This week, the Istanbul Convention once again overshadowed all other developments on Latvia’s political stage — from the approval of the state budget in its first reading to the early outlines of a possible new government. What exactly makes the Istanbul Convention such a lasting focal point of public attention? To find out, BNN spoke with political scientist Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of the company Mediju tilts.
According to Rajevskis, The Progressives have successfully elevated the Convention — one of the key symbols of their ideology — to a new level in the eyes of part of Latvian society. “None of their opponents, nor those who voted for the denouncement of the Convention, expected this. They underestimated The Progressives’ ability to turn the Convention into a symbol,” Rajevskis explains.
He points out that there has been almost no discussion about what the Convention actually says or about domestic violence, which remains a serious issue in Latvia. “At the rallies, people talk more about the symbolic meaning of the Convention rather than the real problems of domestic violence, which continue to exist in this country. This has allowed The Progressives to unite both their voter base and people who are genuinely concerned about the unresolved and neglected issue of domestic violence. That has created this substantial and noticeable wave of activism,” he notes.
The political scientist emphasizes that nothing has been done to address domestic violence either before or after the ratification of the Istanbul Convention. “Even the supporters of the Convention admitted during debates, citing statistics, that no tangible progress has been made. The Convention has not been denounced —
the issue has merely been postponed until the next Saeima, and most likely, nothing will be done again.”
Rajevskis warns that the most troubling aspect is that in the next parliamentary elections, the focus will likely be on the Convention itself, not on substantive action to reduce domestic violence. “Only political parties that genuinely begin addressing this issue — not just shouting slogans at rallies — will be capable of changing that,” he says.
Asked how he views the President’s decision to leave the issue of denouncing the Istanbul Convention to the next Saeima, Rajevskis explains that the President’s role in this case is to do everything possible to prevent division and ensure that the parliament remains functional. “By law, the President cannot propose the dissolution of the Saeima if less than a year remains before elections. Therefore, Edgars Rinkēvičs, as President, has a duty to ensure that both the parliament and the government remain functional so that the state can continue to operate. What happened around the Convention — and what left-leaning progressive forces were aiming for —
was an attempt to polarize society and make the state apparatus dysfunctional.”
Responding to a question about whether the prompt agreement by the National Alliance and United List to defer the Convention issue to the next Saeima indicates their willingness to “jump off” from addressing this uncomfortable matter, Rajevskis explains that the key, which still seems not to have been fully considered, is to understand how their voters view this position.
“The President opened the door for them to step out of this situation — and they did. Neither the National Alliance nor the United List felt comfortable with a situation in which this symbolic document was being tied almost directly to Latvia’s EU membership and NATO security commitments, which was highly irresponsible on the part of the ruling party,” Rajevskis concludes.
Read also: In Latvia – at least 10,000 people gather at Dome Square to protest against withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention