Home Sweet Latvian Home

If back in 1920, a center right government in Latvia was at least partly the result of expediency necessitated by war http://helios-web.saeima.lv/Informacija_eng/likumdeveju_vesture.html , the circumstances of the election of the Constitutional Assembly is (as a hunt for information http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvijas_Satversmes_sapulce reflects) a nebulous affair. For example, who were “the registered voters” who elected it? This blogger finds no information on the matter on the internet.

While apologists of the Latvian government find reasons enough to claim legitimacy for Latvia’s founders and the Constitutional Assembly (mostly by way of its recognition by a number of foreign governments, Britain including), the centre right orientation of the Latvian government remains a matter of contention to this day.

The lack of clarity in the above matter is all the more onerous to apologists and critics alike, because official assertions of legitimacy are as quickly negated by subjective negation of democracy extending beyond parliamentary circles. One of the negations involves the notion that Populism as a legitimate element of democracy is not a legitimate notion.

A humble new pavillion in the making

The latter view is widely held from the incumbent President on down to the media, which is owned by a known to be an unknown. However, what if democracy without an element of populism is not a true democracy? http://www.jstor.org/pss/3687930 --say, as the article of the link has it, when it has us read “civic populism”.

While “civic populism” is a matter of rhetorical dissembling of “populism” pure and simple, the dissembling is acceptable in the instance of the Latvian government. It fears that it may or may not be the usurper of the sovereignty of the Latvian state—per the dissembling events at the foundation of the Latvian state. Therefore, the government in power tries to wipe away the fog by means of overshadowing it with silence or assertions of legitimacy that are not in the realm of being beyond any question.

What is the role of “civic populism” in determining who possesses Latvian sovereignty? The question is the impossible step forward that must be taken if democracy is to prevail in Latvia. If one allows a one year grace period for adjustment, in post-Soviet Latvia the silence has now lasted twenty years.

How does such a step forward project itself on the screen, when stated in terms of dispelling any doubts about the legitimacy of the government? This is an embarrassing question in light of Latvia’s sovereignty put in private hands and foreign banks.

The posts and struts of it

The blogger’s answer to the question was given at the end of the previous blog, which called the current Saeima’s (the one the incumbent President has suggested be dismissed) President Elect, Andris Berzins, to reject his election to the Presidency of Latvia, and call, along with the incumbent Prezident, Valdis Zatlers, for the election of the next President by a popular vote.

What if the electorate becomes aware of itself as a “civic populist”? What if populist rights have been transgressed through an invasion by government of the “internal foreign territory” of populists as Benjamin Ardidi argues in his essay “Populism as an Internal Periphery of Democratic Politics”?  What if this invasion of internal foreign territory also constitutes an invasion of human rights? Surely everyone has a right to his-her subjective evaluation.

At present, the incumbent President of Latvia apparently does not intend to question the authority of the Saeima he has called to be dismissed. One gathers from the news that he intends to do no more than have a going away party http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/241549?ref=news-btn-1 , which he calls “Tas vārds, kam spēks” (trans.: the word with authority).

Without in any way questioning the legitimacy of the State (Valsts) of Latvia, the call by the incumbent Prezident Valdis Zatlers for the dismissal of the Saeima is a golden opportunity to set the record straight by inviting the civic populist electorate to think for itself.

Mr. Andris Berzins would do Latvia a great service if he came forward and refuse his election to the Presidency by a discredited Saeima and, at the same time, call, both, for a popular vote for the next President of Latvia and a Constitutional Convention to rethink, rewrite, and reconnect the Latvian Constitution to the rights of the Latvian people to be the unquestioned sovereigns of their nation.

The roof is humble pine, but the posts are of oak

Below is the translation of above text in Latvian.
Seko tulkojums latviešu valodā.

Ja 1920tā gadā Latvijas pa labi no centra valdība bija vismaz daļēji tāda kara iemeslu dēļ, Satversmes Asemblijas ievēlēšana (kā to var izprast prêt pilnībā nepieejamās informācijas http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvijas_Satversmes_sapulce ) bija visai miglaina afēra. Pa piemēram, kas bija “reģistrētie balsotāji” kuri to balsoja? Šī migla noliedz iespēju šādu informāciju atrast internetā.

Kamēr valdības attaisnotāji atrod pietiekami iemeslus, lai apstiprinātu Latvijas valsts dibinātāju un Satversmes assemblijas leģitimāti (vistiešāk ārvalstu, speciāli Lielbritānijas atzinumā), pa labi no centra valdības orientācija paliek strīdīgs jautājums līdz šai dienai.

