Do not cherish the illusion that politicians are some special “saints” who are significantly different from the rest of society. They are the same people and made of the same clay. At the same time, it would be an even bigger mistake to excuse them for that. Politicians should be asked more than others. That’s the only way we can move forward.
At the moment, the question of the fate of “Unity” as a political flagship, and thus also of the sustainability of the current leading coalition, is coming to the fore. Voices are increasingly being heard that the time of “Unity” has passed. It is time to go on the same path that such parties as the Democratic Party “Saimnieks”, “Latvijas ceļs”, the People’s Party and even before them – the mother of Latvian political parties – the People’s Front of Latvia. How justified are these predictions?
If we talk about “Unity”, then despite the carefully created image of this party – as a serious, European, honest and therefore “light forces” party – it has also demonstrated questionable political moral behavior in the past. Let’s remember Dzintars Zakis’ vote buying, buses with voters who were so drunk on the way to the polling station that they could hardly reach the ballot box, the money (the so-called “tumbočkas”) of the party’s general secretary (that is, financial administrator and case manager) Artas Kamparas ” case), and the crown of all – the entry of the party leader Solvitas Āboltinas into the Saeima, gaining the mandate of the deputy Jānis Junkurs who left before her (Hong Kong case).
For any other party, such amount of stains on the political uniform would have been enough for it to end up in the container of those soiled parties that cannot be washed off, but “Unity” maintains amazing invulnerability. What is commonly referred to as Teflon resistance. At the same time, the most experienced political observers draw parallels with the decline of the “Latvian Way”, when workers from different wings of this party walked around the media, PR offices, cafes and other places where political intrigue was made, telling each other blue-green miracles. Are the grave bells really ringing for “Unity”, as many detractors of this party would like to hear?
Any historical parallels and analogies are incomplete. Nothing repeats itself identically. Situations are always different, so these analogies can be very misleading. The main difference between the “Latvian road” of the turn of the century and the “Unity” of the moment is the absence of an equivalent alternative. “Latvia’s way” was not killed by the so-called flyer scandal. It was killed by the undisguised love of Sarmīte Ālerte, the editor-in-chief of the extremely influential (known as the Ministry of Truth) newspaper “Diena” for Andri Škēli and the People’s Party led by him. The People’s Party in this edition (which served as a beacon of the right course for many) was declared the best, most progressive, most correct party, and every “right” thinking person was honored to vote for the “Oranges”.
The fact that Šēle and his party were once in the vanguard of the “powers of light” is hard for political observers of the younger generation to imagine, but that’s exactly how it was. “Latvijas ceļs”, losing the status of a nomenclature party, simply went out of fashion. At that time, the still relatively young, energetic and therefore promising Šēle came into vogue with its team of breakthrough bidders.
What do we see now? There is no one “up and coming”. No one promises any quick breakthrough and prosperity, because people have already been disappointed by these promises so many times that they no longer believe in them. There is nothing to take away the status of the nomenclature party “Unity”. There is no substitute for this party on the political scene. Even remotely.
With Viktor Valaini at the head of ZZS, you can talk as much as you want. You can support the Istanbul Convention, you can agree with everything that Brussels, Washington and the Riga Palace say, but this will not make this party one of the eternally “correct” ones.
But what about the “Progressives”? Can’t they then be considered the young, promising ones who will introduce a new political culture, a new way of thinking and a world vision? “Progressives” is an ideologically based party with its own principles and ideals. Many may not like and even hate them, but this party has its own ideology, which means it has a certain niche in the political spectrum. “Progressives” cannot take the place of the nomenclature party, whose ideology is “whatever song is needed at the given moment, we sing that one”. Of course, there is no shortage of people in the “Progressives” who are there only for their career and would be ready to adjust their beliefs as needed, but we are not talking about individuals here, but about the party as a specific unit.
If we look at the current opposition, there are no political forces that claim to be number one on the field. This applies to both the “Joint List” and the National Association. Both of these forces can be an alternative to another list, but not the leading and driving force. At least for now. NA, like the “Progressives”, also has its own principles, moreover, with its long-term renunciation of claims to lead the government, it already automatically places itself among the second-rank political forces.
If we look at very recent history, “Vienotība” experienced an even more severe crisis in 2017-2018. in the year when the party was close to dissolution and won a mere seven seats in the 13th Saeima elections. However, this did not prevent “Vienotība” from taking the lead, and Kariņas managed to position himself as a completely meaningful leader against the background of Gobzems, Kaimins, Bordāns, Feldmans and Pavļuts. True, when the clowns of the 13th Saeima left the stage and a different combination of forces was already formed in the 14th Saeima, it was revealed that Kariņš was an inflated balloon, and his leadership collapsed at the moment when immediately after the presidential elections things did not go as he had planned.
It is clear that the “black stripe” of “Unity” will have an impact on the upcoming European Parliament elections. “Unity” is unlikely to achieve the success it once had. It is likely to win only one seat, but these are matters that mainly affect only the participants in the process themselves. Latvian society is much more interested in what will happen to the current government of Evikas Silina and the ruling coalition.
Based on the above, it is difficult to see any real threats to the stability of the Silina government. Almost all the accusations that fall on “Unity” in the public space are focused on past events. All these “sins” cast a shadow on the “Unity” of the time before Silina, but she herself and her government are not affected. Dirty Kariņš has already been successfully removed from the government, and Silina is “clean” again. Therefore, it can even be said that “Unity” itself is almost pure. True, only almost.
Sometimes there are rumors that budget consolidation is ahead, the preparation of next year’s budget, which could exacerbate internal tension in the government. For now, it is difficult to see even minimal cracks in the existing coalition monolith. Even more, the parties do not try to preen their feathers with the failures of other parties, which is quite a rare case, although there are opportunities. We are talking about the already mentioned problems of “Unity”, as well as the unsuccessful statements of individual “Progressive” ministers, or even the problems of the entire sector (Ministry of Transport).
At the moment, the issue of migration has come up again, which in various variations will be on the agenda not only in the coming months and years, but threatens to become a central issue in the long term (if the danger of war subsides). However, the coalition parties do not have insurmountable contradictions in this matter either. At least because its restrained and cautious attitude towards immigration flows, which until recently was contemptuously called xenophobia, has already entered the acceptable range of political culture in today’s Europe. This means that the “Progressives” also do not strictly advocate an “open door” policy and compromises are possible. They probably won’t satisfy those who want a complete suspension of immigration, but they will be completely acceptable to the ruling, just in case, center-left coalition.
However, the main cementing factor of the coalitions is that the next Saeima elections are still far away, so the opportunities provided by being in power should be used to the full extent. There is no need to fight for better positions in the pre-election finish sprint. Therefore, the answer to the question posed in the title – political crisis or mild turbulence – is: rather mild turbulence, which does not particularly affect the distribution of political roles.
Be the first to find out what interesting has happened in Latvia and the world by joining us on the Telegram or Whatsapp channel
