If readers of this column earlier this year were rather ‘referendumed out’, then the bad news is that we may be looking at another referendum in Latvia on a confronting issue, though this time we may not get all the way through the referendum process.

While the referendum on granting Russian the status of a second official ‘state’ language was rejected by three-quarters of voters in February, a second signature-gathering campaign has begun on the proposition to grant all non-citizen residents automatic Latvian citizenship.

Last week organisers of this campaign handed a list of over 12,000 signatures supporting this proposal to the Central Electoral Commission. In case anyone has forgotten the technicalities of seemingly referenda-happy Latvia, the issue stems from the fact that there is a very low threshold to begin a referendum process in the country. Anyone wishing to get a referendum proposal up must in the first instance gather 10,000 notarised signatures supporting the proposal. If these are gathered, the Central Electoral Commission organises a second round of signature gathering. If one-tenth of the electorate signs (currently just over 150,000 voters), then the proposal goes to the Saeima for consideration. If the Saiema nevertheless rejects the proposal, it goes to a full referendum. The proposal for Russian as a second state language went through all these steps, but this proposal on citizenship may not get all the way.

A key factor in the second-round signature gathering success of the language referendum was the decision by leader of the Russian-oriented Harmony Centre (Saskaņas Centrs) popular leader and Rīga Mayor Nīls Ušakovs to support and sign for the referendum, despite the official policy of his party declaring they supported only one state language – Latvian. This time around, Ušakovs has declared he will not sign for the proposal and will not participate in a referendum if it comes to pass. Now, it must be rememberd that in the campaign for the Russian language referendum he also at an early stage said he did not support it, only to reverse his decision in the second round of signature gathering.

However, additional factors may weigh with him now. As this referendum, if it comes to pass, has no more hope of being accepted than the language referendum, to put his weight behind two defeated referenda initiatives woud cast him in a poor, opportunistic light. But personally also Ušakovs, a Russian, is himself a naturalised Latvian citizen, who passed the citizenship test (language plus knowledge of Latvian history and constitution) and rather famously declared it was not a difficult test. It has been mooted that many who did in fact go through this procedure to gain citizenship (over 120,000 so far) would not themselves be happy with a proposal to now grant citizenship to all without needing to go through such a test. However, to take the spotlight off Ušakovs, a number of other members of SC are supporting this referendum campaign, and once again we may see a very divided SC, as we saw with the language referendum

The organisers of this referendum initiative are different from the shadowy group (of largely non-citizens) who initiated the language referendum, but equally politically interesting. This time it is the old Soviet-oriented hard-line party For Human Rights in a United Latvia (Par Cilvēku tiesībām vienotā Latvijā – PCTVL) that is behind the move. This Party, supported largely by ex-Communist Party members and Soviet sympathisers, has been prominent as an opposition party in post-independence Latvia, but has not secured a place in the Saeima at the last two elections (parties need to get 5% of the vote to gain any representation). It has seen a lot of its former support drift away to the more centrist Harmony Centre, but believes it can regain some ground with Harmony Centre’s own inability to gain a place in Latvia’s coalition government, and the radicalization of ethnic politics brought about by the language referendum.

Although not currently represented in the Saeima, PCTVL does have a deputy in the European Parliament, veteran Tatjana Ždanoka, who has opposed Latvian citizenship policies since their inception and is determined to restore her party’s fortunes. But recently another voice adding to the mix has been that of the odious Vladimir Lindermans, the National Bolshevik initiator of the language referendum, who has claimed that all possible pressure will be put on Ušakovs and SC to support this referendum too. Meanwhile, those opposing this referendum want the Constitutional Court to decide on whether such a proposal to grant automatic citizenship is itself against the Constitution…

Changing the referendum criteria – by another referendum?

But that is not all on the referendum front! The earlier language referendum alerted many to how easy it was to set the referendum process in motion, and particularly the low 10,000 signature threshold in the first round. The coalition and other parties have been in a constant state of agitation over how to tackle this problem: twice now the President has sent back for consideration draft laws that the Saeima has passed on altering these requirements. The coalition has proposed to raise the bar on referenda by initiators having to sign up 150,000 themseves to begin the process in the first round, in place of the current 10,000. As an interim transition measure, until 2015 initiators would have to sign up 50,000 supporters in the first round.