Augšā minēto situāciju rada neērtības kā attaisnotājiem, tā kritiķiem, jo oficiālie apgalvojumi attiecībā uz leģitimāti tiek noliegti ar subjektīvu vērtējumu, kas nosaka, ka demokrātijai ir jāierobežojās ar Parlamentu un tam tuvākām aprindām. Viens no subjektīviem liegumiem ir  neaizstāvēts apgalvojums, ka populisms nav leģitīms demokrātijas elements.

The road home

Šāds uzskats par populismu pārvalda visu oficiālās varas telpu, sākot ar Prezidentu līdz ziņu mēdijiem, pēdējie kuri pieder nezināmai, kā arī neatzītai tirdzniecības varai. Bet kas notiek tad, ja demokrātija bez populisma nevar būt patiesa demokrātija? http://www.jstor.org/pss/3687930 -- kā rakstīts linkā, kurā populisms tiek mīkstināts liekot populisma priekšā vārdiņu ‘civic’,  re “civic populism” vārdkopu, kura tulkojās kā civīlais/pilsonīgais populisms.

Lai gan ‘civīlais/pilsonīgas’ populisms ir (vairāk vai mazāk) retorika, kas mīkstina populisma tiešumu, terminoloģija ir pieņemama, jo valdība baidās, ka varētu kļūt vai arī nekļūt atklāts, ka  latviešu tautas soverenitāte tika pārkāpta valsts dibināšanas laikā, jo tautas piedalīšanās nenotika visā pilnībā.

Lai tādas domas netiktu cilātas, valdība tagad mēģina segt miglu ar slēgtu muti vai autoritāniskiem apgalvojumiem, ka leģitimitāte atrodās sfērā, kur šādiem jautājumiem nav nekāda nozīme.

Neskatoties uz autoritārismu, kāda loma ir civīlam/pilsonīgam populismam, kad runa ir par Latvijas suverenitāti? Šis jautājums ir acīmredzami vēl neiespējams solis, kurš tomēr ir jāsper, ja vēlamies, ka demokrātija Latvija ir īsta un ne tikai segvārds citai (Ai, mistērija!) varai. Pēc-Padomijas Latvijā mēmums par valsts patiesiem īpašniekiem ir ieildzis jau divdesmit gadus.



Thunder clouds



Kā nepieciešamais solis uz priekšu izskatās, ja mēs to formulējam kā nepieciešamību pārvarēt šaubas par valdības leģimitāti? Šāds jautājums ir īpaši prasīgs laikā, kad Latvijas suverenitāte tiek nodota privātās un ārvalstu banku rokās. Vai tas ir attaisnojams?

Šīs slejas rakstītājs atbildēja uz šo jautājumu kādā citā rakstā (iepriekšējā blogā), kur viņš pieprasija, ka nākošais Prezidents Andris Bērziņš noraida savu iebalsošanu Presidenta amatā, un līdzās ar Prezidentu Valdi Zatleru pieprasa, ka nākošais Latvijas presidents tiek ievēlēts ar visu balsotāju piedalīšanos.

Kas notiek, ja balsotāji sevi atpazīst kā civīlie/pilsoniskie populisti? Kas notiek, ja tiek saskatīts ka populistu tiesības ir pārkāptas, jo ir notikusi valdības invāzija tā sauktā “iekšējā ārvalsts teritorijā”? Šis termiņš ir politiskā zinātnieka Benjamiņa Ardidi arguments esejā, kuru sauc “Populisms kā iekšejā perifērija demokrātiskā politikā” (autora tulkokums). Ka ir, ja šīs iekšējās ārvalsts teritorijas invāzija ir cilvēktiesību pārkāpums no valdības puses? Vai ikvienam nav tiesības uz saviem subjektīviem ieskatiem un lēmumiem?

Dotā brīdī, Prezidents Zatlers, acīmredzot netaisās apšāubīt Saeimas autoritāti, kaut viņš ir ieteicis to atlaist kā nekompetentu. No ziņu mēdijiem nāk ziņojums, ka Prezidents rīko neko vairāk, ka atvadu ballīti http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/241549?ref=news-btn-1 , kuru sauks par “Tas vārds, kam spēks”.

Lai arī rakstītājs neapšauba valsts leģimitāti, Prezidenta Zatlera aicinājums atlaist Saeimu ir zelta izdevība izmantot suverenitātes jēdzienu un pieprasīt politiķiem un mēdijiem atzīt civīlos/ pilsonīgos populistus ka nepieciešamus, ja Latvija nākotnē būtu patiesa demokrātija.

Andris Bērziņš nodarītu Latvijas valstij lielu pakalpojumu, ja viņš atteiktu sevis ievēlēšanu par Prezidentu. Jo pastāvošās Saeimas autoritāte ir apšaubāma. Kā Bērziņš, tā Zatlers var pieprasīt, ka nākošais Prezidents ir visu pilsoņu (pilsonīgo populistu) ievēlēts. Saprotams, ir vērts ieteikt Satversmes assembli, kas vēlreiz pārdomā un pārraksta Latvijas Satversmi, un ka par to balso visi Latvijas pilsoņi, kuri ar savu piedalīšanos pierāda visas pasaules priekšā sevi kā ir patiesie Latvijas suverenitātes īpašnieki.

