As Latvia enters a Saeima election year, voters can expect months of efforts by political parties to convince the public that they are the most worthy to steer the country. To avoid once again falling for unrealistic promises, BNN spoke with political scientist Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of the media company Mediju tilts.
“There is a very high chance that we will fall into the same trap as the Estonians,” the political scientist says. “By giving their votes to Kaja Kallas and the Reform Party, they voted for conservative policies, economic pragmatism, and a market economy. They were quite brutally misled, because Kaja Kallas’ government sharply raised taxes, violating virtually every promise made during the pre-election campaign,” Rajevskis explains. “It feels like we are heading in the same direction. Before the budget was adopted, we were fed fairy tales that ‘no, under no circumstances will taxes be raised,’ but after the elections, a Unity finance minister will, as usual, with a grim face tell us that once every four years taxes do have to be increased — and then never again,” Rajevskis says, barely hiding his sarcasm.
Asked what should be done to prevent such a scenario and ensure that political parties are held accountable for their promises, Rajevskis stresses that it is crucial for voters to demand clear and unambiguous language from parliamentary candidates on tax issues. When BNN objects that nothing really stops politicians from lying, Rajevskis responds: “One will deceive, another will deceive, but the third one will no longer dare to. It can be turned into a feeling that breaking such promises is political suicide.”
Responding to BNN’s remark that many politicians believe voters will swallow anything put on the table, including tax increases, Rajevskis again points to Estonia as an example.
“Estonia has dropped from first place to second, its economy is stagnating, and if this continues, we will overtake them
not because our economy is growing rapidly, but because they have sunk deeply into trouble with this foolish policy. All of this must be talked about, because by doing so we can avoid similar mistakes and squeeze politicians so that they actually keep the promises they make in the economic sphere, rather than treating them as something said in passing.”
Concerns have also been voiced that in an atmosphere of pre-election populism, the issue of the second pension pillar could be decided in favor of dismantling it. Latvia, too, has many people who would like to withdraw their pension savings, as is allowed in Lithuania and Estonia.
Rajevskis admits this is a highly debatable issue. “Most people here are already poor; they don’t have capital. That is why the state must do everything possible to ensure that people have at least some capital when they retire. This is the instrument to guarantee that. Allowing people to withdraw and consume their pension capital now would not be the right approach.” According to the political scientist, the first step should be to “squeeze the banks so that, when managing the second pension pillar, they stop fleecing people.”
The second step would be to ensure that as much of this money as possible is invested in Latvia.
This brings the discussion back to the capital market, Rajevskis notes. “We are told that companies like Latvijas valsts meži and Latvenergo should be privatized or listed on the stock exchange, but when it comes to Latvenergo’s debt securities, everything is done to ensure they are not accessible to Latvian residents. This pension capital should be invested precisely there — either in these companies or in debt instruments. Instead, it is invested God knows where, outside Latvia, while banks eat up the lion’s share of returns in commissions.”
When BNN notes that this problem has been discussed for years without real change, Rajevskis points to the influence of the banking lobby. “It is beneficial for banks, because this money brings them very good commission income — we are talking about millions. It is much easier to earn by skimming people’s pension capital than by lending to Latvian companies for development. Naturally, they choose the easier path.”
Asked what needs to be done to make 2026 more stable and better than the previous year, Rajevskis highlights the need for greater demands on politicians and admits that so far society’s attitude has been rather frivolous. “At last, the discourse has turned toward the economy. As voters, we must be very demanding and make rational decisions when choosing which party to vote for in the next elections. The second thing is to fight for our economic freedom. Without a free economy, there is no development. We talk about reducing bureaucracy, but we must talk about freedom in a broader sense — freedom to develop. We cannot allow restrictions on freedom of speech imported from Europe. We must be a country of free people, because only a free state with free people can be strong economically and secure militarily. Only free people are willing to fight for their country.”
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Latvia in 2025: what we can be proud of — and what we should be ashamed of