RIGA – You can’t help but compare Iceland with Latvia. There are shades of similarities between the two countries – social unrest, a government lacking in credibility. To quote an excellent Edward Hugh article: “The problem is that Latvia, apart from the internal credit boom, and the consequent housing bust and real economy contraction which follows (and which all three Baltic states “enjoyed” actually stands out from its Baltic peers in that it also became something of an offshore financial centre during the boom years. That is to say, there are shades of the Iceland or UK problem in the Latvian situation.”
The International Monetary Fund in its report issued four days before the unrest – their mission was leaving Latvia on the day of the riots – stated that a key to its program success is the wide political support. (PDF file)
Clear medium-term objectives, strong political leadership and mobilization of public support will be key. Consolidations tend to be more successful when perceived by markets and the population at large as durable and sustainable. In many European countries in the 1990s, consolidations were justified by the objective of the Euro adoption, which is also the case for Latvia. On the other hand, most consolidations tend to be led by new governments and under a broad consensus. Latvia’s Parliamentary elections in 2010 represent a risk.
Clearly, the Penguin Revolution and the subsequent ultimatum by the President to the parliament adds risks to the program. Success of this program depends on wide public support which this government doesn’t have.
The IMF required a wide parliamentary support before it agreed to the loan. This is why the Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis urged the parliament to adopt wide-range of painful cuts and raise taxes at the end of last year, asking opposition parties to come on board for the country’s sake. The January 13 protests and following riots turned it all around. And, I think Godmanis realizes that. He blames the opposition parties for staging a rally. And, I suspect, it is why he didn’t want to be seen along with an opposition leader Aigars Štokenbergs in televised public debates three weeks ago.
In traditional European parliamentary democracies by and large a wide parliamentary support equal a wide support of the population. However, in Latvia, it just means an approval of a certain elite clique that stands behind political forces represented in the 100-member incredible Saeima. The parliament isn’t popular, but according to Godmanis it’s the strongest in Europe. His center-right government, however, is the least popular government in Europe, with popularity of 10 percent. It raises risks to the IMF program.
When you have an unpopular government cutting wages, raising taxes, its rating will plummet down. And I suspect we haven’t seen the end of the popular unrest. The rock concert was just a prelude to a wider protest. Already, the farmers threaten to block highways and streets in Riga in protest against government policies next Tuesday, if their demands are not met. Providing information to a lot of villages, the national radio broadcaster doesn’t have enough funding to operate, adding to the frustration. People will be laid off with unemployment reaching up to 12 percent, basically double in the matter of months, according to official estimates. Unofficially, of course, it will be much higher.
While the IMF sees an election as a liability because it ushers in an uncertain future, for the people of Latvia an election under new updated election laws appears to be a way out of this crisis of political credibility amidst economic uncertainty.
The parliament speaker Gundars Daudze this morning offered more evidence that we’re heading for snap elections. He said in a TV interview that he sees no possibility to adopt constitutional changes before March 31, the presidential deadline.
The photo above was taken by me during the summer farmer protests against the EU milk quotas