With the Saeima election still some five months away, the jockeying for position among Latvia’s political parties is heating up. This comes in the farcical context where several major parties that hate the Valdis Dombrovskis-led minority government and who could throw it out—but who do not want the responsibility of governing themselves—constantly try to weaken it to boost their own electoral chances.

The concern is that the forces that led Latvia into its present plight are resolutely determined that their self-made disaster should not stop their holding on to power. Alliances are forming as previously discredited parties try to grapple with the relative popularity of the present minority government leaders—the Unity (Vienotība) coalition—and Dombrovskis continues to enjoy public trust.

AŠ² is the new brand for two politicans whose initials coincide.

Andris Šķēle is founder of the People’s Party (Tautas partija) and is an influential businessman who is widely described as an oligarch. He has twice served as prime minister. He returned to politics early this year when his party was hitting rock bottom in the polls, marooned on around 2 percent of the vote. His return to politics has not helped the party in the polls at all, so an alliance has been formed with the other AŠ, Ainārs Šlesers.

Šlesers is leader of the First Party of Latvia (Latvijas Pirmā partija, or LPP) and vice mayor of Rīga, long one of the hardest and most disreputable politicians in Latvia. He is author of the “pedal to the floor” (“gāze grīdā”) ecoonomic policy of growth at all costs, which for several years saw strong gains but came to a catastrophic end with the global financial crisis. As the previous minister for transport, Šlesers left behind a litany of expensive major projects with money missing and charges of corruption. Undeterred, Šlesers continues to promote himself as a “doer,” and his ceaseless political manipulations are aimed clearly at gaining the prime ministership.

Despite Šlesers’ own personal and party success in Rīga, in the national polls LPP is also under the 5 percent barrier, so its coming together with the People’s Party makes sense. As the People’s Party has now formally left the coaltion government, while hypocritically promising to do nothing to undermine it, the two parties are free to develop their strategy and will start in coalition in the elections.

AŠ², like several other parties, is developing a close relationship with the Moscow-oriented Harmony Centre (Saskaņas centrs, or SC), which currently holds the mayorship of Rīga through the popular Nils Ušakovs. Harmony Centre is vying for leadership in the national polls with around 16 percent of the vote, about the same as Vienotība.

Also keen to be friendly to SC is another party presently in the government coalition, the Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība, or ZZS), one of Latvia’s traditional parties, but largely still the party of previous Soviet nomenklatura. The party is holding its own in the polls through its wide representation at the regional and local government level. A major coup for this party was in successfully opposing the reappointment of Chief Prosecutor Juris Maizītis, who has been long investigating controversial oligarch Aivars Lembergs, mayor of Ventspils, who is the party’s candidate for prime minister.

Meanwhile, on the right, For Fatherland and Freedom (Tevzemei un brīvībai, or LNNK/TB) is also facing annihilation at the elections and has formed an alliance with the radical nationalist All for Latvia (Visu Latvijai). Visu Latvijai has been a very active and aggressive party, but is dogged by controversy and accused in Europe of having Nazi sympathies. This nationalist block has some hope of getting into the Saeima, but relations with Vienotība are cool after Vienotība rejected TB/LNNK’s approach to join it. And Vienotība will not have a bar of Visu Latvijai.

The parties of ZZS, the People’s Party and LPP see themselves as forming an integrated elite, destined to rule in post-Soviet Latvia, with close links to business (hence each having an iconic oligarch) and indeed seeing politics as just one arm of self-aggrandisment. Their aim is to form the next governemt, without the help of Harmony Centre, thus marginalising Vienotība even if, as currently possible, Vienotība will be the largest party in the Saeima.

The coming months will see a massive propaganda effort against the Dombrovskis government, arguing it has done nothing for people, is beholden to Western banks and interests, and capitalising on any inability to deliver policy—an inability precisely as a result of their coalition partners’ or ex-partners’ undermining.

The stakes are very high, not only for this October election but for the future of Latvia. Vienotība will indeed have a fight on its hands.

Latvia wins in European Court of Human Rights

Despite the continuing economic gloom, one recent event has restored something of Latvia’s credibility internationally. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on May 17 supported Latvia and overturned a previous ruling from its sectional court.

