The Fourth of May
RIGA – Today marks the rebirth of the independent Latvia. Eighteen years ago the Supreme Soviet of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic adopted a resolution restoring the Baltic nation’s independence after 50 years of Soviet occupation.
For some Latvians, the last 18 years have been disappointing.
Husbands leave their wives and children to make a living picking mushrooms in Ireland. Pensioners continue to struggle to get by on trifling pennies as they watch prices rise. Perception of government corruption continues to persist from almost every corner of the state apparatus. And most importantly, people feel left out of the important decision-making.
Latvia’s independence movement in late 1980s became known as the Third Atmoda, the Awakening. People were filled with hope for the rebirth of the nation, treasuring each moment of that freedom. After years of oppression and tyranny, ethnic Latvians were finally getting their country back. Certainly, no one woke up on May 5, 1990, realizing that they were living in a different country. The change came gradually - one by one.
The resolution established the basic principles that were to guide this country domestically and internationally.
The courageous move on the part of the de facto parliament back in 1990 could not have taken place in today’s Latvia. The current members of the Saeima in the ruling coalition are discipled to vote as their bosses – in Riga, not in Moscow – tell them, creating an atmosphere of political cynicism and public distrust. In 2007 Latvians celebrated the Fourth of May heading into a referendum on the confusing, revoked national security laws. It legally failed because voters tended their summer homes.
This year, the Fourth of May arrives at the time when two grass-root campaigns are before discontented Latvian public. As the International Monetary Fund observers said this week, the public trust in the current government is low.
Within weeks the parliament is set to consider a legislation - initiated by the Latvian Labor Unions - to give the voters the power to dissolve the parliament and call early elections. On the other hand, a group called “Society for different politics” (Sabiedrība citai politikai -SCP), led by former minister of economy Aigars Štokenbergs and former foreign minister Artis Pabriks, is urging people to sign up an initiative to amend the pensions laws. The signature drive concludes May 15. They already forced the government to raise pensions once in April, then another raises are coming up in June and October.
Regardless whether these two initiatives get approved or rejected, they have already sent a strong message to the cynical government. Will it listen? - that’s another question.
May 6th, 2008 at 14.36
Sveiks, Aleks!
“Within weeks the parliament is set to consider a legislation - initiated by the Latvian Labor Unions - to give the voters the power to dissolve the parliament and call early elections. ”
By any chance, do you know who paid for the initial signature-collection? ‘Follow the money’ has always been a good suggestion. Does Krīgers’ organization really have such rich resources? Or was this co-funded by the initial 10.000 or so who signed? Wouldn’t it be great if ‘grass root movements’ in LV were more transparent than the government that they intend to force into being responsive to voters?
Visu labu,
Elizabete
May 6th, 2008 at 14.55
Elizabete:
The Latvian Labor Unions launched their petition drive at the time of the Umbrella Revolution last October, if not a bit earlier. It started when doctors and teachers threatened with a strike if their demands weren’t met, if my memory serves me right. It had taken a long time for the unions to collect some 10,000 signatures required to put the question to a wider signature collection drive. It was only then they qualified for some public funding. I believe.
By contrast, the ongoing efforts to change the pension laws that a backing of Štokenbergs and no day goes by when you don’t hear a public service announcement, urging citizens to sign up the proposed amendments to the law.
May 6th, 2008 at 15.48
Aleks, I think I get your point: Štokenbergs’ pension initiative is getting (free?) publicity, but Krīgers’ didn’t. Certainly, there should also be an accounting of the pension initiative, too, especially now that the law has changed and it’s become so expensive to collect signatures. Who is paying for its ‘public service announcement’ ads and why, also needs to be made crystal clear.
But, I’m still curious about where the initial money came from to fund the Labor Unions’ initiative. In a political context, that organization for years existed only on paper until last autumn. Regardless of the state of LV’s laws on this matter, surely voters deserve to know who is behind all referendums that are organized supposedly for their benefit.
May 7th, 2008 at 17.11
Elizabete:
My point was that unions didn’t have as much money to spend on advertising as Štoks. So if Štoks has the inherent interest in pursuing this Scandinavian model for Latvia, the unions didn’t have a sole financial backer. This is why their campaign was relatively muted.
The ad campaign on the radio is relatively clear where it came from and who funded it. Štoks and others are the voices of the ad.
When it comes to the move to dissolve the parliament — if I recall correctly — Jaunais Laiks spent some money on advertising. But you would know it was the JL ad when you saw it.