The lots have been drawn assigning numbers to party lists for the upcoming municipal elections, the submission of candidate lists to the Central Election Commission has ended, and it is now known that candidates from 340 lists will be competing for seats in local government. A total of 5,975 candidates are vying for 731 municipal council seats across Latvia. And the floodgates of promises have been opened.
So, how can voters assess which promises are realistic and which are just empty words? BNN asked political analyst Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of the company Mediju tilts.
During the pre-election period, promises ring out in every municipality—to fix roads, build new facilities, improve services, and other ear-pleasing commitments. But how can people know whether these promises will actually be fulfilled? Rajevskis points out that the first thing voters should do is evaluate what each candidate or party has already accomplished.
“Promises don’t put money in your wallet,” he says. “That’s why it’s crucial to understand whether those making the promises actually have the capacity and experience to deliver them. In the 35 years since Latvia regained independence, we’ve built up quite a bit of experience, and the major, influential parties are generally led by individuals who have already served on municipal councils or held other leadership positions. So the first thing to do is to look at what they have managed to accomplish in their ‘previous lives’.”
The political analyst emphasizes that it is essential to have leaders in municipal government who can actually dosomething—not just talk. Voters should assess whether candidates can point to meaningful, concrete achievements that have genuinely improved the quality of life for residents in their municipality.
“It’s just as likely that, while in office, some have wasted time and money on nonsense. That should be your first and most important filter when deciding whom to vote for,” says Rajevskis.
“Once you’ve done this analysis and made a shortlist of people who are actually capable, then you can start evaluating what they’re promising. There’s a very interesting correlation—those who are truly capable often make fewer promises. They understand that promises must be fulfilled, and it’s not always easy. That’s why they’re cautious and usually only commit to what they know they can deliver.”
When asked about a common excuse among politicians—blaming coalition partners for unfulfilled promises—Rajevskis is clear: officials in positions of power have specific responsibilities, and they are accountable for them.
“People can say what they want about coalitions. But if you’re a mayor, deputy mayor, or head of a committee—whether it’s traffic, development, or anything else—and you can’t point to something concrete you’ve achieved, then frankly, you’re not fit for the job,” he says.
According to Rajevskis, people who live in their municipality see clearly who gets things done and who is just collecting a salary.
“I would trust the public’s ability to stay informed and rely on their intuition. In local coalitions, it’s often quite easy to tell who is competent and who is just full of hot air.”