Author: Ilona Bērziņa
The Progressives (PRO) define themselves as a social democratic and green political force, advocating broader public services, more progressive taxation, environmental protection and equal rights. At the same time, the party’s values agenda – marriage equality, the Istanbul Convention with all the controversy surrounding “social gender” and “gender ideology”, as well as calls to recognise the State of Palestine (one may recall the “Free, free Palestine!” chants by the PRO-linked youth organisation Protests in Brussels shortly after the Hamas attack on Israel) – clearly alienates conservative voters.
The Progressives have been known as a political party since 2017, although the association Progresīvie had already emerged in 2011. Its original aim was to bring ideas of social equality, progressive taxation and a Nordic-style welfare state into Latvian politics.
The party’s first chairman was Māris Indulis Graudiņš. A year later, Roberts Putnis took over the position. Under his leadership, the party won 2.6% of the vote in the 2018 Saeima election and 2.9% in the 2019 European Parliament election.
Following the disappointing European Parliament result, Putnis announced that he was stepping down as chairman. After publicly criticising the party’s work and internal processes, he was expelled by the Progressives’ board in June 2021. This triggered a sharp public dispute and raised a particularly uncomfortable question for the party: how much criticism was it actually prepared to tolerate? (Incidentally, Riga taxi drivers say that this aversion to listening to any criticism and the tendency to recognise only one truth – their own – remains fashionable among the party leadership to this day.)
When the party entered the 14th Saeima and Andris Šuvajevs was elected co-chairman, the political force began a kind of “coming of age”. Its task was no longer merely to defend its ideology, but also to prove that it was capable of shaping national policy, reaching compromises with coalition partners and taking responsibility for what it had accomplished. How well or poorly it succeeded is for everyone to judge for themselves.
What do the ratings tell us?
In the latest SKDS poll, conducted from the 4th to the 16th of September, 6.2% of Latvian citizens surveyed said they would vote for the Progressives. In August, the figure was 8.8%.
The decline of 2.6 percentage points is the largest among the parties in this poll and the Progressives’ lowest SKDS result since March. The party has fallen from third to fourth place.
Meanwhile, in the September poll conducted by Latvijas Fakti and Faktu logs, the Progressives’ rating increased by 1.2 percentage points. Support among all respondents stood at 8.3% in September, while among respondents who had already made their choice it reached 12.4%.
It should be remembered that the two polls use different methodologies, which is why their results differ. In any case,
PRO is currently among the political forces whose entry into the Saeima appears practically assured.
PRO is no longer a new political force whose mistakes can simply be overlooked. The party has been in government, and voters can assess what it has contributed while holding the levers of power.
The controversies surrounding former Defence Minister Andris Sprūds and drones, as well as disputes over former Transport Minister Kaspars Briškens’ responsibility for the transport sector – including the rising costs and delays of the Rail Baltica project – are therefore unlikely to work in PRO’s favour.
What does the programme promise?
The Progressives offer three broad priorities: economic development through renewable energy and the defence industry, reducing the cost of living, and protecting democracy.
More specifically, they promise to reduce the tax burden on low and middle incomes, increase family benefits, develop affordable rental housing, introduce an annual cap on co-payments for reimbursable medicines, and establish a single monthly public transport ticket.
The programme’s emphasis on housing affordability, public transport, opportunities for young people, human rights and climate policy suggests that the party’s core electorate consists of younger, educated and socially liberal voters, particularly in urban areas.
At the same time,
promises concerning pensions, medicine costs, family benefits and services in the regions are equally visible.
All of these objectives are worthwhile and necessary, but it should not be forgotten that Latvia’s general government debt had already exceeded 20 billion euros by the end of 2025, with interest costs amounting to approximately 312 euros per Latvian resident per year. Meanwhile, the consolidated 2026 state budget envisages approximately 16.1 billion euros in revenue and 17.96 billion euros in expenditure.
The point is that a party seeking to present itself as a pragmatic political force must also be able to explain where it intends to find the money to finance all these attractive castles in the air.
