Despite predictions of a possible victory in the Latvian parliamentary elections by the Russian-leaning Harmony Centre (Saskaņas Centrs), the Oct. 2 election was won by the centre-right Unity (Vienotība), the party of Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis.

The pre-election period had witnessed a rather pessimistic and even alarmed atmosphere around Unity, which had trailed in the polls for most of the year. There was concern that particularly among Latvian voters a sense of alienation from the political process could mean that too few would even cast ballots, leaving the gate open for Harmony Centre to be the largest party. In the end, Latvians did turn up to vote.

Another concern had been the very strong publicity campaign run by the “new” party For a Good Latvia! (Par labu Latviju!, or PLL). PLL is in fact the remnant of the two previous dominant parties in the Saeima—the People’s Party (Tautas partija ) and the First Party of Latvia (Latvijas Pirmā  partija)—which constituted the core of the previous disgraced government that had presided over Latvia’s economic disaster in 2008 as well as numerous other policy blunders.

PLL ran its campaign highlighting the strong economic growth during the earlier years of its government (don’t mention the crisis!), and berating the Dombrovskis-led government for its harsh economic measures. Its two leaders, Rīga Vice Mayor Ainars Šlesers and former Prime Minister Andris Šķēle, had their portraits plastered everywhere and had considerable resources to try to persuade the public to vote for them again.

In the elections, however, the PLL was only able to win eight seats, and did no better than the nationalist bloc (Visu Latvijai! – Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK) that ran its campaign on a shoestring. Another casualty of the elections was the former Soviet imperialist party For Human Rights in a United Latvia (Par cilvēku tiesībām vienotā Latvijā), whose opposition to Latvia’s independence and pro-European orientation has now run its course. PCTVL received only 1.9 percent of the vote (parties must gain 5 percent to get any Saeima seats).

Getting and not getting a coalition

As with all previous Latvian elections, no party gained a clear majority in its own right, so the process of forming a coalition began immediately. PLL had declared it would be in opposition, but all other parties declared themselves ready to be in a coalition government. Yet the coalition process was complicated in that each of the blocs elected to the Saeima is in fact itself a coalition of different parties or groupings. For example, Unity consists of the older New Era (Jaunais laiks), the breakaway Civic Union (Pilsoniskā savienība) with a very Latvian national-oriented focus, and the Society for a Different Politics (Sabiedrība citai politikai), a professional politician party largely of renegades from the failed People’s Party. And it was these internal divisions that partly determined the coalition outcome.

First, Dombrovskis, who was widely seen to return as prime minister, went for a “grand coalition,” inviting the Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība), the nationalist bloc and Harmony Centre to join in government, which would be backed by 92 deputies in the Saeima.

This was a startling move. The nationalist bloc and Harmony Centre are sworn enemies and it would seem to be fantasy for them to sit side by side in a government. Yet Dombrovksis’ move had a logic and he made certain demands that the parties would have to meet. He desired to see if Harmony Centre, with its strong voter base, was willing to join in a coalition, thus not denying a significant part of the electorate a chance to be represented in a government, rather than being asssigned to a perpetual opposition, always seen in ethnic conflict terms. It would also hopefully lessen the continual pressure that comes from Russia to recognise the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia as a legitimate political force.

But Dombrovskis laid down conditions: Harmony Centre had to accept certain positions, including recogniton of the fact of Latvia’s occupation by the Soviet Union in the 1940s. Harmony Cente was insulted by such a demand (its leaders have always fudged the issues of history and often continued the myth of Latvia’s voluntarily joining the Soviet Union), and demanded that talk about coalition proceed without preconditions, which Dombrovskis did not accept. Meanwhile, the Civic Union faction in Unity was offended by the offer to have the Harmony Centre join a coalition, and threatened to leave Unity if this occurred.

In the end, Harmony Centre decided it could not accept Dombrovskis’ position and declined to join the coalition under the stipulated terms.

