Hypocrisy as the permanent tattoo of this political class on one's forehead

On Thursday, the Saeima did not elect former President of the Constitutional Court Sanita Osipova as a Senator of the Supreme Court. This vote was predictable, as Osipova in her previous position mixed law with politics and ideology quite freely, thus paving the way for a political vote in the Saeima.

Unfortunately, the left, which in recent years has gained disproportionate influence in the public administration and the public media, was unable to accept the loss of "its people" with dignity. A public hysteria was organized, demonstrating their peculiar understanding of democracy. It turns out that the country's supreme legislator, the people's representative, the Saeima, should vote not according to its political convictions, but according to the instructions of leftist ideologues. If it does not go their way, then it is undemocratic and threatens the constitutional order of the country. We are reaching the point where the votes of the Saeima must first be approved by the ideological section of the Central Committee, and only then do the MPs, like decorative mannequins, approve these instructions from above.

Of course, one could joke that we are going back to Soviet times, but that is not a topic anyone wants to joke about. I remember those times very well, as well as the parts that many people are trying not to remember now. The fact that the absolute majority of Latvians joined the party without much compunction, voted for whatever they were told to vote for, and even, to a large extent, thought what they were told to think from high platforms. Why do I mention this?

Because I remember well how easily totalitarianism is accepted by society. The events of recent years in the world show that people's belief in a priori democracy is greatly overestimated. It turns out that stigmatizing those who think differently, driving them into the ghetto of the marginals, is a natural, primitive human desire. What is happening in Canada, with the arrest of protest organizers and the freezing of their bank accounts, shows the consequences of the left's prolonged stay in power. It is the Osipovians, the Kariņians/Pavļutians and other leftists who are now the main threat to democracy, not some few anti-Semites, racists or swastika-wearers. Only those who simply refuse to see it can fail to see it. They don't want to and that's all.

The ideological aspect of Osipova's non-election does not cause much disagreement, as all sides in fact recognize that the basis of her "case" is the judgment of the Constitutional Court (CC) of November 12, 2020, in the case concerning the granting of paternity (father's) allowance to the girlfriend of the child's mother. However, the legal aspect of this case must be considered separately. This is all the more so because the President of the Supreme Court (SC), Aigars Stupišs, said on LTV's "Rīta panorāma" that the non-confirmation of Osipova as an SC judge had created a constitutional crisis in the country. The Saeima violated Article 83 of the Constitution, which reads: "Judges shall be independent and subject only to the law."

Does this Article contradict the next Article of the Constitution, Article 84, which begins, "Judicial appointments shall be confirmed by the Saeima and they shall be irrevocable..."? There is no contradiction. The Saeima has every constitutional right to approve or disapprove of a judicial candidate. However, once a judge has been approved (and is no longer a candidate), the MPs cannot revoke or otherwise influence him. The judge is already independent. Therefore, Saeima's vote of February 17 is absolutely legitimate. Rather, one may question Stupišs' own qualifications if he allows himself to throw around such heavy words as "constitutional crisis".

Members of Osipova's fan club say she is a high-level professional whose non-election was "revenge". This word is often used to explain why many MPs voted against or did not vote at all. What are these MPs taking revenge on her for? What has Osipova done to them? It just seems that by "revenge" the Osipovians mean the unwillingness of MPs to vote for a candidate for an SC judge who is prepared to go outside the legal box in her judgement and justifies it with ideological arguments.

Here we must return to the above-mentioned judgment of the CC of November 12. It is full of emotional reflections based not on articles of the law and other legal documents, but on contemplations of dignity and sexual behavior. Here is just one quotation from the judgment: "One of the elements of a person's private life is his or her sexual behavior. The freedom of sexual behavior of a person is to be protected regardless of the form it takes or the sexual orientation of the person."

There are two things to note in this phrase. Firstly, the controversial recognition that "freedom of sexual behavior of a person is to be protected regardless of the form it takes". Have various perversions really already been abolished and are "protected"? Secondly, and more importantly in this case, what does "freedom of sexual behavior" have to do (in legal terms) with the issue at hand?

Let me remind you that the judgment of the CC concerns paternity allowance for the mother's girlfriend. It is about a sum of money to be paid from the state budget to someone who is not the father of the child. In order to link the father of the child, the paternity allowance and the mother's girlfriend, the five-page judgment talks about human dignity, mutual understanding and other things that are quite far removed from jurisprudence. These explanations would fit well into a philosophical or psychological essay, but in a legal document, they only show a lack of serious, legally irrefutable arguments. Long-winded reasoning is a substitute for a non-existent legal basis.

It is absolutely clear that the Osipova "case" is absolutely political and absolutely ideological. The attempts to attach the tag of "constitutional crisis" to it are evidence of a very deep degradation of our socio-political system. An issue that could quite easily be dealt with within a politico-legal framework is being relegated to the realms of propaganda and brainwashing. Obviously, propaganda and brainwashing are the deepest essence of political life (struggle) and its true basis.

On the political plane, everything is simple, and this path is no secret to anyone. Osipova will be promoted as a senator of the SC again in a short while, and then the missing votes will be bought. The readiness to "sell" their vote was clearly demonstrated by those Harmony MPs who did not participate in the vote on February 17 and by this non-participation also failed the vote. Thus, they seemingly said: "We do not care about this vote. If someone thinks it is very important, then give us something in return and you will get our votes."

What is the moral of all this? The extremely heated reaction to one, quite democratic, Saeima vote shows how totalitarian the thinking of our political class really is. As soon as a vote does not satisfy this class, it is invoked as the reason why politicizing and ideologizing the decisions of the Saeima should not be allowed. The standard phrases of "shame", "backwardness", "hatred" are recited. If, on the other hand, the vote is "correct", then, however politicized and ideologized it may be, it is all right. Then there is no "hate". I guess then there is "love"? Or is it hypocrisy as the permanent tattoo of this political class on one's forehead?