvian descent. She is the owner of a small retail toy store chain in Ontario.

Poor ambersun. Even Edward Lucas is against her. From this week’s Economist:

TWO oddities have marked Latvian politics since the country regained its independence in 1991. A divide between “Latvian” and “Russian” parties broadly matches the country’s ethnic split. And three tycoons, each with a pocket political party, have created an unhealthy overlap of business and politics.

The general election on September 17th marked a big shift. Pauls Raudseps, a pundit in Riga, calls it “the start of real politics”. Of the three “oligarch” parties, only the Greens and Farmers’ Union is left in the 100-seat Saeima (parliament), and it did badly, losing nine of its 22 seats. Its leader, Aivars Lembergs, faces longstanding fraud and corruption charges (which he denies).

Voters turned instead to two mainstream parties: Unity, led by the prime minister, Valdis Dombrovskis (which won 20 seats), and a new outfit named after a former president, Valdis Zatlers (which took 22). The result vindicates Mr Zatlers, who as president precipitated the election by calling a referendum to dissolve the Saeima after it blocked a corruption probe. It also underlines the success of the modest and brainy Mr Dombrovskis, who piloted Latvia out of the economic turmoil caused by the oligarch parties’ recklessness. After shrinking by a huge 18% in 2009, GDP should grow by almost 5% this year. The mood in Riga on election day was positively cheerful: compared with Greece, Latvia looks like a model of adjustment.

What will the new government look like? The two mainstream parties have three choices. One is a minority administration. But that might rattle nerves: Latvia still needs to satisfy international lenders and stick to tight austerity policies. A second is a coalition with the National Alliance, a ragtag mix of freemarketeers, old-fashioned conservatives and nationalists (some with dodgy pasts). But liberal-minded figures in the Zatlers party will be queasy about that. They would prefer to bring in the biggest party, Harmony Centre (31 seats), which draws support mostly from ethnic Russians. It already co-runs Riga, but has never held power at national level. Many Latvians, including some in Mr Dombrovkis’s party, fear it would subvert the role of Latvian as the national language and increase Russian influence. It has links with Vladimir Putin’s party in Russia, and perhaps darker ties too.

But the rows over history that once paralysed Latvia’s politics are abating. Harmony is moderate by past standards. Its leader, Nils Usakovs, says he is “not allergic” to calling Latvia’s period under Soviet rule an “occupation”—a long-standing shibboleth. But he will not accept describing those who migrated to Latvia in those years as “occupiers”. That may seem a fair compromise.

I wonder if one can accuse Lucas of being “the less-informed members of the press” who need to “educate themselves on the history of the area before coming up with catchy, but misleading headlines.”

More reading material for ambi.

Latvia’s unnoticed revolution: analysing the elections

There is also the dilemma of when to make a historic compromise with Harmony Centre. As its support has grown in recent elections, its exclusion from office has grown more stark. A way needs to be found to marginalise radical voices like Socialist Party leader Alfreds Rubiks, the last pro-Soviet leader of the Communist Party in Latvia, who was actually imprisoned in the early 1990s. This could “normalise” the moderate Russophones in government and help share the pain of further reform.

It would be nice to get the moderate Russophones Andrew Wilson refers to as part of Latvia’s government.  But how is that to happen if letting their party into a ruling coalition automatically gets Rubiks and Urbanovics in as well?  There are good-government SC-ers, oligarch SC-ers, and Moskautreue SC-ers, but no way to pick and choose.  It seems to be all or nothing.  Or am I missing a part of the equation?

Peteris Kalniņs et al.,
“It seems to be all or nothing.  Or am I missing a part of the equation? “

The opposition party to the ruling coalition usually gets one or two “ministeru portufeļi’.  This is not a rule cast in stone.  The ruling coalition pretty much chooses who it wants.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but in the 10. saeima SC had atleast one “ministeru portufeļi”.

Visu labu,

http://la.lv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=327658:partija-kas-iedos-varu-qscq-bs-politisks-lis&catid=93:la-komentri&Itemid=295

Partija, kas iedos varu “SC”, būs politisks līķis
22.09.2011 Vilis Vītols
  http://www.gramata21.lv/users/vitols_vilis

Trīs latviskās partijas – Zatlera Reformu partija, “Vienotība” un Nacionālā apvienība “Visu Latvijai”/“Tēvzemei un Brīvībai”/LNNK – ir ieguvušas pārliecinošu uzvaru 11. Saeimas vēlēšanās – kopā tām ir 56 deputāti. Varam apsveikt sevi, Latvijas valsti un latviešu tautu, jo tagad mums ir cerība uz labāku un, galvenais, godprātīgāku un taisnīgāku valsti.

