In the Grip of 'Red Lines': Latvia's Politicians Divide Themselves and Society 0 7

Who Are We Friends With?

Let’s clarify. So, what are the "red lines" in Latvian politics? It is a promise not to cooperate in forming a ruling coalition with any other politically alien force.

Sometimes parties get so caught up in this game of red lines that they name not just one, but two, three, or four political forces with which they will not sit at the negotiating table. The absurdity of such politics is that these statements are most often made BEFORE THE ELECTIONS, meaning before the voters have had their say.

This is, to some extent, a disrespect for the will of the citizens of the Republic of Latvia, as those who speak about red lines have not yet received a mandate from the voters themselves.

Who Cares About the Opinion of a Shot-Down Pilot

Sometimes it gets ridiculous: a statement about whom a party plans to be friends with or not is made by a party that, according to opinion polls, has little chance of overcoming the five percent barrier, that is, getting into the Saeima! I remember the New Conservative Party before the elections – first for the Riga City Council, and then for the Saeima – sent draft memorandums to other right-wing parties, which contained a promise not to cooperate with certain political forces after the elections.

In the end, the "conservatives" did not get into parliament at all and ended up in opposition in the capital's municipality. Subsequently, the "conservatives" in the Riga City Council could not withstand the opposition's test and dispersed.

Narrowing the Room for Maneuver

On the other hand, leaders of parties that made it into the Saeima, if they managed to outline red lines, later, as they say, bite their elbows, as they have narrowed their room for maneuver after the elections.

However, often after the elections, when the taste of power is close, politicians suddenly forget their pre-election promises of "not being friends with these people" – hoping that voters have short memories. And then, over four years – until the next elections, everything can change.

I remember in the early 2000s, the leader of the newly formed party "New Era" Repše threatened not to cooperate with the People's Party of Škēle. And in the end, life or rather – mathematics, forced Repše's party to merge with the "people's" party in a single government.

Changed Their Minds Along the Way

However, why look so far back for examples from 15 years ago when there is a fresh example? Before the elections to the current Saeima, both the "Progressives" and "New Unity" assured voters that they did not intend to form a government with the "Green Farmers" since they were still associated with Lembergs.

Less than a year after the elections, when Karins's second government collapsed, "New Unity" and the "Progressives" not only agreed with the Union of Greens and Farmers (UGF) on joint efforts to elect Rinkēvičs as president but also on forming a new coalition consisting of all three political forces.

What about the promise not to sit at the same table with the UGF? Both "New Unity" and the "Progressives" assured that the situation had changed, and now they no longer see Lembergs's influence on the Union of Greens and Farmers.

A similar realization came a little later for the leaders of the United List when the hope of dismantling the Siliņa government with the help of the "Green Farmers" emerged, and then together with them to create a new government. It should be noted that the United List was created by former allies of the "Green Farmers," who justified their "betrayal" by not wanting to be "under the control" of the oligarch Lembergs anymore.

New Self-Imposed Restrictions

However, it seems that life has not taught the "Progressives" anything, as they again spoke about red lines at their recent congress – this time they stated that after the elections they would not cooperate with Šlesers's party "Latvia First." Interestingly, even before the congress, the "Progressives" also included "Sovereign Power" and "Stability!" in their "black list."

Two points can be noted here:

• First, Šlesers's party itself did not intend to be friends with the "Progressives."
• Second, it is strange that the "Progressives" are against cooperating with Šlesers's party, but are ready to form a government, for example, with their ideological opponents, the National Alliance. Although, apparently, the interaction of the "Progressives" with nationalists in the Riga City Council convinced the "Progressives" that it is quite possible to work with nationalists and share the pie of power.

Promised – Keep

It should be noted that in some cases, parties have adhered to their stated red lines even after the elections. If we again look back at the recent past, right-wing parties promised (and kept their promise) not to cooperate first with the ZaPČEL, then with Harmony...

Today, right-wing parties are again drawing red lines primarily concerning "Sovereign Power" and "Stability!" At the same time, right-wing parties do not mention Šlesers's party among the hostile forces. It is understandable: after the elections, it may simply turn out that the "mathematics" without Šlesers's party, which will surely receive many mandates, just does not add up, and after all, a government needs to be formed with someone!

Of course, those parties that play the red lines hope, on the one hand, to show voters their principled stance, and on the other – to create discomfort for their competitors, who have not yet outlined such red lines and thus demonstrate to voters their "unreliability," readiness to "be friends even with the devil" for the sake of power.

Or Maybe You Should Focus on the Job?

Many of our readers will surely notice that for the country and the people, it is more important not to have red lines, but how effectively and professionally those who come to power are able to work and really solve problems, without wasting time and energy on meaningless confrontation and behind-the-scenes games.

And one more important point. Red lines in politics are like a virus that spreads from the political stage to the whole society, exacerbating the division within it. It would seem that we live in such a small country and there are so few of us... what else do we have to divide?! But no – the principle of divide and rule is still very much alive!