Tax relief, higher benefits, increased healthcare investment and at least 5% of GDP for defence simultaneously require clear choices about state budget priorities. Voters have grounds to ask which promises the Progressives would implement first – and how they would pay for them.
The programme also includes support for marriage equality and the Istanbul Convention,
the independence of public media, protection of old-growth and biologically valuable forests, and climate policy.
At the same time, the party promises defence spending of at least 5% of GDP and closer cooperation with NATO and European partners. Its “left-wing” orientation therefore relates primarily to taxation, social protection and public services; in security policy, its programme is clearly Western-oriented.
The programme is broad enough to conclude that some voters are attracted by the party’s emphasis on social justice and accessible healthcare, while others are drawn by environmental issues, human rights or its clear pro-European position. Still others vote for the Progressives because they want to see a different political generation.
What will Riga voters do?
This is indeed an interesting question, because judging by the results of the 14th Saeima election, the Progressives are to a large extent a “Riga party”.
In 2022, the party won five of its ten seats in the capital, two in Vidzeme and one each in the Zemgale, Kurzeme and Latgale constituencies.
But that was before the Progressives came to power in Riga.
From today’s perspective, it can be said that the decisions made by PRO councillors concerning Riga’s streets are far more tangible to residents than the wording of the party’s Saeima election programme. Someone who has to take a child to school or kindergarten every day, deliver goods or find a parking space also judges politics by whether they can still get home conveniently.
The restrictions on through traffic on Vārnu Street have become a symbol of this PRO policy.
They vividly demonstrate an approach in which restrictions are introduced first and their consequences are considered only after protests begin.
Moreover, this example also demonstrates what critics see as an arrogant style of governance – one need only recall the heated meeting concerning the same Vārnu Street restrictions. Residents who had collected more than 3,000 signatures and expected concrete concessions instead had to settle for yet another evasive response.
It is a classic example of poor communication and of how those in power, in trying to please one group, can make life considerably more difficult for many others.
It cannot be ruled out that the perceived arrogance of the Progressives’ leadership in Riga is one of the factors behind the party’s decline in the SKDS poll.
Leaders and responsibility
The party’s candidate for prime minister and number one candidate on its Riga list is Andris Šuvajevs. He shapes the Progressives’ economic and social policy platform and is seeking to present the party as a credible force capable of forming a government.
Agnese Lāce, the party’s co-chair and leader of its Kurzeme list, is one of its most recognisable figures following her time as Culture Minister. Andris Sprūds, leader of the Vidzeme list and former Defence Minister, represents the party’s security policy wing.
In Zemgale, the list is headed by former Transport Minister Atis Švinka, while in Latgale it is led by Saeima MP Leila Rasima. MP Antoņina Ņenaševa and former Transport Minister Kaspars Briškens are also running in Riga.
Experience in government is both the party’s greatest advantage and a risk.
Voters can ask what Progressives ministers actually achieved while overseeing two particularly challenging sectors – defence and transport.
Rail Baltica represents an especially uncomfortable test. Serious questions remain over the project’s deadlines, financing and communication. Admittedly, the project’s problems did not begin with the Progressives, but heading the Ministry of Transport is about more than offering clever explanations in front of television cameras – it also means taking responsibility for how the party dealt with those problems.
When it comes to PRO’s political “red lines”, the firmest boundary has been drawn against Latvia First. The dispute concerns both political style and differing views of democracy and human rights.
With the National Alliance, the sharpest disagreements concern family rights, the Istanbul Convention and migration, although the two political forces may find common ground on security policy.
The Progressives, meanwhile, compete with New Unity for pro-European voters who trust state institutions,
while offering a more pronounced social and green policy agenda.
Overall, for some voters the Progressives symbolise progress and European development, while for others they represent unwanted social experimentation – including what is described as the imposition of so-called “gender ideology” – and left-wing economic policies.
Right-wing and economically liberal politicians and businesspeople often describe the party’s programme as populist or excessively left-wing. Critics argue that the party’s proposed social spending could increase the tax burden on businesses and slow economic growth.
This makes PRO one of the most widely debated and polarising political forces in Latvian politics.
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Political party review: Sovereign Power/Young Latvians – big promises and high-profile scandals