The case concerned Vasily Kononov, a Soviet partizan veteran who had been sentenced by Latvian courts to a short period of imprisonment for his part in a World War II action when, dressed in German uniforms, his company in 1944 killed several civilians suspected of collaborating with the Nazis, including burning several men and women alive. Kononov had appealed his case up to the European court, with the question whether Latvia had the powers to try a person for war crimes in these circumstances, particularly in light of the passing of time and the lack of any relevant war crimes legislation at the time the action took place.

In a lengthy judgment, the court in meticulous detail went over the ground of conduct of military personnel in war, and agreed that Latvia did have the right to prosecute in this case, as all miliatary personnel have long been subject to international laws of conduct, and that lack of war crimes legislation is immaterial.

The case settled that even those on the side of the “victors” can be held responsible for war crimes, that military personnel are responsible for their actions, and that there is no time limit to war crime prosecution.

The outcome brought a strong reaction from Moscow, which had been a participating party in the case, and which has been on the losing end of several other high-profile court decisions, particularly in relation to Chechyna. Demonstrations against Latvia were held in Russia. The Latvian government played down the result, seeking not to inflame feelings.

Interestingly, the result was also played down by Harmony Centre. Although some individuals in this pro-Russian party expressed disappointment at the decision, the party as such expressed no strong criticism, a clear attempt to boost its credentials as a responsible party that Latvians need not fear.

How much this party will be feared or not in the coming months will be another crucial factor in the October election.

An eerie calm has settled over the Latvian political scene since one of the most scandalous moments in recent Latvian political history: the voting in the Saeima (Parliament) against the reappointment of Chief Prosecutor Jānis Maizītis.

For those used to more predictable parliamentary process, the sheer lying and hypocrisy of the April 15 vote comes as a shock, but also serves as a salutary reminder of the realities of Latvian politics.

Maizītis has served as chief prosecutor for the past 10 years, during which time a number of high-ranking persons have been successfully prosecuted for corruption or other criminal matters, and several others are still awaiting trial. Most conspicuous among them is Ventspils Mayor Aivars Lembergs, who is one of Latvia’s most influential oligarchs and is favoured as a candidate for prime minister by the Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība, or ZZS). The manipulations of Lembergs’ supporters were decisive on this occasion.

The chief prosecutor is voted on by the Saeima after being nominated by the chief justice, and the candidature is discussed by the Saeima Judicial Committee, which in this case unanimously supported Maizītis’ candidature. All except two factions in the Saeima had also declared their support for Maizītis, with the ZZS and the First Party of Latvia (Latvijas Pirmā Partija, or LPP) not voicing any criticism of Maizītis and declaring their deputies had a free vote on the issue.

Yet in the secret ballot of the 100-seat Saeima (the standard procedure for such appointments), 45 members of parliament voted for his appointment and 47 against. It is also significant that at no stage was there ever a single word spoken by any MP as to why Maizītis may not be a suitable candidate. This was a well-orchestrated manoeuvre, which also had its precedent. Last year, a well-credentialed candidate for the Supreme Court, Māris Vīgants, was also voted against by the Saeima after public expressions of support for him. Vīgants’ apparent demerit was that he was the lower court judge who refused to grant Lembergs bail at the beginning of his prosecution process, leaving Lembergs in custody.

The wider political implications

The vote on Maizītis was followed by a spectacular display of politicians blaming each other for going against their publicly stated positions.

According to highly regarded journalist and commentator Aivars Ozoliņš, the vote showed how the present minority governemt of Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis is really a prisoner of a highly capricious and well-organised would-be coalition of several factions, including ZZS and the People’s Party (Tautas partija, or TP),  which are part of the government coalition. The TP, the party formerly most powerful in the Saeima, has commenced talks on forming a coalition with oligarch Ainars Šlesers’ LPP. Both TP and LPP are showing an increasing cosiness with the Russia-oriented Harmony Centre (Saskaņas centrs). The TP and LPP are facing potential annihilation at the October Saeima election. They are each polling only around 2-3 percent of the vote, below the 5 percent needed to gain parliamentary representation, and their only way forward is to combine, discredit the government (even from within the ranks of the present coalition government), run a huge publicity campaign, and thus manipulate their way to power after the elections, marginalising Dombrovskis’ Unity Party (Vienotība) even if that party (as recent polls indicate) will do well in the elections.