The nationalist bloc also was willing to join the coalition (it was indeed in the government coalition leading up to the elections), yet it is a party mired in some controversy. The most active part of the bloc is the relatively newly formed All for Latvia! (Visu Latvijai!), a strident nationalist faction that used the Internet and modern media to get its message across. The All for Latvia! faction has been criticised in the West as well as in Russia for its nationalist tendencies and somewhat obscure alleged links to Nazi collaborators. Dombrovskis demanded that it give up its most radical demands (for example, having all secondary schools teach in Latvian only, as opposed to the present situation where up to 40 percent could be taught in the students’ mother tongue). The nationalist bloc agreed that this and other more radical policies would only be pursued if there was agreement in the coalition to do so. But this was not good enough for the small Society for a Different Politics, which dramatically used its veto power to prevent the nationalists from being accepted into the coalition. (An earlier agreement among the three factions of Unity was that any faction would have veto rights over selection of coalition partners.) Yet this act also pointed to potential instability within the ruling party.

These wrangles over the coalition have been variously interpreted. For some, the very move of inviting Harmony Centre to join the coalition was seen as a betrayal of Unity ideals. Others saw it as the best way of handling Latvia’s large minority. And the banning of the nationalist bloc showed even more clearly the tension within Unity. On the other hand, Dombrovksis’ move to invite these two may have in a way cleared the decks, with Harmony Centre in particular being forced to show its true colours when asked crucial questions of its historical undertanding.

In the end, Unity joined with the Union of Greens and Farmers—another party that gained much in the election, and a key party in any coalition arrangements—to form a government, which was ratified by the Saeima on Nov. 3. The soft-spoken but clearly politically astute Dombrovskis was reappointed as prime minister. Having Latvians vote for him, knowing that economic austerity would continue, and sidelining the failed old guard, was a considerable achievement.

The upcoming Saeima election on Oct. 2 could be the most decisive in Latvia‘s history. For the first time there is a serious possibility that decidedly pro-Moscow parties could win a parliamentary election and be in the government. Other countries—Russia, in Europe, the United States—will be watching the results with far greater interest than in any previous election.

Yet it would be hard to come to such a conclusion if all we had to go on was the spluttering, relatively uneventful and characterless election campaign.

Some parties have made attempts to publicise themselves, most notably head-kicker Ainārs Šlesers, of the For a Good Latvia party (Par labu Latviju!, or PLL). Šlesers, a millionaire, is a former transportation minister. His portraits are on giant billboards all over the country.

For the most part it has been a woefully uninformative and featureless campaign. Unity (Vienotība), whose Valdis Dombrovskis is prime minister, has had trouble making a real impact. The party’s one campaign move was a rather populist call for people to respond to an online survey about who they think would be the better choice for prime minister in the next government: Dombrovskis or Jānis Urbanovičs, the leader of the pro-Moscow Harmony Centre (Saskaņas centrs). The survey possibly did as much to publicise Harmony Centre as it did Unity.

The Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība) has played dead, assured of a place in the new Saeima, but cynically biding its time to see who it will join in a coalition. As a mark of the party’s democratic credentials, its leader Augusts Brigmanis recently questioned why it was worthwhile having parties publish an official short policy outline that is accessible to all voters in polling stations, as all these policies look so similar and give voters little reason to choose between parties. For Brigmanis, only what goes on in the corridors of government once portfolios have been decided is of any worth.

The nationalist alliance of For Fatherland and Freedom (Tēvzemei un brīvībai / LNNK, or TB/LNNK) and All for Latvia! (Visu Latvijai!) has been active, staging countless demonstrations and meetings and running a very lively and aggressive Internet campaign. Given little chance of early success, as TB/LNNK has been heavily compromised by being part of the former coalition government that took Latvia into financial meltdown, this alliance is now regarded as having a good chance of being in the Saeima, thanks to its activist partner, All for Latvia!.

Significantly, ratings leader Harmony Centre is playing it quiet, trying not to scare the horses and playing down any radical ambitions, riding on its success in the Rīga local government elections of last year. But leader Urbanovičs has in numerous interviews hinted heavily at his party’s ultimate aims—citizenship for all non-citizens and raising the status of the Russian language.

This is what is at stake.

Return of the guilty

Apart from the ambitions of Harmony Centre, the campaign has also seen the strenuous attempts by those responsible for Latvia’s financial mess to return to power, ignoring their own role in the debacle and laying all the blame for Latvia’s woes on the present government’s kowtowing to the International Monetary Fund, which has bailed Latvia out of impending bankruptcy.

