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.

Representing Latvia in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest in Oslo, Norway, will be singer Aisha performing the song “What For.” Let’s hope her voice improves by the time of the competition.

A total of 39 nations will compete in the contest, scheduled May 25-29. Last year in Moscow, the Belarus-born Alexander Rybak represented Norway and won easily with the hopeful song “Fairytale.”

Eirodziesma, the Latvian national contest to decide who would be sent to Oslo, took place Feb. 27 in Ventspils. For the first time, Latvian State Television provided a stream of the concert via the Internet through the official Eurovision Web site.

Aisha, the stage name of Aija Andrejeva, went into the contest as one of the favorites.

The music for “What For” was written by Jānis Lūsēns and the lyrics by Guntars Račs—both successful songsmiths.

The performances in Eirodziesma were evaluated by a five-person jury and by televoting from across Latvia.

Here’s what I saw and heard on the Internet stream.

The first to perform was the group PeR—three men named Pēteris Upelnieks, Edmunds Rasmanis and Ralfs Eilands. They sang “Like a Mouse,”  which was penned by Mārtiņš Freimanis. The tune had a 1950s American sound to it, but the performance lacked something. The vocals seemed a bit off.

Next up was Triānas parks with “Lullaby for My Dreammate (Diamond Lullaby),” led by singer Agnese Rakovska. This was the third time the alternative group has performed in Eirodziesma. If nothing else, Triānas parks puts some thought into its stage presence, but the song didn’t move me.

Aisha’s voice on “What For” was off key. The stage presence was odd, too. Aisha seemed dressed like a Greek goddess and she was surrounded by a trio of women hand-washing clothes. Facebook followers of the broadcast also were not kind to her. “What for are we listening,” one viewer asked.

Lauris Reiniks’ smooth voice on “Your Morning Lullaby” was pleasant even if the song sounded somewhat derivative. Of course, it wouldn’t be a Eurovision contest without derivative songs.

“My Religion is Freedom,” performed by Dons, was the fifth entry. The song, the most up-tempo up to that point, could certainly be a contender in Eurovision. Singing about freedom just seems to go well with a pan-European television event. However, I have never liked Dons. He can sing, but his stage presence is just creepy.

Is weird any better than creepy? “Digi digi dong,” performed by Konike Project, was supposedly a song in the ancient Konike language. Yeah, right. I could not get past the group’s strange tree costumes.

“It’s amazingly awful,” complained one Facebook follower. “Seriously, are there any decent artists left in Latvia. Or were there any at all? That’s a good question.”

H2O with “When I Close My Eyes” offered a return to something a bit more normal. Unfortunately, lead singer Jānis Strapcāns’ voice was terrible. One Facebook viewer correctly noted that he sounded like the lead singer for Crash Test Dummies, but way off base. Adding a couple of back-up singers in traditional Latvian folk costume did not help. And a note to the lyricist: It should be “When I was a young boy.” Why do Latvians insist on dropping the indefinite and definite articles when speaking and writing English?

Kristīne Kārkle-Puriņa’s performance of the Livonian-language “Rišti rašti” was nice. However, I could not see the song making its way into Eurovision. I would rather that Kārkle-Puriņa use her powerful voice to sing a more up-tempo song.

Ivo Grīsniņš-Grīslis had a nice pop song with “Because I Love You.” Finally, I thought, a tune that might just stand a chance in Oslo. It was his second time in Eirodziesma. Last year he performed with Iveta Baumane.

“Snow in July,” sung by Kristīna Zaharova, closed out the entries. The song was acceptable, but Zaharova lacked stage presence. Several Facebook viewers even panned her for wearing jeans. Zaharova, like Rybak born in Belarus, last year performed in both Latvia’s and Ireland’s national competitions.

Following the initial performances, three “super finalists” were named: Dons, Grīsniņš-Grīslis and Aisha. All three got to take the stage again. Unfortunately for Aisha, her voice sounded no better than the first time, but that didn’t stop the televoters and the jury from naming her the winner.

Aisha probably will not win in Oslo, but I don’t expect that she will fail, either. If she can improve her delivery, Aisha could just show “what for” Latvia continues to participate in Eurovision.