After the catastrophically low turnout of citizens in the municipal elections, both the opposition and the coalition have accused that the administrative-territorial reform has alienated voters from political developments and their municipalities. Minister of Environmental Protection and Regional Development Artūrs Toms Plešs does not agree with this. He also rejects the versions that his represented party For Latvia's Development (Latvijas attīstībai) should be included in the list of losers in these elections. A. T. Plešs was at the forefront of the reform from the very beginning, because before he became a minister, he headed the special Administrative-Territorial Reform Committee of the Saeima.
Some of the opposition, and the coalition too, believe that the election results have been significantly influenced by the administrative-territorial reform, as a result of which people have been alienated from political developments in the municipality due to large municipalities. To what extent do you think the reform is to blame?
I do not agree with that statement. If we look at the turnout of elections and the participation of the population in political processes, this kind of negative trend can be observed not only in Latvia, but also elsewhere in Europe. If we look at how much Latvian society is involved in various types of processes in general, then this is, of course, on average lower than in Europe. This shows that we need to think about systemic ways how to involve citizens in decision-making processes at both state and municipal levels.
Here I think a very important contribution, both in the near and distant future, will be made by the municipality law, in which we have provided an innovative form of participation budget, where, in order to promote citizen participation in decision-making processes and thus have a direct impact on political processes, citizens will be able to decide on a certain budget for various initiatives, as well as citizens' councils, which were included in the law at the initiative of the President, and other elements that will most directly expand the participation of citizens.
What, in your opinion, would be the most correct solution to the Varakļāni and Rēzekne territorial dispute?
It must be said that at the time of the discussions in the committee, they were difficult enough, so we agreed in the committee to ask Varakļāni municipality to organize a survey. The result came that Varakļāni wanted to be included with Madona. The committee supported this wish, but the Saeima decided that Varakļāni should be included with Rēzekne.
Now it has been again asked to find out the opinion of the population and by the beginning of next year the Cabinet of Ministers must come up with its solution. Let's see what the people of Varakļāni will say. My belief is that Varakļāni should be included with Madona municipality, it was also offered by the MEPRD, and it was widely discussed with local authorities, residents, non-governmental organizations.
How do you assess the results of the For Latvia's Development party in the municipal elections? For example, about how the coalition partner Jānis Dombrava called For Latvia's Development party as the losers of the elections?
For Latvia's Development had a great result - 84 deputies in 24 municipalities. I think this is a direct indication that the people appreciate the need for administrative-territorial reform and have a great deal of confidence in the political force that will be able to seize the opportunities offered by the reform.
For those who believe that we are losers, I certainly cannot agree, because in 2017, when For Latvia's Development started in the elections, the result was incomparably lower and we only got seats in some municipalities with a couple deputies. Now we have won in six municipalities, in several of them by a large margin - in Aizkraukle, Līvāni. We also have excellent election results in Ropaži, Gulbene and Jēkabpils, where we have won laurels that we were not even close to four years ago.