Hundreds march to honor Legion, while protesters attack fascism

Gājiens uz Brīvibas pieminekli

Between 500 and 1,000 persons took part in the March 16 march to the Freedom Monument. (Photo by Arnis Gross)

An estimated 500 to 1,000 persons in downtown Rīga took part in a controversial March 16 commemoration of the Latvian Legion, according to media reports and eyewitnesses. The event included a march to the Freedom Monument to honor soldiers who fell during World War II while fighting against the Soviet Union.

They were countered by protesters who carried signs and shouted slogans against the commemoration, which they argue glorified fascism and the Latvian Legion’s ties to Nazi Germany. Among the protesters was well-known Nazi-hunter Efraim Zuroff, who was in Rīga attending a conference on the rebirth of neo-Nazism.

The annual event is meant to commemorate veterans of the two Latvian Legion divisions that fought on the side of Nazi Germany. The Germans organized the divisions in 1943. About 100,000 men, the majority of them drafted, served in the Latvian Legion. A number of ethnic Latvian politicians have distanced themselves from the commemoration, which is not an official observance, while many ethnic Russians view the event as an affront to Soviet soldiers who against Nazi forces.

As they did last year, Rīga city officials had banned the march and counter-demonstration. However, on March 15 the Rīga District Court overruled the ban. The march was organized by the veterans group Daugavas Vanagi Latvijā, which the counter-demonstration was planned by Latvijas Antifašistiskā komiteja.

Under heavy police presence and freshly fallen snow, the marchers moved from the Dome Square in the city’s Old Town, where they attended a service in the Dome Church, to the Freedom Monument.

A few persons were arrested for minor civil disturbances, and some for making anti-Semitic statements, according to media reports.

Interior Minister Linda Mūrniece thanked security and police workers for guaranteeing that March 16 events took place in a peaceful and orderly manner. Their success, she said in a press release, was in due in part to preventative measures taken before the march and demonstrations, including stopping unwelcome persons entering Latvia.

Antifašisti

Counter-demonstrators held signs recalling the numbers of people killed during the Holocaust in Latvia. (Photo by Arnis Gross)

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.

Unity has potential, but faces rocky road

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.

Story of Minstere documented in detailed book

Minsteres latviešu ģimnāzija izdzīvoja

About a decade after Minsteres latviešu ģimnazija (MLĢ) closed its doors, Alberts Spoģis has complied a history of the alma mater of exiled Latvians from around the globe. Minsteres latviešu ģimnāzija izdzīvoja, published in October 2009, tells the story of a one-of-a-kind institution and the only full-time Latvian-language secondary school outside of Latvia.

MLĢ was, in fact, a relic of the Displaced Persons camps in Germany during and after World War II. For a few years almost every camp had a school of its own. One by one they closed down as the Latvian refugees began emigrating to other countries in the late 1940s. The remaining resources were consolidated into one school in Detmold-Augustdorf, and in 1957 that school moved to Münster, or Minstere in Latvian. MLĢ suffered from a lack of facilities, a lack of supplies, a lack of money, and sometimes also a lack of students. But, as the title of the book says, it survived—often on determination and idealism alone.

In 1964 the first student from another continent began attending MLĢ, and by the end of that decade the growing number of students from the United States, Canada, England, Sweden and Australia seeking a super-Latvian education had transformed MLĢ from a school designed primarily for Latvians living in Germany to a school belonging to the whole global community of Latvian exiles. Some say MLĢ provided only a mediocre education, but no one disagrees that what it ended up doing best was to cultivate national pride and keep alive the hopes of an exile community. If MLĢ was often “just school” for the students from Germany, for the community abroad it became the pinnacle of Latvian exile education. Many illustrious individuals and future leaders of Latvian exile society, not to mention just plain colorful characters, graduated from MLĢ, and a disproportionately large number of its former students and employees now live in Latvia.

So much for a summary of the school’s history and mission. Readers who wish to know all the ups and downs and ins and outs will have plenty of reading material in this book written and compiled by Spoģis, a long-time teacher and board member at MLĢ, as well as a poet and the father of several graduates.

Spoģis’ writing style is modest and matter-of-fact. After a very detailed first section (which includes comments about curriculum, tuition rates and even teachers’ salaries during the school’s first years), it seems as if he steps completely into the background and hands the narration of the school’s story over to the press of the day. The bulk of the book consists of articles from newspapers and newsletters, summaries of meetings, and pieces by teachers, students, and the school administration. However, readers may instinctively begin looking at the lists at the end of the book of graduates, teachers, administration, dorm counselors and even kitchen help —and, of course, the pictures. The pictures show all possible graduating classes and school boards, as well as sports teams, concerts, theaters productions, and other activities. They are all black-and-white and some are much too grainy, but an author works with what’s available.

Minsteres latviešu ģimnāzija izdzīvoja is laid out chronologically, with accounts of programs, seminars, concerts, theaters, festivals, graduates, scholarships, speeches, meetings, sports events (even chess tournaments), finances, changes in the school and staff, its relationship to and support from the German government, and other significant events. It seems as if every article that ever appeared in the Latvian press about MLĢ has been reprinted in this book. That said, the book does not pretend to be a complete history but rather a wide-ranging testimony. Most readers, however, will probably not read the book cover to cover. Instead, they’ll jump around and read those articles that pertain to them in whatever way. Here and there they’ll find a gem of an article. The memorials to deceased students and teachers are particularly touching, but so are the quirky reminders that, for example, in November 1980 a group of MLĢ students traveled to Mainz to see and meet Pope John Paul II, in 1989 four students wrote and performed the darkly philosophical play “Jezidija,” and much thought went into deciding on a style for the furnishings in the bar (yes, a bar that served alcohol) on the lower level of the school building.

Beyond the accounts of staff and organizational meetings, the retrospects written by former directors of the school, such as Eduards Silkalns and Ilga Grava, give a more personal glimpse into the school. Grava also dares to touch on the complications, negative attitudes and internal politics that are inevitable in tight-knit communities, as well as the difficulty in mixing and merging students from different countries and backgrounds.

This miracle of a school—it’s a miracle it survived, both financially and ideologically—graduated 53 groups of students and finally closed its doors for good on June 20, 1998. By that time it was no longer catering to the exile community, but rather to teenagers straight from Latvia. Ironically (and very appropriately), it was the fulfillment of MLĢ‘s ideological goal—Latvia regaining its independence—that ultimately forced it to close. Despite the 527-page length and sometimes tedious reading, Minsteres latviešu ģimnāzija izdzīvoja provides good documentation of a legend. I’m happy Spoģis wrote it and I’m glad I have a copy.

Details

Minsteres latviešu ģimnāzija izdzīvoja

Alberts Spoģis

Rīga:  Valters un Rapa,  2009

ISBN 978-9984-805-68-9