Last week, it became known about fraud in information technology procurements worth 1.5 million euros, as well as the decision that votes in the Saeima elections scheduled for this autumn will be counted manually. The concerns raised by the President of Latvia about the risks of interference related to information technologies are not trivial. Even more so when recalling the failure of these same IT system developers during last summer’s municipal elections. Even if one assumes that the winner was already known in advance, the question of the implementers’ “clumsy work” does not disappear. BNN asked Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of the company Mediju tilts and political scientist, about this.
“What frustrates society are the astronomical sums spent on various IT systems, while in the end we are left with a whole series of problems. That is the main issue — money is spent, but the result is what we saw during last summer’s municipal elections. Everyone also clearly remembers the story of the e-health system, which satisfies neither doctors nor patients. A similar situation occurred with the skolas.lv project, where millions were spent but nothing really worked. It is difficult to understand whether this happens because of incompetent IT companies or because the market is so small. This is a fundamental problem that doubly damages the reputation of the entire sector,” the political scientist said.
“We talk about wanting to be modern, wanting to be digital — and that is normal. But when these issues are discussed, many people get uneasy, because more than one digitalisation process ends in scandal and ultimately nothing works.”
Asked how to assess the decision to count votes manually in the Saeima elections, Filips Rajevskis said: “How manual will it be? I have been an election observer, admittedly a long time ago. Back then, everything was counted by hand, forms were filled out, and results were reported to the Central Election Commission by telephone.
Therefore, the question is how far we will take this ‘manualisation’.”
Speaking about the experience of the municipal elections, Rajevskis noted that not everything failed completely — some parts did function. “If we return to fully manual counting, then who will take responsibility for the fact that the system does not work despite millions having been spent?” The political scientist also pointed out that this is far from the only defective outcome, citing as an example the 20-million-euro Mūkusalas promenade, where the concrete is already deteriorating. “If we know that poorly constructed infrastructure must be repaired by builders, then in the IT sector we somehow do not see the same principle — that those who develop such products do not receive payment until everything works properly. At least that is how it appears to an outside observer.”
Responding to BNN’s remark that “professionals” would likely say that an additional million euros would make everything work, Rajevskis replied sarcastically: “That is exactly the impression. If something does not work, then more funding is needed. But that immediately raises the question of why this sector differs so much from others. If the state is a client ordering a service, then it deserves a quality result, just like any other client. The service provider must be held accountable. The fact that money has been spent but nothing works as it should is unacceptable.
That is precisely what weighs most heavily on us as representatives of society.”
Such incidents as system failures during municipal elections, which forced manual vote counting, or the visible deterioration of the newly built Mūkusalas promenade, are the most prominent examples, but very likely not the only cases of defective work by companies that have received large public contracts. What should be done to eliminate this problem?
Filips Rajevskis says the key question is whether those representing the state as a client approach each procurement responsibly and diligently, as required by law. “For everything to work, both sides must be accountable — both the contracting authority and the contractor. It cannot be that systems fail, scandals follow one after another, and in the end no one is truly held responsible.”
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Political analyst: a culture of lies has emerged in Latvian politics
BNN IN FOCUS | “We support them, they support us” – political scientist on Latvia’s choice in the Hormuz issue