Other issues covered by new laws would include controls over financing of referenda initiatives (currently there are no stipulations) and the means of recording signatures. However some parties have suggested making a number of constitutional amendments to ensure certain items in the constitution cannot be changed by a referendum. In the most ludicrous move, the latest version of the law would have been accepted by the President but the two opposition parties SC and the Greens & Farmers Union (Zaļo un zemnieku savienība) petitioned the President to not promulgate the law: under Latvia’s constitution one other way to initiate a referendum is if one third of the Saeima members propose to have a referendum on a law passed by the President. So, there was even a prospect of having a referendum on what the critieria for future referenda should be! All in the name of having fewer future referenda…? While all of this has been going on, the coaliton itself has now split over what the first round criteria should be.

In the coming weeks the coalition in particular needs to work hard to present one united view of the legisation, and something that the opposition Green & Farmers Union, which earlier was onside with the intended reforms, can also agree to. We will also see if the second round of signature gathering for the citizenship referendum will be organised by the Central Electoral Commission (many are urging it to not accept the proposal), and if so, if the required number of signatures are gained. At the moment it may appear unlikely, but there have already been too many surprises in the referendum merry-go-round to make any predictions certain.

 

Two unexpected shocks have shaken off the post-referendum quiet in Latvian politics. First, although Latvian voters in the February 18 referendum overwhelmingly rejected the proposition that Russian should become a second official language, moves to strengthen Latvian by changes to the Labour Law have been stymied in the Saeima (Parliament).

And from left field entirely, Jewish organisations have raised anew the question of restitution of property belonging to Jewish social organisations, bringing surprisingly swift and unexpected political reactions.

The language issue arose in response to the long-standing complaint that many employers had regularly advertised or had in their work contracts that prospective employees must have a command of Russian (or sometimes English, among others) even where the job clearly did not demand use of this language. It was proposed that such a demand for a specific language was only allowable when that language was clearly necessary for the job.

Over the years a steady language shift had occured in the education system as many younger Latvians no longer studied Russian in school and had a much weaker grasp of it than did the previous generation. Meanwhile, Russian youth had significantly improved its capacity in Latvian, leading to claims of linguistic discrimination on the part of Latvians who did not know Russian but applied for jobs even where it would not be necessary but still demanded by employers.

After lengthy debates, the Saeima did pass the amendment to the Labour Law banning the advertising of specific language requirements unless clearly necessary for that particular job. But two subsequent amendments that would have given teeth to this proposition were surprisingly defeated. First, the Saeima rejected the amendment that would disallow such requirements in work contracts, and secondly it rejected a more global amendment making it illegal for employers to make such unnecessary language demands of employees.

The vote was lost because a number of coalition members, who had a free vote on this issue, voted against the last two amendments, or abstained. Significantly, most of the members of the Reform Party (RP), a coalition party and the second largest party in the Saeima, voted with the Russian-oriented Harmony Centre (Saskaņas centrs – SC). A number of members of the Unity (Vienotība) party, the party of the Premier Valdis Dombrovskis also abstained on the vote, critically influencing the numbers.

This performance of the Reform Party was another low point for a party that has had a catastrophic fall in pubic support after its strong showing in the 2010 elections. It is worth remembering that at that time it had declared a willingness to go into coalition with the SC, but had given up this idea when Unity threatened not to join such a coalition. In the June 2012 ratings, the party had slipped to only 2.6% support, well below the 5% needed to get back into Parliament. In the same ratings, Unity improved its support over that of previous months and even pipped SC, the largest party in the Saeima and long-time ratings leader; this result seems to be thanks largely to Dombrovskis’ steady stewardship and the slowly improving economic situation. The Reform Party’s vote on the language issue would not have boosted its stocks.

Jewish property

The issue of restituting the properties of Jewish social organisations came as a surprise because a number of Jewish religious properties had long been given back or were being managed by joint Jewish-local government agreements. The issue quickly brought diametrically opposed responses: some pointed to the question of why these demands were being made now rather than at the time in the 1990s when all privatisation and property issues for the majority of properties had been decided. The only difference now was that many of the claimed Jewish social organisation properties had greatly increased in value compared to their often threadbare status in the 1990s. As many of these properties had been since legally bought and sold by other parties, compensation – running into the millions – rather than restitution of property had become the issue.

Immediately, other social oganisations that for various reasons had been unsuccessful in their restitution bids came to the fore. Jewish organisations were taken aback by these claims, arguing that this issue had been long-standing and one which several governments had been slowly working on.

