As Latvia moves closer to the next parliamentary election, the race for voters’ support is becoming increasingly competitive. Could the popularity of the United List (Apvienotais saraksts) continue to grow, and does Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs have a realistic chance of remaining in office after the election? BNN put these questions to political analyst Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of media company Mediju tilts.
“We have seen several cases where a prime minister has remained in office both before and after an election. That happened with Aigars Kalvītis, Laimdota Straujuma, and Krišjānis Kariņš. In Latvia, it is nothing unusual for a prime minister to retain the position after securing a successful election result,” Rajevskis said.
The political analyst noted that while there are some similarities with New Unity’s position before the previous election, the current situation is not identical. Unlike New Unity, the United List has not been the smallest parliamentary faction, spent most of the current parliamentary term in opposition, and only recently entered government after receiving a mandate of confidence.
He also drew comparisons with Laimdota Straujuma, who became prime minister roughly eight months before an election.
“If a government performs successfully during those months, it can earn a much stronger mandate from voters
for the next four years. That possibility certainly cannot be ruled out. This time, however, the situation is more unstable because Latvia is facing not only domestic political and economic challenges but also external factors.
Those external factors worked in favour of Kariņš and New Unity before the last election. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and at that moment New Unity appeared to be a stable and credible choice compared with other political forces. But it is far too early to celebrate. Two and a half months is a long time in today’s domestic and international political environment,” Rajevskis said.
Asked whether voters could become disappointed if Kulbergs’ government fails to deliver the sweeping changes many hope for—including dismantling the Society Integration Foundation (SIF), improving the efficiency of public spending and implementing the government’s reform agenda—Rajevskis argued that expectations must remain realistic.
“The pace of modern life and social media has changed everything.
It is impossible to complete all of these major tasks when the government was only approved on the 28th of May and by the 28th of July it will have been in office for just two months.
You cannot expect a system that has been built over many years—including the SIF and what critics describe as the pseudo-NGO system—to be dismantled in less than two months. That simply isn’t possible.
However, the direction the government chooses could prove decisive in the election. If society believes the course is the right one, the United List could receive significant electoral support and become the dominant political force. At that point, expectations will be much higher and the government will no longer have time to ease into the job.
Normally, governments are judged after their first 100 days.
This government has not even been given 60 days before people ask: ‘Where are the results?’ We need to remain realistic. Anyone who has ever managed even a small business understands that meaningful change takes time—let alone in government.”
Asked whether there are already signs that genuine change is underway, Rajevskis replied that there are reasons for cautious optimism.
“I believe there is such a trend. At the very least, those expectations are being actively encouraged. As a result, people now expect to see tangible changes, and the government will have to demonstrate progress.
For example, Kulbergs has spoken about 163 million euros allocated to what he calls pseudo-NGOs. That is an enormous amount of money. It could be used to build new hospitals, treat cancer patients, or fund many other priorities.
This is not a minor issue—it is a huge amount of taxpayers’ money that is now part of the political debate.
People expect sensible, fair and responsible policies, with the right priorities.”
Rajevskis pointed to a recent example highlighted on social media platform X by Katrīna Iļjinska. “She noted that a Swedbank folk dance group with just 17 members received 89% of its funding from the state budget last year, while in 2024 taxpayers accounted for 97% of the association’s income. Swedbank earned 152 million euros in profit last year and 218 million euros the year before. Why should my tax money be used to finance a folk dance group belonging to one of the country’s largest banks?”
Finally, BNN asked whether political parties that fail to meet voters’ expectations risk being wiped off the political map at the next election.
Rajevskis’ answer was unequivocal.
“That is the normal political pendulum. Those who fail to deliver on their promises and fail to meet people’s expectations go home.”
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | “We can’t afford to waste public money”: Political scientist calls for sweeping NGO funding reform