President Egils Levits: The big selfish sponsors' influence on parties has diminished considerably

Observing the torn and crumbling KPV LV party in the coalition, which, according to the results of the 13th Saeima elections, receives the second largest state budget funding, President of Latvia Egils Levits has raised the issue of the need to improve the regulatory framework, which would provide a legitimate basis for reducing state funding for parties with mayfly lifespans.

The 13th Saeima increased the state funding of political parties following the call of E. Levits, but accepted it in the simplest version - without listening to the suggestions of individual coalition partners and the President himself.

E. Levits is now urging parliament to correct past mistakes by the end of its term, but will avoid taking the initiative of proposing a bill himself.

You were the one who called for the issue of financing political parties to be resolved as soon as possible. This was not the only call to the parties when you took office, but the first to be brought to life in the law. Why do you think the parties did not implement this principle from the beginning, even though calls for similar regulation could be heard?

Party funding from the state budget is in the long-term interests of society as a whole. This is a question of the quality of democracy because parties must be accountable only to the public and serve the public interest, not their sponsors. The big sponsors are not selfless benefactors, they demand decisions from the parties that are good for them - at the expense of the public interest.

State budget funding eliminates the influence of powerful donors on party policies and decisions. I am aware that society is critical of parties and that decisions that affect parties are never immediately popular. It is no wonder, then, that the necessary political will to carry out such a reform has been lacking in the past. This necessary decision has been postponed for a long time due to short-sighted goals of popularity and populism. This has been detrimental to the development of the state and democracy, has branded us as a post-Soviet country rather than a country in the European political space.

The Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers must also be able to make unpopular decisions if they are in the long-term interests of the whole society. This Saeima and this Cabinet of Ministers have been able to make such decisions in several areas, implement several important reforms, including the reform of party financing.

I believe that the decision to switch to state funding for political parties was the right one. Parties do not have to depend on big selfish sponsors. That is contrary to the principles of democracy. According to the information at my disposal, the amount of donations from individuals has now decreased tenfold. This means that the influence of big selfish sponsors on parties has diminished considerably. Of course, they are not happy about it.

It is undeniable that state funding is allocated to parties and not to their Saeima parliamentary groups. Do you think that funding for the party should be decreased as the number of Members in the parliamentary group shrinks? What should be the criteria for reducing funding?

In the autumn of 2019, in the discussions on the financing of parties from the state budget, I urged to set as many different criteria as possible, on which the amount of funding allocated to the party would depend and which would stimulate the party's activity also in the periods between elections. Unfortunately, these proposals were not supported by the Saeima at that time. At the time, the parties lacked courage. For example, at the time, I was proposing to take into account the number of members who regularly pay a membership fee, and possibly also fluctuations in the party's ratings, when determining the amount of funding allocated to parties. The number of regional chapters or the existence of a youth organization could also be taken into account. The longevity of the parliamentary group could also be one of the benchmarks.

In any case, the law must include various criteria for receiving the annual state funding. Therefore, the Saeima will have to return to this issue soon.

I have also always emphasized that if a party violates the conditions for receiving and using funding, the funding allocated to it must be taken away. Accurate and high-quality operation of control institutions is important here. KNAB performs its duties quite effectively.

In the coalition that followed your call, there is now the view that the responsibility for the shortcomings is at least partly yours. Are you ready to come forward with amendments to the law on your own initiative, or at least to lead a discussion about the need for such amendments?

Latvia is a parliamentary republic in which the content of laws is determined by the majority of the Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers responsible for it. The responsibility for the conceptual improvement of any regulation and also for the necessary votes in the Saeima belongs to the parliamentary majority.

The President may initiate a discussion of an issue, draw the public's attention to any shortcomings and give his opinion on possible solutions. I actively use these opportunities by participating in the development of various draft laws.

The issues of party financing are also in my focus because it is a matter of democracy as established in the Constitution. I have discussed them with party representatives as well as experts and responsible institutions. Adjustments to the law will definitely be needed. They will have to be adopted by this Saeima so that the improved law can enter into force with the convening of the next Saeima.

I expect that the Saeima will be able to do this in the remaining time before the elections. To help the Saeima settle this matter, I am ready to come forward with my own proposals.