Paradoxically, the National Alliance’s (NA) biggest problem at the moment is that many of the issues the party has championed in Latvian politics for years – the transition to Latvian as the language of education and the public sphere, a much tougher stance towards Russia, higher defence spending, the removal of the Soviet legacy and an increasingly cautious approach to immigration – are no longer exclusively NA issues. To varying degrees, they have also been adopted by other political forces.
Although the ratings suggest that some National Alliance voters have moved to other political forces – from 9.4% in the 14th Saeima election to 4.5% in the SKDS poll this August – the party still has its own loyal voters, some of whom have supported it since the days of the slogan “Latvian, don’t give up!”
For years, NA sought to make Latvian politics more Latvian-oriented, more firmly opposed to Russia, tougher on security issues and more cautious towards immigration. These issues were important enough to the party’s voters for them to cast their ballots specifically for the nationalists. Traditionally, NA has been a political force with a “core electorate”. Yet, as the decline in its ratings suggests, part of that electorate has now become less loyal to the party. Why?
National-conservative rhetoric centred on sovereignty, family values and strict migration policies is now being offered in various combinations by several other candidate lists. This means that voters who consider these values important no longer have to choose NA. The party must therefore compete with other political forces operating in the right-wing nationalist and socially conservative political space.
Leaders of the party’s candidate lists
NA is heading into the 15th Saeima election without Raivis Dzintars, a politician with whom the party had been closely associated since the establishment of the National Alliance “All for Latvia! – For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK” in 2010.
In this election, Ilze Indriksone is the party’s candidate for prime minister and heads its Riga list. Jānis Dombrava is number one in Vidzeme, Jānis Vitenbergs heads the Zemgale list, Artūrs Butāns leads the Kurzeme list, and Edmunds Teirumnieks is number one in Latgale.
As Minister of Education and Science, Ilze Indriksone inherited a difficult portfolio – the issue of raising teachers’ salaries, disputes surrounding general education reform, proposals to tighten requirements for foreign students, and other challenges.
Jānis Dombrava is positioned as NA’s leading politician on migration and national security. The Ministry of the Interior regularly highlights its minister’s achievements, recalling Operation VILKATIS on the Latvia–Belarus border, expanded video surveillance capabilities for border guards, the beginning of work to introduce State Defence Service within the State Border Guard, and other measures.
Vitenbergs has ministerial experience at the Ministry of Economics, the Ministry of Transport and now the Ministry of Climate and Energy. He has identified the security of energy infrastructure, readiness for the heating season and improving the business environment as his main priorities.
Artūrs Butāns is one of the most visible politicians of NA’s younger generation and clearly one of the figures on whom the party is building its post-Dzintars era.
Edmunds Teirumnieks, who holds a doctorate in engineering and is a professor and leading researcher at the RTU Rēzekne Academy, is more closely associated with regional development, higher education and the interests of Latgale.
Culture Minister Nauris Puntulis, who is running as number two on the Riga list, has long personified NA’s cultural policy. Ināra Mūrniece, meanwhile, who is running as number two in Vidzeme, brings the party the experience of a former Saeima Speaker and defence minister, and currently chairs the Saeima Foreign Affairs Committee.
At European level, the party also still has Roberts Zīle – one of NA’s longest-serving and most internationally recognisable political figures.
From ideology to social and economic issues
The party promises the right to receive any service in Latvian in both the public and private sectors, greater powers for the State Language Centre and a Latvian “derussification declaration”.
In the field of security, NA proposes spending more than 5% of GDP on defence, developing Latvia’s domestic military industry, strengthening air-defence, drone and counter-drone capabilities, and increasing the number of trained reservists.
Its offer to families is also quite attractive. NA promises to increase the childcare allowance to 600 euros and index it, while setting the state family benefit at 100 euros for one child, 300 euros for two children and 600 euros for three or more children.
The party also promises fully state-funded healthcare for children, partial cancellation of student loans after the birth of a child, a 15,000-euro grant to reduce a mortgage for each child, and state-guaranteed housing loans for young families without a down payment.
This fits well with the party’s traditional identity politics: if Latvia wants more Latvians living in Latvia, the state should provide families with as much support as possible to encourage them to have more children.
Yet no matter how attractive election promises may sound, fiscal and political reality tends to bring dreamers back down to earth after an election.
First, there is a significant difference between making promises and securing the funding required to fulfil them. Parties would therefore be well advised to explain where they intend to find the money, particularly at a time when the state is simultaneously promising more funding for defence, healthcare, internal security and other sectors.
Second, it should not be forgotten that political decisions are made through compromise, dictated by coalition dynamics, the aforementioned budget constraints and unforeseen crises such as the Covid pandemic or geopolitical conflicts.
And finally, there are populism and bureaucracy. Family policy is unlikely to be an issue that any party would actively oppose, but no one has abolished bureaucratic foot-dragging.