Šajā mūsu zvaigžņu stundā notiek kas neiedomājams – paceļas balsis, ka mums šī uzvara esot jāatdāvina. Turklāt jāatdāvina cilvēkiem, kas klausa naidīgai svešai varai un kas vēlas mūsu valsts bojā eju. Vajagot veidot koalīciju ar “Saskaņas centru” (“SC”) un atdot tam daļu varas.
Esam tā notrulināti ar visādām pļāpām, spriedelēšanu un rafinēto Krievijas melu propagandu, ka aizmirstam būtisko – “Saskaņas centrs” jau nav nekas cits kā tā pati vecā Interfronte. Tikai nomaskējusies ar jaunu, glītu izkārtni Rīgas mēra krēslā, ar latviskiem uzvārdiem vēlēšanu sarakstā, kas pēc tam nekad neparādās Saeimā. Kā hameleons tas piemērojies apkārtnes krāsai, bet savos darbos ir uzticīgs Krievijas imperiālisma idejām. To pierāda viņu balsojumi Saeimā, viņu partijas programma un partijai tuvo cilvēku raksti krievu medijos. “SC” Saeimā vienmēr aizstāv tos risinājumus, kas Latviju vestu uz haosu – palielināt budžeta deficītu, lai mēs slīgtu arvien lielākos parādos, atlikt eiro ieviešanu, lai turpinātos devalvācijas draudi un investoriem būtu bažas ieguldīt Latvijā, atsaukt mūsu karavīrus no NATO misijām un sanaidot mūs ar ASV, kas ir Latvijas uzticamākie drošības garanti, uzstādīt nepamatotas prasības Starptautiskajam valūtas fondam un Eiropas Komisijai un tā padarīt riskantu mūsu kredītu situāciju.

Es varētu turpināt, bet vēlos norādīt tiem lojālajiem Latvijas krieviem, kas balso par “SC”, – tā darot, jūs urbjat caurumu laivā, kurā paši sēžat. Jūsu interesēs ir, lai Latvijai ietu labi. Tad arī jums ies labi. Jūsu intereses nav Maskavas intereses.

Kāpēc mums jādāvina uzvara? Vai tikai tādēļ, ka viņi dabūjuši 29% balsu? Ja Amerikas Savienotajās Valstīs Demokrātu partija iegūst 51% un republikāņi 49%, nevienam demokrātam nenāks prātā, ka valdībā būtu jālaiž arī kāds republikānis. Tas pats, ja republikāņi saņem 51% balsu. Viņi veidos valdību tikai ar saviem cilvēkiem. Patiesībā šis būtu īstais brīdis raidīt “Saskaņas centram” vēsti, ka viņi NEKAD netiks valdībā, kamēr turpinās savu līdzšinējo etnisko un impērisko politiku. Lakmusa papīrs viņu patiesai gatavībai piedalīties kopīgā Latvijas celšanā būs brīdis, kad viņi piekritīs krievvalodīgo skolu pārejai uz valsts valodu.
Partijai un politiķiem, kas apsver šādu bezjēdzīgu koalīciju, es ieteiktu padomāt arī par savu politisko nākotni. “SC” laišana pie varas ir savā ziņā tautas nodevība, ko latviešu vēlētāji nekad neaizmirsīs. Jebkura no trim latviskajām partijām, kas laidīs “SC” valdībā, kopā ar šo interfronti valdīs trīs gadus. Bet pēc tam – ardievu! Šle-
sers ar savu nodevību pielaida “SC” pie varas Rīgas domē. Paskatieties, kā viņam ir gājis pēc tam. Tāpat Zaļo un zemnieku savienība (ZZS) izveidoja de facto koalīciju ar “SC” 10. Saeimā, un vēlētāji viņus attiecīgi ir sodījuši 11. Saeimas vēlēšanās. Ar šo kļūdu ZZS sevi padarīja par grimstošu kuģi. Latviešu partija, kas iedos varu “SC”, būs politisks līķis.

Kas vēlējās redzēt “SC” valdībā, tas par viņiem arī balsoja. Mēs balsojām par latvisku valdību. Uzspiest mums tagad kaut ko citu būtu piemānīt savus vēlētājus jau pašā sākumā.

