Opinion Piece / Ilona Bērziņa
The Siliņa government’s “restart” plan and its execution strongly resemble the same string of absurdities that led to the fall of Krišjānis Kariņš’s second government. Political analysts are right to say that this move mostly looks like a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister to hold on to her own seat. It is unclear how much strain this “wobbly” stool can withstand, but one thing is already predictable: in the next Saeima elections, New Unity will face serious trouble.
Evika Siliņa, whom the party, when nominating her for the prime ministerial position, presumably had high hopes for, has essentially “betrayed” her political force. Firstly, the Prime Minister has demonstrated that she, and thus New Unity, lacks the courage to stand up against “Progressives’” blackmail (let’s remember Šuvajevs’ infamous statement: “Every ‘Progressive’ minister is a question of coalition stability”). Secondly, Siliņa is stepping on the same rake of poor communication so diligently that it gives the impression that she and her party have something to hide from the public. I believe it is the party’s progressing political muscle atrophy, evidenced by Siliņa’s fear of demanding the resignation of “Progressive” Transport Minister Kaspars Briškens as early as last September, when the “Rail Baltica” scandal was compounded by the write-off of half a billion euros for “airBaltic.” Since then, the “Rail Baltica” problems have only deepened, and fixing this mess will require a massive “spoonful” of state budget and EU funds. However, that is a separate issue worth discussing independently.
Why does Siliņa’s planned government “restart” indicate more of a beginning of the end rather than the promised “new momentum”? The answer is simple – it is unclear what exactly Siliņa aims to achieve with this “restart,” or what its economic and political benefits will be. How will it improve the public’s welfare level and, consequently, the demographic situation? How will it “strengthen cooperation in security matters with multiple European countries,” and why has this cooperation not been strengthened before? If all this talk from Siliņa is mere empty rhetoric meant to buy time, that is one thing. If it reflects a genuine desire to enact change, that is quite another. The latter, however, is doubtful because, for example, the very correct and necessary rhetoric about reducing bureaucracy and administrative burdens by 25% reeks of populism. How will the public-private partnership team, which the Prime Minister has mentioned for reducing bureaucracy, be formed? What will its powers be? How will this reduction happen? Will we line up civil servants and dismiss every fourth one? Judging by how the ministerial resignation requests were handled, that might well be the case.
Remember how, after the announcement of the impending “restart,” speculation arose about which minister’s “head” would be demanded – would it be Union of Greens and Farmers Minister of Climate and Energy Kaspars Melnis, or would it be Welfare Minister Uldis Augulis? Among “New Unity” ministers, should they sacrifice Environmental Protection and Regional Development Minister Inga Bērziņa, or should it be Minister of Education and Science Anda Čakša?
Whatever the case, Briškens can be proud that his dismissal has led to two other ministers being removed from the government as well.
Here, the “Progressives” have played “New Unity” masterfully, turning Briškens’ dismissal into Evika Siliņa’s “Pyrrhic victory.”
Speaking of personnel matters, Evika Siliņa has shot herself and her party in the foot. Regarding Uldis Augulis’ dismissal request, it is worth quoting the Latvian Pensioners’ Federation: “On February 21, in the opening of her speech, Evika Siliņa highlighted the government’s good work in increasing pensions for seniors and stated that she would demand a demographic improvement strategy from the Minister of Welfare, to be submitted by June. However, moments later, the Prime Minister announced her intention to dismiss three ministers, including Welfare Minister Uldis Augulis.” Truly astonishing inconsistency and even more remarkable short-sightedness! The dismissal of a minister respected by seniors, essentially without any justification or explanation, could cost “New Unity” dearly in the Saeima elections. After all, who are the most active voters? Correct – people of retirement age and older. The story of Anda Čakša is even more intriguing. Rumours suggest that after the first indications that Siliņa might request her resignation, the minister stated that, in such a case, she would leave “New Unity.” If she returns to parliament, this would likely mean her exit from the “New Unity” parliamentary faction as well. Whether there is any real basis for these rumours will become clear soon enough.
Will all three ministers expelled from the government truly continue to support the administration while working in the Saeima, as Siliņa confidently claimed? That is doubtful. It is also uncertain whether the new ministers will be confirmed this Thursday. Especially considering that, as of Monday morning, the only known candidate is Mayor of Cēsis Jānis Rozenbergs for the position of Minister of Education and Science.
On this backdrop, Siliņa’s conviction that neither the government as a whole nor she herself should be replaced is particularly amusing. She argues that a new government would mean a long political process, which would not be in the interest of the people. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that no special enthusiasm for acting in “the interest of the people” is visible from the current government either. Unless, of course, one considers this entire “restart” spectacle to be in their interest – an admittedly fascinating show to watch.