This week was marked by theatre director Alvis Hermanis and his allies’ declared mission to “kick the hornet’s nest” — to change Latvia’s electoral system so that voters can choose individual candidates rather than political parties with their so-called “locomotives.” Was the announcement of the “Without Parties” movement a surprise, or had public demand for such a force been simmering for some time? BNN asked political analyst and “Mediju tilts” co-owner Filips Rajevskis for his view.
According to Rajevskis, persistently low party ratings and a large share of undecided voters have created fertile ground for this initiative. “If there were at least one or two parties with strong ratings, it would be clear that competition would be difficult. But since all parties have weak support and many voters remain undecided, it creates a feeling that there’s space to step in and capture votes,” explains the political analyst.
Asked whether this sense of opportunity is justified — and how likely voters are to embrace the call to change the electoral system — Rajevskis says it depends on how convincingly the idea can be sold to the public: “It’s a matter of how easily people can be convinced that this is important to them and will solve their problems.”
He reminds that previous promises of “change” have often been largely cosmetic. “Artuss Kaimiņš once convinced the public that we needed to fight the Coalition Council. Since then, these meetings are simply called coalition cooperation meetings.
So the key question is not whether the idea is good or bad, but how well you can sell it.”
Currently, most of the criticism is directed not at the idea itself, but at the initiators of the “Without Parties” movement. So to what extent can personalities influence public perception? Rajevskis says it may not be bad that new figures are emerging who want to try their luck in politics. Asked why the idea itself is not being strongly criticized, Rajevskis notes that discussions about improving and modernizing the electoral system have always existed:
“Since the restoration of independence, we’ve had a number of amendments that changed how we elect our representatives. This debate has been ongoing — it’s nothing revolutionary.” “Without Parties” does not hide its intention to run in the next parliamentary elections in cooperation with another political force. Because the movement was registered less than a year before the elections, the law prohibits it from running independently, making such a partnership unavoidable.
“Such a party must be willing to allocate some places on its list to them.
They, in turn, must prove they can attract voters and enjoy public support. It’s not without challenges — even of a purely technical nature,” explains Rajevskis.
The movement will have to prove that they themselves are the “locomotives” capable of pulling votes. That won’t be easy, he adds, since potential partner parties already have their own figureheads. “Of course, there will be parties that lack strong vote-getters and would gladly cooperate with this movement. But they may also find such an ally problematic — they want a strong party, not a weak one. It will be interesting to watch.”
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | The ideological battle over the Istanbul Convention – who uses it better?