The PLL consists of the two leading parties in the former coalition government of ill-remembered Prime Minister Aigars Kalvītis. For those such as Šlesers, the campaign has only one purpose: not to debate policy on the economy, or national security, or any other issues that may be important, but simply by whatever publicity means and whatever criticism of current policy to get enough people to vote for them to get back to a say in government. PLL’s decided leaning toward a Russia-oriented economy and foreign policy, and its coalition with Harmony Centre on the Rīga City Council, present a standing danger to Latvia’s interest in being a western-oriented country as a member of the European Union and the NATO defense alliance.

In current ratings, Harmony Centre is just a few points ahead of Unity, with ZZS trailing but assured of a place in the Saeima, followed by PLL with a similar likelihood of being elected. In Latvia’s proportional representation system, where a party much achieve 5 percent of the vote to gain any seats in the Saeima, the nationalist TB/LNNK-Visu Latvijai! alliance now seems sure of crossing that threshold and some surveys indicate it may do quite well. The welcome news around the 5 percent issue is that the long-standing Soviet remnant party For Human Rights in a United Latvia (Par cilvēku tiesībām vienotā Latvijā, or PCTVL), may struggle to reach 5 percent, though this party has been written off before.

Getting out the vote

A major factor in the election will be voter turnout. And here some important factors come into play.

Surveys have shown that the greatest number of those undecided on which party to vote for, or whether to vote at all, are ethnic Latvians. Russian voters are far less likely to be undecided and their support for Harmony Centre (and partially for PCTVL) is apparent.

In a historically familiar pattern, Latvian parties are highly fragmented even if they seem to espouse similar policies (they are of course largely not really parties, but simply vehicles for their leaders’ ambitions). If a substantial part of this undecided group does nevertheless vote, and votes for the Latvian parties, it may be possible to keep PCTVL below the 5 percent barrier and ensure more support for Unity and the other Latvian parties.

For the first time, the vote of those outside Latvia also may be important. While traditionally those citizens outside Latvia have had low participation rates (particularly the older post-war diaspora), there are numerous Latvians who have more recently come to other countries to work and who may have critical views on Latvia’s economic crisis and the reasons for it. If they vote—rather than shrugging off elections in a country that in many cases they feel they have been forced to leave—their vote may well have an impact.

In this election the overriding issue must be to maintain Latvia’s western orientation and support for Latvian cultural values, particularly language. While Unity may have been lacklustre in the campaign, its ability to take on government during the most difficult phase for Latvia is now bearing fruit as Latvia’s economy is edging significantly closer to recovery. Unity’s concern with corruption and with effective bureaucracy is also a plus. Everything depends on whether this message can get across the barrage of criticism and hypocritical posturing of those who are most responsible for leading Latvia into its financial crisis.

With less than two months before the Oct. 2 Saeima election, Latvian politics is emerging from the respite of a warm summer. All lists of party candidates have now been finalised and some clear battle lines for the election have been drawn.

This election will be unusually decisive in Latvian politics, for two reasons. First, we have the strong showing of the Russia-leaning Harmony Centre (Saskaņas centrs), which is the ruling party in Rīga now and which threatens to dominate in the new Saeima, potentially for the first time bringing a basically non-Latvian party into government. The strength of this party, which has led all opinion polls for several months, is the newest element in the political mix that has also brought about realignments in other parties.

Secondly, the poor fortunes of two previously leading parties—the People’s Party (Tautas partija) and the First Party of Latvia (Latvijas Pirmā partija), widely seen as responsible for the economic mismanagement that led the country to its present financial woes—have brought them together in a new formation, For a Good Latvia! (Par Labu Latviju!, or PLL), in a desperate attempt to survive with any deputies at all in the next Saeima.

This alliance also reflects a wider move to forming alliances among Latvian parties. Three centre-right parties have joined together to form Unity (Vienotība), whose Valdis Dombrovskis is the current prime minister. The two nationalist parties, the veteran For Fatherland and Freedom (Tevzemei un Brīvībai / LNNK) and the very active new radical right party All for Latvia (Visu Latvijai), have also formed an alliance.

Traditionally, Latvian parties have always split and fragmented among themselves, but some of these alliances and reformulations bring new calculations.