With only five months to run to the election, it seems unlikely that there will be an overthrow of the Dombrovskis minority government. Just before the Maizītis debacle, Dombrovskis’ attempt to gain a majority government fell short when his offer to the LPP to join the coalition was rejected, though Šlesers did say he would not destabilise the government—a dubious promise, as it turned out. Rather than overthrow Dombrovskis and have to take the responsibity for Latvia’s financial woes, the government’s enemies see more value in undermining the government by showing its inability to get its measures adopted, use the Saeima capriciously and bluff their way into power.

Dombrovskis is not easily shaken, has held his nerve through numerous crises, and his own genuine calm in working thorough problems seems to have allayed more ferocious criticism of his government, while his Unity continues to hold the lead in monthly polls. However, with 15 percent unemployment and a continuing flow of people leaving the country to seek work elsewhere, Latvia’s economy is still shaky. The problems in Greece and Europe generally threaten to dent all European economies, and that perhaps is the biggest challenge to the present government.

The political calendar in May

May is the month when two dates show the extreme oppposites of Latvian politics. On May 4, the country celebrated the 20th anniversary of the declaration of sovereignty, a moment stark in the memories of those in Latvia but perhaps less well recognised outside it. While Latvia was still a part of the Soviet Union, in early 1990 the first relatively free elections to the Supreme Soviet—the parliament in the Soviet system—resulted in a majority of People’s Front (Tautas fronte) deputies being elected. On May 4, 1990, they passed a resolution asserting Latvia’s sovereignty, beginning the moves that culminated in the formal declaration of independence on Aug. 21, 1991, during the anti-Gorbachev putsch in Moscow. The May 4 resolution was achieved under enormous pressure, with heavy criticism from Moscow and the rump of still-Communist deputies. It was followed by a surrounding of the Supreme Soviet building by Soviet army troops and a tense standoff with independence supporters.

On May 9, the end of World War II is celebrated in Russia (one day after Western Europe marks the end of the war) , and is marked too by hardline pro-Russian supporters with often rather drunken celebrations in Rīga at the Soviet victory monument, thankfully on the other side of the Daugava river to central Rīga. A controversial moment has been the participation by Latvian President Valdis Zatlers in the celebrations in Moscow on that day (Estonian and Lithuanian presidents were not there). The question of how Latvia should respond to this date has long been a vexing issue, but goes well beyond simply marking of this date. In Latvia there are battles in many areas—from school curriculum to official support and payment for public events—between essentially two different versions of history, represented by these two dates.

The Dombrovskis government must balance firm handling of relations with Russia with an awareness of the strength of pro-Russian political parties—and their opportunistic potential allies among Latvian parties.

It is a race to the October elections betweeen a minority government seeking to make the most of its desire to not walk away from the economic realities of contemporary Latvia, and a series of opponents who will do anything to undermine it while on the surface feigning a desire for stability. It will be a desperate race.

The formation of the new alliance Unity (Vienotība) on March 6 from three major centre-right parties to campaign in the coming Oct. 3 parliamentary election has been long awaited.

The three parties are:

• New Era (Jaunais laiks), the party of Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, formed originally by former Bank of Latvia director Einars Repše.
• Civil Union (Pilsoniskā savienība), formed by breakaway members from New Era and from the nationalist For Fatherland and Freedom Party (Tēvzemei un brīvībai / LNNK).
• Society for a Different Politics (Sabiedrība citai politikai), formed by breakaway members from the Peoples Party (Tautas partija).

Unity of these groups has been talked about since early 2009, and a formal announcement of desire to unify came last August, but they went about the unification slowly, each still retaining a separate identity.

The desire to unite centre-right forces has strong economic and political motives. Economically, the Dombrovskis government has been faced with enormously unpopular decisions to reduce government spending and bring about structural reform to show Latvia’s credibility to overseas investors, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund. The latter two bailed out Latvia with long-term loans, whose repayments will cause even more budgetary pain in the future. With the present uncertain coalition government, and interested parties continually blocking reform of the tax system and other necessary economic moves, the outlook remains bleak unless a strong majority in the next Saeima can support necessary change.