The hot potato – migration
Migration is the hot potato that the governing coalition is currently tossing from hand to hand, without quite knowing what to do with it during the election campaign.
On the one hand, part of society demands restrictions on virtually any form of immigration and is concerned about the associated security risks. On the other hand, there is a growing demand for labour that is becoming increasingly difficult to meet without employing third-country nationals.
NA’s position is aimed at reducing immigration as much as possible, while its ideological opponents on values and social policy – the Progressives – oppose a migration policy based on “prejudice, racism and fear of those who are different”.
ZZS, meanwhile, points to the need to address labour shortages in Latvia’s economy and therefore supports controlled “labour migration”. New Unity holds a similar position.
It is also worth recalling that Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs of the United List blocked Interior Minister Jānis Dombrava’s migration restriction plan at a government meeting, describing it, among other things, as “political theatre” and an attempt to mislead voters.
From an election campaign perspective, however, this conflict gives NA an opportunity to demonstrate that although it is part of the government, it maintains a firm position on issues that matter to the party and its voters.
In other words, the old “strong backbone” meme associated with NA’s predecessor, For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK, and its positioning as the party most ideologically consistent on national issues have not disappeared.
Strict migration controls therefore fit NA’s traditional identity. At the same time, employers’ arguments about labour shortages, universities’ interest in attracting foreign students – and their money – as well as EU legal constraints remain relevant to a significant part of society.
In August, when migration had already become one of NA’s central political issues, the party’s rating in the SKDS poll fell from 5.5% to 4.5%.
This alone does not prove a causal relationship between the party’s position on migration and the decline in support among potential voters. Nevertheless, there is a considerable possibility that the more moderate section of NA’s electorate has turned away from the party precisely because of its consistent strategy of restricting migration.
What the ratings show
The National Alliance spent almost the entire 14th Saeima term alternating between being a governing party and an opposition force.
Following the 2022 election, NA was part of Krišjānis Kariņš’ government, but after Evika Siliņa formed her government in 2023, the party moved into opposition.
As a result, NA spent most of the parliamentary term outside government and was able to enjoy the politically convenient advantage of criticising virtually any government decision without having to take responsibility for it itself.
This may have been one of the reasons why NA recorded some of its strongest ratings during its period in opposition – 9.9% in the December 2024 SKDS poll and, after a slight decline in March and April, 9.7% in July 2025.
Last autumn, however, NA’s ratings began to fall sharply – from 9.7% in July to 6.4% in October and 5.6% in November.
The political conflict surrounding the Istanbul Convention punched a major hole in NA’s support.
In an SKDS poll, 40% of NA voters said Latvia should definitely withdraw from the Convention, while another 16% said it should probably withdraw. At the same time, 22% said Latvia should definitely remain in the Convention and another 9% said it should probably remain.
Although the party consistently voted in favour of withdrawal, after the President decided to return the law to the Saeima for reconsideration, NA agreed to leave the final decision to the 15th Saeima.
NA explained this as a question of the timing of the vote rather than a change in its position. Nevertheless, it created a political risk of losing supporters from both camps. For NA’s more moderate and strongly pro-European voters, the very initiative to withdraw may have been unacceptable, while more firmly conservative voters could have viewed the compromise and postponement of the decision as insufficiently consistent.
It should also be noted that a poll conducted by Latvijas Fakti in cooperation with Faktu logs between the 21st and the 31st of August showed support for NA at 7.3% of all respondents.
While NA ranked fifth in the SKDS poll, it placed third in the Latvijas Fakti survey, where 23.1% of respondents remained undecided.
However, the two polls are not directly comparable. SKDS and Latvijas Fakti use different methods to reach respondents, and such methodological differences can affect the results.
What is the bottom line?
NA still has a recognisable ideology, experienced politicians, ministerial posts and a long-standing core electorate. However, its once clearly defined political niche has become crowded, while the values and positions that matter to nationally minded voters are increasingly being adopted by the party’s competitors within the same political space.
On the more moderate side, NA faces competition for voters from Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs’ United List and, on certain issues, New Unity. ZZS, the New Conservative Party (JKP) and others are also competing for socially conservative, family-oriented voters.
On the national-conservative side, there is also Rising Sun for Latvia (ASL), founded by Raivis Zeltīts after he left the National Alliance a year ago. ASL essentially offers the same ideology as NA, but in a much more radical form. ASL has little prospect of entering the 15th Saeima, but the roughly one percentage point of support it has attracted has most likely come at NA’s expense.
At this point, the main question is not whether NA will clear the 5% threshold required to enter the 15th Saeima. Both the SKDS and Latvijas Fakti ratings indicate that it will.
The more important question is whether voters who care about the Latvian language, national security, a restrictive migration policy, demographics and a firm, critical stance towards Russia still regard the National Alliance as the principal political representative of those interests.
It is precisely this political “ownership” of the national-conservative electorate that NA is now fighting to retain.
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: BNN IN FOCUS | Political party review: New Unity – from election winner to fighting for survival in the Saeima