Most significant is the need to form the PLL alliance. It is significant in that this is an alliance of two leading oligarchs—Ainārs Šlesers and Andris Šķēle—implicated completely in Latvia’s economic decline, but now artfully trying to hoodwink the public into believing that they are the solution, not the problem. They have formed an alliance publicised as AŠ², which has however been widely parodied and ridiculed. The alliance is determined to wrest power back from its reviled Vienotība. To regain power, the alliance is happy to think of a coalition with Harmony Centre. The alliance is also best chums with the quietest party in Latvian politics at the moment, the Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība, or ZZS), whose butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth stance disguises its close allegiance to Latvia’s other significant oligarch, Ventspils mayor Aivars Lembergs, and seeming willingness to be in coalition with anyone.

All these parties would love to get the upper hand over Vienotība, which despite its own political problems has been the most outspoken against corruption and favouring of oligarch interests. Yet with the radical shifts of party fortunes, particuarly PLL, pre-election calculations are still quite uncertian.

July polling results

Just how difficult it is to gauge the likely outcome is shown in a recent poll giving the July party ratings. A rather bold headline in the Aug. 7 edition of Diena announced it is likely that six parties will gain seats in the Saeima, headed by Harmony Centre with a whopping 30.2 percent of the vote. It was followed at some distance by the alliance Vienotība with 22.1 percent, the Green and Farmers at 20.1 percent, with a gap to the nationalist alliance All for Latvia and For Fatherland and Freedom at 7.1 percent. Two parties just scraped by with 6 percent of the vote: the PLL alliance and the Soviet remnant For Human Rights in a United Latvia (Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā, or PCTVL).

This would seem to signal triumph for Harmony Centre, and an easy coalition with their mates in PLL and ZZS at least. But looking more closely at the figures, we see some of Latvia’s political peculiarity. In actual voter responses, some 40 percent of those surveyed in this poll did not express a preference (21.5 percent of respondents said they had not made up their mind, while 18.5 percent announced they would not participate in the elections at all). Actual votes showed Harmony Centre at 18.1 percent, while PLL was at 3.8 percent and PCTVL at 3.6 percent, below the 5 percent necessary to get into the Saeima.

The figures above were got by extrapolating that all those undecided would split proportionally to those already decided. Yet other research has shown that there is a far greater number of those “undecided” among the Latvian electorate than the Russian. Those committed to Harmony Centre and PCTVL are more firmly established in their preferences. Just how the swinging Latvian voters will split between the various parties is anyone’s guess—the campaign still matters.

An opinion among many commenators has been that the forces behind the previous failed government that brought Latvia to the brink of financial crisis—particularly in the PLL alliance—will once again use their considerable publicity machinery to run a saturation campaign just before the elections, as they so successfully did in 2006.

Perhaps to forestall this, Vienotība, a party considered rather naïve in political tactics, took an initiative that promises some significant returns, but also brings its own dangers. It has launched a public campaign for voters to say who they would rather have as prime minister, Dombrovskis or Harmony Centre candidate Jānis Urbanovičs. This is a direct play on fears that the Russian-oriented Harmony Centre will become the biggest party in the new Saeima, and a call for Latvian voters to rally. Urbanovičs has become an odious figure in Latvian politics, with repeated pro-Russian and anti-Latvia statements, urging Latvia to assume pro-Moscow stances in trade and international affairs, and taking some of his opponents to court for suggesting he is anti-Latvia. No doubt the fear of this party coming to power has influenced Vienotība in this action, but it has also perhaps given Urbanovičs a deal of publicity he may otherwise not have got.

Understandably, other parties see this as an entirely presumptive move, as they also have candidates for prime minister, and in a politics of coalitions no candidate can presently be certain of office. Most ominously, however, PLL has not yet nominated a prime ministerial candidate. In a typical head-kicking statement, joint PLL leader Šlesers dismissed Vienotība’s survey as an indulgence, for on Aug. 12 PLL will announce who will be Latvia’s next prime minister! He announced a massive campaign would bring success to his alliance at the elections.

This brings us to an exquisite moment in politics. At present, the Saeima as constituted with a large PLL contingent has been quite capable of undermining Dombrovskis’ government, for example, by scandalously not reappointing Chief Prosecutor Jānis Maizītis, or delaying other needed legislation. But on Oct, 2, this same PLL will be fighting for its very existence as a parliamentary presence. If PLL does get in, has it already made a behind-the-scenes deal concerning the next goverment? The next two months will be exceedingly intense.