Divdesmit gados latviešu vēlētājs ir mācījies un kļuvis gudrāks. Trīs latviskajām un godprātīgām partijām ir jāturas kopā. Arī partija “Visu Latvijai” ir pie mums uz palikšanu. Esmu pārliecināts, ka “Vienotības” atbalstītāju samazināšanās šajās vēlēšanās arī lielā mērā ir sekas par atteikšanos ņemt koalīcijā “Visu Latvijai”. Tā bija dažu gļēvu partijas biedru ietiepšanās, lūk, Eiropā mūs sauks par nacionālistiem. Nu un kas tad būtu noticis? Tieši pagrieziens uz konservatīvo pusi pašlaik notiek vairākās Eiropas valstīs. Līdzīgs drosmes trūkums tagad varētu būt iemesls koalīcijai ar “SC”. Ja tādu neveidos, protams, Kremlis būs dusmīgs, bet tas arī viss.
Katrā situācijā būtu jājautā – ja mēs piekāpjamies, ja kaut ko dodam, ko mēs saņemsim pretī? Neredzu nekā pozitīva, ko Latvijai varētu dot pašreizējais “Saskaņas centrs” ar tiem cilvēkiem, kas tur ir pie teikšanas. Viņi jau solīs visādus brīnumus, bet pēc tam notiks tieši pretējais. Daudzās mūsu institūcijās tiks iedētas Kremlim uzticīgas oliņas, kā tas pašlaik notiek Rīgas domē. Viņu cilvēkiem, lai arī kā mēs un mūsu sabiedrotie to vēlētos, būs iespēja okšķerēt NATO slepenās lietas, viņiem būs pieeja valsts noslēpumiem. Pastiprināti tiks bīdīta krievu valoda visās valsts apritēs. Mūsu uzticamība Rietumu aprindās mazināsies, un viens ir skaidrs – mūsu latviskās Latvijas ideāls attālināsies. Bez vajadzības un neko nesaņemot pretī. Beigšu ar domu, ko dzirdu sarunās ar daudziem latvisko partiju atbalstītājiem. Tas ir vēlējums jaunajai Saeimai – lai Latvijā valdītu latviska valdība. Krievi lai valda Krievijā.

Bruno the Lett - 22 September 2011 03:10 PM

Peteris Kalniņs et al.,
“It seems to be all or nothing.  Or am I missing a part of the equation? “

The opposition party to the ruling coalition usually gets one or two “ministeru portufeļi’.  This is not a rule cast in stone.  The ruling coalition pretty much chooses who it wants.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but in the 10. saeima SC had atleast one “ministeru portufeļi”.

Visu labu,

You are mistaken. SC never held a ministry. You have to be in a coalition to have a minister in the government.

ambersun, yours and LA tribalism is getting old. I can only imagine what would happen if Russia decided it is home for Russians, as some Russian nationalists suggest. Forget about the Chechens, the Ingush, the Komi, the Tatars, etc. Tribalism is detrimental to our development.

Peteris Kalnins - 22 September 2011 01:13 PM

It would be nice to get the moderate Russophones Andrew Wilson refers to as part of Latvia’s government.  But how is that to happen if letting their party into a ruling coalition automatically gets Rubiks and Urbanovics in as well?  There are good-government SC-ers, oligarch SC-ers, and Moskautreue SC-ers, but no way to pick and choose.  It seems to be all or nothing.  Or am I missing a part of the equation?

To be fair, V has some good people, and not so good people. ZZS too. I don’t think you have a choice. Personally, I think Rubikiesi may leave on their own, because Harmony Center isn;t that harmonious. Rubiks and Mirskis—though both elected to the European Parliament from SC—are actually in different factions. What keeps them together, it seems, is the fact that they are in the opposition. But in spite of that, I see the benefits of letting SC in outweigh the cost of leaving them out. As soon as they are a government party, their popularity is very likely to go down…

Aleksejs et al.,
“You are mistaken. SC never held a ministry. You have to be in a coalition to have a minister in the government. “

Who says one has to be in the coalition to be a minister.  ŠĶēle became prime-minister without belonging to the ruling coalition.  Your claims are getting weirder and weirder.

Visu labu,

Skele became the prime minister because parties couldn’t agree on who will be the PM. Skele was seen as a compromise. And lookie there, when he became the PM the second and the third time he was already a chairman of the party.

It’s more of an exception than the rule.

Harmony Center on the other hand has never been in government, has never held a postenis.

PS Don’t have a problem with a non-affiliated PM, but not for a minister. I disagree with your assertion that SC held a government position.

Latvijas Avize does live in the past. Kirhenšteina valdība numur divi
. As if the neutral Latvia of 1940, which was run by a dictator, is the same as a democratic republic of 2011, which is a member of both EU and NATO.

Aleksejs et al.,
“Harmony Center on the other hand has never been in government, has never held a postenis.

Who held the postenis dealing with minority questions .

Visu labu,

Usually, it was LPP/LC party, when they were in the government. Nils Muiznieks was the first one.