Reinis Uzulnieks’ journey from a pre-election debate in Īslīce parish and a visit to the ZZS campaign tent in Bauska to Stopiņi parish, where police stopped him behind the wheel while heavily intoxicated, highlights a much bigger problem than one former minister’s excessive drinking. Behind the scenes, stories have repeatedly circulated about the drinking habits of one powerful figure or another. Yet in most cases there have been no consequences, even when everyone knows that the boss failed to turn up for work because he was drunk. Does Latvia have any chance of ridding itself of this drinking problem among high-ranking officials? BNN put the question to Filips Rajevskis, political scientist and co-founder of the company Mediju tilts.
“Overall, our society consumes a great deal of alcohol,” Rajevskis says, pointing as an example to the work by Dr. hist. Gatis Krūmiņš, a leading researcher at Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences, titled Who is stronger, Latvians or alcohol? A brief look at the events of the past 200 years, which examines alcohol consumption in detail.
“We can see it clearly in the statistics as well. Even one of our folk songs says: ‘I drank with my own money, I rode my own horse.’ So historically, we have liked to drink. The problem is that alcohol consumption increased dramatically during the Soviet era – the population was encouraged to drink, and that was part of the policy. The drinking culture and, most importantly, the amount of alcohol consumed increased by roughly two and a half to three times compared with pre-war Latvia.”
“We inherited a society that drinks, and that does not disappear within a single generation. Drinking becomes part of the culture. Many people drink, and some drink heavily. If the ‘green dragon’ of alcohol is present in every sphere of society, why would it not be present in politics as well?
Politicians are members of the same society, and the political environment is a mirror of society,”
Rajevskis explains.
Asked how this problem could be eradicated from society and, even more importantly, from political life, the political scientist says the issue is extremely complicated and cannot be solved through restrictions alone.
“Of course, the simplest solution may seem to be raising prices through excise duties, introducing more restrictions and reducing the availability of alcohol. But we can clearly see what has happened with tobacco products – prices have been increased significantly, many things have been banned, and the result is a huge black market.”
“The same would happen with alcohol. If prices are raised significantly, people will drink illegal homemade alcohol. No one has managed to eliminate the problem that way. What we are talking about here is a much broader fight against alcoholism as an addiction. It is a problem for society as a whole. Of course, when it comes to public officials, penalties should be particularly severe precisely because public officials represent the state.”
Rajevskis also draws attention to another problem – the tolerance within society
and political circles towards people who drink excessively.
“The Uzulnieks story itself has already been discussed from every possible angle. He drove drunk, he was caught, there will be criminal consequences, he will lose his driving licence and there will also be consequences involving the car. What happens next in that respect is fairly clear.”
“But then there is the question of the people who were with him that day, who tolerated it and did nothing when he got behind the wheel. People can tell all sorts of stories, but three and a half per mille does not suddenly appear after one glass of wine, one beer or one glass of spirits. More than three per mille means that a person has already been heavily intoxicated for some time.”
“And then the question becomes one of everyone else’s tolerance. Nobody says: listen, mate, don’t get behind the wheel, you’re going to get into trouble, I’ll drive you. It simply demonstrates society’s broader attitude: well, go ahead, what does it have to do with me? We are fortunate that all of this ended only with a ruined career, a huge penalty and the loss of a driving licence, rather than a horrific road accident and lives being destroyed,” Rajevskis says.
After Uzulnieks was detained,
people suddenly began coming forward saying that his friendship with the “green dragon” had been known for a long time.
If that was the case, the question arises: why was a minister with such a drinking problem not taken out of the picture earlier? Did everyone know and simply turn a blind eye to avoid airing their dirty laundry in public?
Rajevskis again stresses that the former minister was hardly living the life of a monk, quietly drinking somewhere out of sight.
“He had a very active social life. And that raises the question of all these people’s tolerance when, for example, he had been drinking heavily. It demonstrates the tolerance of society as a whole. There is not enough public demand for the attitude that this is unacceptable, that public officials simply cannot behave this way.”
BNN asked whether parliamentary candidates should at least be required to provide confirmation or a medical certificate from an addiction specialist showing that they do not have an alcohol or drug addiction. Rajevskis replied that
this would neither address the essence of the problem nor provide a solution.
“Then we might as well start talking about ministers having to begin every working day by blowing into a breathalyser or something like that,” the political scientist says ironically.
“Everything starts with reducing society’s tolerance of people functioning while intoxicated. There is essentially no other instrument – society’s overall attitude has to change.”
One question remains: Reinis Uzulnieks is still standing in the election and could potentially be elected to parliament. The former welfare minister was relatively popular, and it cannot be ruled out that he could perform well in the election despite the drinking scandal and his departure from ZZS.
“I would not be surprised if he were elected. But there is one problem – a criminal conviction could mean the loss of his mandate, and his case has already been referred for criminal prosecution,” Rajevskis says.
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Political party review: A new face, old baggage and a fresh scandal – what is ZZS taking into the election?
Read also: From minister’s chair to prosecutor’s office – decision on charges awaited in Uzulnieks’ 3.09‰ drunk-driving case