More than 10,000 Latvian residents have signed an initiative on the ManaBalss.lv platform calling for the number of Saeima MPs to be reduced from 100 to 70. This means the initiative will now have to be considered by the Saeima.
“Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia stipulates that the Saeima consists of 100 representatives of the people. The figure of 70 MPs was chosen in order to maintain approximately the same ratio of residents per MP as Latvia had in 1993, taking into account the decline in population,” the initiative’s author, Ričards Bumbērs, explains.
“At that time, Latvia had a population of approximately 2.60 million and there were 100 MPs. At the beginning of 2026, the population stood at 1.845 million, while the number of MPs remained at 100. This means that one MP now represents approximately 18,450 residents, compared with around 26,000 residents per MP at the beginning of the period following the restoration of independence,” Bumbērs says.
One argument cited in support of reducing the number of MPs concerns the organisation of parliamentary work – fewer could mean better.
With 70 MPs, each member of parliament would be more visible and their work and voting record easier to track,
which, according to the initiative, could encourage MPs to work more effectively rather than simply “be present”.
Larger and more stable parliamentary groups could work more efficiently and reach agreements more quickly. In parliamentary committees, MPs’ expertise and activity are more important than their formal number. According to the initiative, a smaller parliament would make it easier to ensure that committees are staffed by MPs who genuinely understand the issues rather than simply “filling seats”.
A smaller number of MPs could also lead to shorter debates, fewer formal speeches and easier coordination.
The initiative also argues that the change could potentially strengthen MPs’ links with voters.
If each MP represented a larger number of people, there could be greater motivation and a stronger need to maintain genuine contact with their constituency.
“With 100 MPs, many can afford to be ‘Riga politicians’. With 70, that becomes more difficult – they would also have to work more with the regions,” the initiative argues.
According to Bumbērs, a smaller parliament could also encourage voters to concentrate their votes on parties that have a realistic opportunity to influence politics.
Another argument cited is potential savings for the state budget.
“The Saeima’s 2026 budget is planned at 40.28 million euros, of which approximately 31 million euros is allocated to remuneration for MPs and Saeima employees. Reducing the number of MPs from 100 to 70 would save approximately 1.5 million euros annually from the basic salaries of 30 MPs alone, based on 2026 remuneration levels,” the initiative states.
“Additional savings could come from MPs’ assistants, compensation and other costs
directly linked to the number of MPs, although the exact amount would have to be determined during the development of the reform. Reducing the number of MPs by 30 would also reduce expenditure on assistants’ salaries. Although assistants’ salaries are lower, this could provide an additional 0.6–1 million euros in annual savings.”
The initiative acknowledges that the financial savings alone would not be decisive for the state budget, but argues that they could form part of a more efficient system of public administration and set a precedent by showing that political institutions are also willing to review their own administrative costs.
“Taxpayers expect state institutions to regularly assess their costs and the efficiency of their work. Fewer MPs would not mean less democracy. Latvia needs an effective and accountable parliament, not the largest possible number of MPs,” the initiative states.
“However, this is not only about potential financial savings.
The issue particularly concerns those residents who feel alienated from political power and believe that public administration should be closer to the people, more accountable and more efficient.”
According to the initiative’s author, an equally important issue is the attitude of state authorities towards society and politicians’ willingness to take responsibility themselves at a time when many Latvian residents face economic difficulties, low wages, rising prices and limited public services.
“By reducing the number of Saeima MPs, the state authorities would demonstrate solidarity with the public and show that politicians are also prepared to seek more efficient solutions and reduce their own administrative costs. It would be a symbolic but highly significant step towards restoring public trust in state institutions.”
The proposed solution is to amend Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia,
stipulating that the Saeima would consist of 70 representatives of the people instead of the current 100 MPs, the initiative states.
The changes would be implemented through the constitutional procedure by adopting the necessary amendments to the Constitution. The reduced number of MPs would take effect after the next Saeima election, providing a clear transition period and avoiding disruption to the work of the current parliament.
The proposed reform would reduce the number of Saeima seats from 100 to 70; amend the Saeima Election Law accordingly, including the proportional distribution of seats among electoral districts; preserve a democratic and proportional electoral system; increase each MP’s responsibility for decisions; and make parliamentary work more efficient and transparent.
“This solution is not merely about saving state budget funds.
It would also send both a symbolic and practical signal that state authorities are prepared to apply the principles of efficiency and accountability to themselves. At a time when residents are being urged to save and use their money responsibly, state institutions must also be able to set an example.”
The solution could realistically be implemented within a reasonable timeframe – all that is required is a political decision and the procedure for adopting constitutional amendments prescribed by the Constitution.
“By reducing the number of Saeima MPs from 100 to 70, Latvia could potentially gain a more efficient, accountable parliament that is closer to society. A smaller number of MPs is not automatically a magic formula. These are only potential and conditional benefits that can materialise if the reform is implemented wisely and accompanied by other changes, such as improvements to parliamentary procedures, party-group discipline and transparency,” Bumbērs says.
In his view,
“a smaller number of MPs would mean that each representative would bear greater individual responsibility
for the decisions they make and for their work before society. It would be more difficult for MPs to hide behind a larger number of colleagues, while voters would find it easier to assess each MP’s contribution.”
“A smaller number means that each MP becomes more visible and accountable to voters. Decisions could potentially be made more quickly, debates could become more focused, and political fragmentation could decrease. These changes would also provide an important symbolic benefit – demonstrating that state authorities are prepared to start with themselves and apply the principles of efficiency to their own work.”
“This would strengthen public trust in state institutions and promote a sense that politicians and residents are on the same side – working together to build a responsible and fair country.”
“Reducing the number of parliamentary seats could also lower the costs associated with maintaining parliament in the long term. The state funds saved could be redirected to areas of greater importance to society – healthcare, education, social support and security,” the initiative states.
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Political scientist’s view: Should officials start their working day by taking a breathalyser test?