The outlines of Latvia’s future governing coalition have yet to become clear, but the public broadcaster is already naming potential ministers. Was this a signal to Kulbergs that “influential circles” are keeping a close eye on the government formation process, or was it simply political gossip? BNN asked Filips Rajevskis, political analyst and co-founder of the company Mediju tilts, for his assessment.
“I think gossip plays an enormous role in this,” the political analyst said, pointing out that most of the politicians elected to the 15th Saeima from the United List have never been involved in forming a government.
“Let’s be realistic, they are complete newcomers to politics, and that creates a very favorable environment in which even a name mentioned purely hypothetically can immediately spread. People involved in this process, and those listening to how everything is unfolding, do not seem to understand that you shouldn’t leak the first thing you hear.”
As an example, he cited the speculation surrounding a potential foreign minister. Latvian Television initially named one candidate before correcting the report to identify someone else. As a result, Kulbergs had to publicly call for an end to the rumors, explaining that he did not even know the person in question.
“This illustrates the situation very, very precisely. Various names are being leaked without those responsible fully understanding why they are doing it. In reality, the first names that emerge are very often nothing more than leaks and never translate into actual ministerial appointments,” the political analyst said.
According to Rajevskis, greater attention should be paid to how Kulbergs describes the government formation process.
“A government declaration and a parliamentary declaration are being developed, which is actually unusual and has not been done before. But there is a certain logic to it, because a government cannot accomplish very much without parliament and agreements within the Saeima.”
The political analyst also noted that an agreement on parliamentary priorities is necessary to ensure that members of the Saeima share responsibility for the government’s actions and decisions.
Rajevskis also referred to “mission letters”, which would establish specific tasks, priorities and measurable objectives for each minister, effectively serving as a written commitment.
“Kulbergs has borrowed this idea from the European Commission’s practice, where commissioners are given fairly precise annual tasks and objectives. This model itself requires a somewhat different approach to selecting the people who will hold these positions.”
The political analyst recalled that the traditional government formation process had been both straightforward and complicated at the same time.
“The president held consultations with political parties, the parties identified possible coalition models, and then they considered who could become prime minister. The president nominated a candidate for prime minister. By that stage, a coalition model was already envisaged, and the process of assembling the coalition and distributing ministerial portfolios began.
Only when the distribution of positions had reached a certain stage did they start thinking about what to include in the government’s declaration. Let’s be realistic, that is how things have worked. That was the standard approach.”
According to Rajevskis, the situation has now changed completely, leaving the president with virtually no choice when it comes to nominating a prime minister.
“The United List has 41 seats and has achieved a historic victory. It would be strange for the president to start looking for coalition models that did not involve the United List taking the lead. At present, that is simply not possible.
As a result, all political forces are somewhat confused and are trying to understand how to behave in this situation. Meanwhile, those 41 seats give the United List an enormous mandate of trust, but they also place a tremendous responsibility on its shoulders.
When you have that level of trust and responsibility, you cannot first divide up the ministerial seats and only afterward start wondering what you are going to do. You have to begin by deciding what needs to be done and only then determine who will do it.
That is a simple change in the underlying approach, but one that is extremely difficult, especially for those who have been involved in politics for a long time. For newcomers, it is an especially painful part of the learning process.”
Asked about the Foreign Ministry’s decision to allocate EUR 76,000 to a non-governmental organization for a project developing African catfish farming in Zimbabwe, Rajevskis was sharply critical. “This is yet another example of how our Foreign Ministry, under Baiba Braže’s leadership, is becoming a source of funding for all sorts of questionable initiatives.
The worst part is that this funding system and these questionable initiatives have, in one way or another, been linked to people considered useful in Latvian domestic politics – financing their projects and supporting them through the Foreign Ministry’s budget.
It is disgraceful, and this situation must change. The next foreign minister will face the extremely difficult task of putting an end to this waste of money on utterly senseless initiatives.”
Responding to BNN’s reference to Braže’s statement that “it is our duty to give to those who have less”, given that Latvia itself once received extensive international assistance, Rajevskis said:
“I absolutely agree that solidarity and support are important, but there are well-fed intermediaries involved in all of this.
There is also the question of whether the money ever actually reaches any catfish farmers in Africa. Those Africans are right here. And the ‘fat catfish’ being raised are also right here in Latvia.
All these project justifications and objectives exist merely to pull the wool over people’s eyes and conceal how the money is being redistributed and wasted.”
Asked whether he believes Andris Kulbergs will succeed in preventing such waste of public funds and withstand the enormous pressure to preserve the existing system, Rajevskis said that Kulbergs has no other choice.
“With that number of seats and that level of public trust, he simply has no right to disappoint people.
Unity already let people down when voters entrusted it with 26 seats in the previous election, and we saw how significantly voter turnout declined this year.
The most important thing for Kulbergs is to ensure that people do not feel disappointed or deceived and that their hopes are not betrayed.”