The political reasons are even more compelling. The Latvian political scene has long been characterised by a senseless rivalry between many centre and centre-right parties with seemingly indistinguishable policies, but fierce personal antagonisms that make coalitions unstable and unification impossible. Many Latvian parties, it must be said, are not parties in a traditional Western sense of uniting people with common interests or social positions. Rather, they have been organisations formed by individual leaders to further their political ambitions with little regard for their members or ostensible party platforms.

What the polls show

The immediate necessity for the three parties to form Unity, however, comes mainly from the very good showing of the pro-Moscow party Harmony Centre (Saskaņas centrs), particularly in the Rīga municipal elections in which the party gained the largest vote and now rules in coalition with the First Party of Latvia (Latvijas Pirmā partija). Harmony Centre’s success has made its leadership very confident of a successful showing in the Saeima elections. Given the fracturing of the centre and right, Harmony Centre has now for several years been the leading party in the monthly ratings (scoring 18.5 percent in February) and it is angling for a place in any coalition government after the October elections.

Meanwhile, other parties currently well represented in the Saeima are in crisis, as recent polling shows. The People’s Party, the largest party in the Saeima and the party of former Prime Minister Aigars Kalvītis, is stuck at around 3 percent approval among potential voters. (Parties need 5 percent of the vote to gain a place in the Saeima.) The First Party of Latvia, which was also in previous coalition governments, is hovering around the 2 percent mark despite its relative success in Rīga. And For Fatherland and Freedom, a nationalist party that is widely seen to have compromised itself by having been in all coalition governments as Latvia descended into recession, also is stuck on 3 percent. Of the other present coalition parties, only the Union of Greens and Farmers looks safe with 9 percent.

Of the three parties in Unity, New Era is placed second after Harmony Centre with 10 percent of the vote. Civil Union has just more than 5 percent but had a very strong showing in last year’s Europarliament elections. Society for a Different Politics gained just less than 3 percent. Arithmetically, this brings these three parties more or less level with SC, but of course Unity believes that their joining together will stimulate far greater support from many disaffected voters who have long complained there is no one to vote for. More than 20 percent of voters are still undecided, while 16 percent said in February that they will not participate in the elections. The next monthly polls will be watched with great interest.

Still problems ahead

It will not be plain sailing for Unity. Three questions above all will test the alliance, First, there are questions about other parties possibly joining the alliance. For Fatherland and Freedom seems to have run its race as an independent nationalist party and would be a candidate for joining, but there are disagreements among Unity members about taking on the whole party. Some members are concerned with its compromising economic and political decisions in previous coalitions, others with ultra-nationalist elements that constitute part of the party. Other potential candidates include various smaller regional parties as well as the country’s oldest party, the Latvian Social Democratic Workers Party, which favoured by some in Unity but opposed by others because of corruption incidents.

A second questions is that the alliance now features several extremely strong leaders in each party, and it has been primarily personal conflicts among potential leaders that have done much to undo party unity in the past. This will be an extremely important issue to negotiate, so that the focus can be on policies and a common front rather than individual personalities. This is an enormous test for any alliance in Latvian politics. (A cattier version of the same question is that there are too many strong females, who will fall out among themselves: Solvita Āboltiņa (New Era), Sandra Kalniete (Civil Union) and others must show their common cause is greater that individual ambition, not least to help rid Latvia of sexist prejudices.)

Finally, the economic crisis and the unpopular dcisions taken will be seen as the responsibility of the present government, headed by Dombrovskis’ New Era, with Civil Union in the coalition, and this presents dangers on two fronts. First, the coalition is unsteady, with coalition partner People’s Party in particular trying repeatedly to destabilise the government for its own political purposes. Second, even if the government does survive to October, the question remains how well Unity can convince the electorate that there must be continued economic discipline and even more pain to pull Latvia out if its economic quagmire, given that other parties will mount massive and relentless campaians to discredit this direction.

The coming of Unity has great potential to revitalise Latvian politics, but it will be a rocky road.