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 1

(Continued…)

In my previous blog, I gave a list of topics to be discussed at a suggested international conference convened on the invitation of outgoing President Valdis Zatlers. According to media pundits, the President is to leave office on July 7^th. Topic 11. asks

11. What happens when the people of Latvia get screwed to the wall by the oligarchs and banks and a parliamentary “democracy” elects a President widely experienced in screwing around?

The screwing around by the allegedly new President Andris Berzins concerns the President’s recognized and not recognized off springs from his apparently numerous love affairs. This topic was, of course, a rhetorical suggestion, an ad-on to other others, and expressed my anger over the Saeima’s secretive and autocratic behavior in electing such an important political figure for Latvia.

While the election of Andris Berzins is clearly a scandalous overstepping of the Latvian people’s sovereign rights to their nation—with the ever present plausible deniability clause applied to the election with a vengeance and utter cynicism—it seems that the election has an excellent chance of being nullified if the people exercise their rights to be the sovereign representatives of Latvia over and above the rights of the oligarch and bank controlled Saeima.

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 2

As Articles 48. and 49. of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme) state:

48. The President of State shall have the right to propose the dissolution of the Saeima. This shall be followed by a referendum. If in the referendum more than one-half of the votes are cast in favour of dissolution, the Saeima shall be considered as dissolved and new elections shall be proclaimed. These elections shall take place within two months after the dissolution of the Saeima.

49. Upon dissolution of the Saeima, its members shall retain their powers until the newly-elected Saeima has assembled. The former Saeima may only assemble on being convened by the President of State. The agenda for such sittings shall be determined by the President of State.

I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in constitutions, but basing my opinion on the premise that the People are the sovereign owners of any given nation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W28CQQsH9S8 , it is not—as former President Bush of the USA states in the clip—“the relationship… between sovereign entities”, but with one and only one entity—the People. It is the People and not the government who are the sovereigns of a nation, which is why they are over and above the Saeima (Senate) even it is the latter that elects the President of the Nation.

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 3

Thus, while the new president was decided upon in rooms out of sight to the Latvian People and the victor, this time around,a near utter surprise to the People), it remains true that the Latvian People may not only protest, but demand that in the Referendum (see above clauses) there is a clause that also demands that the allegedly new president resign.

The demand that the new president Andris Berzins resign is based on the premise that his election is not legitimate in a legal sense. The illegitimacy of the election can be proven by arguments coming from several directions.

A most important source of argument is that President Valdis Zatlers’ proposal to dissolve the Saeima (“to propose the dissolution of the Saeima” as Article 48. states) is not only a proposal, but constitutes an indictment http://latviansonline.com/news/article/7515/ also. The actions or inactions of the Saeima read by President Zatlers reveals the Saeima to be a body that has become a de facto foreign body of State. Therefore, contrary to the Constitution (Satversme) “…the Saeima, its members shall [not] retain their powers until the newly-elected Saeima has assembled”.

I would argue that a Saeima under a Presidential indictment cannot elect a new president. Such an election is not only arrogant; it is dictatorial by means of its corruption, and an action meant to annihilate the indicter. In other words, one may conclude that the current Latvian Saeima has presumed for itself powers that may annihilate the State of Latvia as a sovereign entity of the Latvian People.

The above may remain a matter of discussion among legal minds. On the other hand, if a Populist agitation for retaining such rights for the People were exercised with vigor and the Latvian People participate in the Referendum vote in numbers that reach above a simple majority, perhaps going as high as 75%, then the Latvian People will be declaring themselves the sovereign owners of Latvia in a manner they were not able to do at the foundation of Latvia in 1918 due to then prevailing war conditions. Indeed, the failures of the first half of the Latvian nation may be at the root of what causes the inertia affecting the State currently.

To exercise agitation in raising the sovereign self-consciousness of Latvians there is need for a popular campaign. Such a campaign can be waged only with the help of the Latvian Diaspora. The current Saeima, indicted and said (by the President Valdis Zatlers) to be deserving dismissal, will of course argue to the contrary and repress publicity to the best of its ability.

Needless to say, it should be the current President, Valdis Zatlers, who heads the campaign for remaining in office until the results of the Referendum vote are in. Whether he has the guts (aknas) to do so depends to what an extent the Latvian Diaspora perceives the political crisis in Latvia to be existential for Latvia. What do the Latvian People do for their part? Finding themselves in financially and economically existential situation, it should not be difficult to persuade them that the need of their vote, too, is existential.

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 4