The upshot came when Justice Minister Gaidis Bērziņš, of the National Association faction, one of the members of the governing coalition, resigned from his position, claiming the Premier was forcing him to make hasty decisions on this issue, a view the Premier Valdis Dombrovskis denies. The issue brought international media attention, not favourable to Latvia, and how this issue will be resolved at the moment remains unclear.

Beyond the property issue, the resignation of the Justice Minister would seem to raise questions of the future of the coalition. Yet Gaidis Bērziņš insisted the decision to resign was his own, and was not even discussed by his party. A considered view is that the National Association is worried by a perceived lack of influence and being largely ignored in the present coalition; the unsatisfactory outcome of the language question being only one such instance. A number of other major decisions, including driving down budget deficits to satisfy Eurozone eligibility criteria, and some large and less-than-transparent purchases of railway rolling stock, are issues the National Association also feels strongly about, and feels its voice is not heard.

Although Dombrovskis has had success in improving economic conditions, and in some quarters of international finance is seen as a paradigm of good fiscal policy, these issues of Jewish property and other economic decisions will continue to present significant political challenges.

 

 

Latvian voters’ overwhelming rejection of making Russian a second official language at the Feb. 18 referendum has led to an uncharacteristic quiet, and seeming lack of political tension in subsequent politics, as if all sides to all arguments are too fatigued. Or perhaps just regathering their strength for further campaigns.

The move for a threatened “second referendum”—on granting automatic citizenship to all residents of Latvia, the “zero option”—has been gathering signatures in a far more desultory fashion than the language referendum, despite its promotion particularly by the Soviet-oriented For Human Rights in a United Latvia party (PCTVL).

Currently, the 10,000 initial signatures are slowly being gathered, which would then lead to the Central Election Commission running a second signature campaign to see if one-tenth of the electorate supports such a move, but there are doubts enough signatures would be gathered in a month in that second round to force a referendum.

Clearly rattled by the language referendum, the Saiema (Parliament) has moved to make tougher conditions for future initiating of referenda, but in other ways it has slipped back into the politics of the past: another attempt to remove the current immunity of Saeima deputies to criminal investigation and prosecution was again defeated at the end of March. This, of course, was the instigation last year for President Zatlers’ dramatic move to initiate the dismissal of the Saeima, but this time the same Saeima’s stubbornness received little more than a shrug of the shoulders from politicians and population alike. Yet this immunity question is a critical one in Latvian politics, and until immunity can be overturned this unsatisfactory situation is just one more factor in politicians’ low standing in voters’ estimation and trust.

March to April has seen the characteristic “calendar wars” – on March 16, old members of the Latvian Legion – the SS military divisions that fought on the German side in World War II – celebrated their day in Rīga by the Freedom Monument (Brīvības piemineklis), supported by large numbers of nationalist Latvians, while the inmate-garb clad “anti-fascist” protestors once more staged their own anti-celebration, but this year the event passed with little attention or fallout.

On May 9, it was time for the “other” side – the day that the Soviet Union marked as the end of World War II (May 8 in 1945 was the day the war ended for the western powers, marked now as “Europe Day”). On this occasion, in lovely Spring weather, a crowd variously estimated as 100,000-150,000 participated in these celebrations at the Victory Monument (Uzvaras piemineklis) across the Daugava River, another massive demonstration of the more visible Russian and pro-Russian presence in Latvia. The “Europe Day/End of Western World War II Day” on May 8 was marked with a tiny celebration of a few hundred people.

But, as often is the case, events beyond Latvia’s borders may have more immediate political impact. The continuing Euro crisis after the inconclusive elections in Greece is bringing new uncertainties at a time when Latvia’s economy is making a fragile recovery. Like a badly-timed comedy act, Latvia’s desire to become part of the Eurozone—which has become the most compelling reason for the continued austerity policy—seems in doubt not only because of the uncertainty whether Latvia can meet the strict budgetary deficit criteria for accession to the Euro, but more fundamentally whether the Euro will still be there to join…

And in the other external direction, Putin’s re-accession to the Russian presidency has actually had more impact than expected for this much predicted and totally expected outcome. Almost before placing his now more ample bottom in the President’s chair once more, Putin has begun a more aggressive sabre-rattling exercise in the continual campaign to neutralise NATO and drive the USA out of Europe, threatening to make retaliatory strikes if NATO missiles are further deployed in Eastern Europe, and snubbing a NATO and G8 gathering in the USA. Russia is very intent on regaining all the control it can over Eastern Europe and its “near abroad.”

This apparent period of calm in Latvian politics may turn out to be, we hope not, the calm before the storms.