The SKDS poll results published shortly before the election brought no major surprises – the top three remained unchanged (United List 14.4%, Sovereign Power/Young Latvians 9.4%, Latvia First 9.2%), while the overall balance between the political forces also remained largely unchanged. However, shifts in support for individual parties were noticeable: the Progressives fell by 2.6 percentage points and Sovereign Power/Young Latvians by 2.4 points, while the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS) gained 2 percentage points and the National Alliance (NA) 1.1 points. What do these poll results tell us just days before the election? BNN asked political scientist Filips Rajevskis, co-founder of Mediju tilts.
“The fate of the next coalition will be decided by the parties hovering somewhere around the five-percent threshold. It is clear which party is the leader, but who it will form a coalition with – that is the big question,” the political scientist said.
Filips Rajevskis also believes the next parliament will be fairly fragmented and will largely resemble the current composition, although the distribution of votes will change.
“We can see that the Union of Greens and Farmers is around the five-percent threshold, and they have been fairly consistent there. New Unity is also at roughly the same level, somewhere around five percent. If we look at projections in terms of seats, the current coalition could end up with more than 50 votes. The big question is how many votes above 50 they would have and whether that would make the current coalition viable. Ultimately, that is up to the voters.”
“If, for example, all the parties in the current coalition cross the 5% threshold but together end up with 52 or 53 seats, then you essentially get something like Evika Siliņa’s government number two, which, with such a narrow majority, is not really capable of functioning effectively.
That could bring very significant changes to the way coalition-building is approached after the election.”
Asked by BNN about recent speculation that the United List could also invite Latvia First (LPV) into the coalition, Rajevskis recalled that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that Latvia First is a “red line” for his party.
“I am somewhat surprised by such a radical position from the Prime Minister, especially knowing that it will most likely be him who has to form the next coalition. By taking such a position, he immediately puts the Progressives in a much more favourable position, even though I do not think they are his first choice when it comes to forming a coalition.”
“There are many factors that, in the heat of the pre-election campaign, have been elevated to a level that perhaps should have been left for reflection after election day,” Rajevskis said.
Filips Rajevskis agreed with BNN that Latvian politics has repeatedly seen situations where parties say one thing before an election and then do something entirely different afterwards.
“That is exactly the problem.
If we look at the experience with red lines, it has been particularly painful for the Progressives.
They drew a very clear red line against ZZS, saying that under no circumstances would they govern together. Now they are in the same government as ZZS, and they are still being reminded of it.”
“That is a painful experience for any political force. If, all the way until the next election, people keep reminding you that you lied to voters, that is not a good look.”
BNN also asked the political scientist how he views campaign posters that feature, alongside the actual candidates and party leaders, politicians who are not themselves running in the election and who are clearly not going to leave their influential and comfortable positions in Brussels.
Rajevskis acknowledged that this is also not good practice.
“To a large extent, Harmony brought this practice into Latvian politics, with Ušakovs appearing on posters in practically every election even though he himself only ran in municipal elections.
New Unity has also used this for years by putting Dombrovskis on its posters.
I think at some point this will change when they realise that voters no longer fall for it. But as long as it works, the tool will continue to be used.”