Publicist Jurģis Liepnieks: The brakes of national growth will have the face of Kariņš and Znotiņa

Interview with publicist Jurģis Liepnieks about Pūce's demission, Reirs and Levits' communication with the public, Bordāns as a "face of Catholics" and other current events.

What does the demission of the Minister of Environmental Protection and Regional Development Juris Pūce mean? What political consequences might this have?

Pūce’s resignation is one of the most unusual events that Latvian politics has experienced over the last 25 years. There have been quite a few demissions, of course. This is the second for Pūce himself. For the first time, he resigned as Secretary of State when a scandal erupted over donations to an association run by his wife. At that time, resignation was a strategically wise action that brought all the expected benefits - it distracted from the essence and seemed to cleanse the future politician. But this resignation is different, it is something like if a

person first shoots himself in the leg, then thinks a little and decides - I'll shoot myself in liver too. After such a political auto-da-fé, Pūce will not be a minister for at least 20 years, if at all, although a week before this whole scandal he was a real candidate for the post of prime minister.

He probably could have become the Prime Minister even during this term of the Saeima. Unbelievable. I have never seen anything so stupid and ridiculous in Latvia from the point of view of political technique. When the news about the permit appeared, I was sure it will be news for a maximum of one week. There were a number of standard strategies for dealing with this situation without any loss at all. It was possible to admit, apologize, humanly explain, to repay the council those few hundred euros - it would not be terrible, especially against the background of this Saeima, where convicted and accused deputies calmly chair commissions. A trivial permit, which the Minister may have used a few times or may not have, would be nothing special. Even after the foolish and unnecessary lying, the situation was actually salvageable. I can't really imagine the circumstances why a supposedly wise, experienced politician makes such stupid mistakes and simply destroys himself within a week. In fact, everything is even worse. With his foolish, irresponsible actions, Pūce is now pulling his closest members and the whole party down. He has seriously complicated the future for his party members, and, judging by everything, has decided to continue to do everything possible to break up the union and end the For Latvia's Development (Latvian: Latvijas attīstībai) project. This party is saved a bit by the fact that their partners in the association are very big talkers, but they are much calmer at work. In this case, too, it may help - widen your eyes, write another determined tweet on the Internet, and that’s it. Even their voters do not expect more of them.

Māris Mičerevskis, who left the party For Latvia's Development, has either felt the success or, under the influence of some adrenaline, has decided to turn the dung thrower in the direction of the fan. Allegations of illegal party funding are many times more serious than the permit story. I assume that he understands that such accusations should not be made in public if there is no evidence. Let's see how the situation develops here.

When the emperor or generals in ancient Rome returned victorious, they were given a triumphant march through the city. But the slave, who was holding a laurel wreath over the warlord's head, was obliged to whisper one phrase in his ear all the time: "Remember that you are mortal!" Namely, to remind all the time so it does not go to his head, not to lose reality, not to consider himself above everything even in this moment of triumph, because that is a disease that is very difficult to get rid of. The disease of arrogance eats the mind, eats talent, leads to destruction. Of course, Latvian politics is also full of such examples, and probably such a detachment from reality was also Pūce's problem.

Is the parking permit the real reason - isn't there some other, more serious compromising material against Pūce?

Probably. In this government, ministers are doing so many unacceptable things that a trivial permit issue would have been easy to resolve.

The Minister of Justice Jānis Bordāns (New Conservative Party (Latvian: Jaunā konservatīvā partija, JKP)) will be the “face of Catholics” in the project Tiecības to promote the Roman Catholic Church. Should the Minister have been participating in this?

What is particularly curious about Bordāns' and the church's story is that he is the Minister of Justice, whose position would seem to require special attention to constitutional matters, but he is, of course, a narcissus without any interest in the rule of law and the state. Of course, he will gladly look at his own face, especially in a context where there is an illusion that behind it there is something serious, big, that it means something. Apart from this personal factor, I think there is also an attempt to redefine the JKP in some way. You can’t run for the second time using the tagline of fighting against corruption. There will be questions about what you have fought and won over these four years, and if not, why, what kept you? Something new is needed. Apparently, they’ll try to sneak deeper into conservatism.

However, this niche is becoming more and more crowded. There will be more and more competition. National Alliance (Latvian: Nacionālā apvienība) is the party that has the greatest roots here, while the Union of Greens and Farmers (Latvian: Zaļo un Zemnieku Savienība) has also been quite conservative. And all sorts of marginals are crammed into this niche. There is still a lot of time, but frankly, I do not think that the JKP will be represented in the next Saeima at all. I don't think even the Catholic Church will help.

Currently, the most powerful person in the country is the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit Ilze Znotiņa, who has shown the Governor, Prime Minister and even the President of the Bank of Latvia their place. They say that financial "overhaul" has "driven into the opposite ditch" - supervision is too strict, but Znotiņa says that everything is in order - nothing has "driven" anywhere.

The systemic problem in Latvian democracy is that we have a number of officials who, in fact, are not supervised, controlled or managed by anyone, despite the fact that they do not have a mandate given by the people. Supervision of all special services is formal or non-existent. There is no balance. Special services themselves supervise those who should supervise them and have more power and influence than those who should supervise them. Znotiņa is not really supervised by anyone, so she does what she wants based on her understanding. She rampages through the public financial sector like a sandbox, not thinking for a moment what the further consequences will be, where the criminal proceedings will remain, what the consequences will be in banking practices, how it will affect not only banks but also bank customers, investment climate. In my opinion, the situation in banks is dramatic, but it is difficult to blame the banks, because the state has invented these exaggerated requirements without thinking about what it will look like in real life.

Well, there was a political condition for Latvia to abandon the financial services export sector, which was large and successful. Okay, I understand the context somehow. But now we are going to make banks a real barrier to investment and business in Latvia. I guarantee you that it will have long-term adverse effects on Latvia's investment climate and business environment, on the country's development and budget revenues, respectively, and that these consequences have be the face of Kariņš and Znotiņa.

What is happening in Riga City Council?

It is still a little too early to judge. The new council has just warmed up. However, it has already painted the bicycle lanes on Čaka Street, saying that it is an experiment. One part of Rigans, as far as I understand, is very dissatisfied, another very satisfied. Both sides can be understood - cyclists have a fancy cycle lane, but some mothers have to sit an extra half hour or an hour in a trolleybus after a day of work before getting home to the children. And it is in these covid-times, when one does not want to be in public transport for any longer than necessary. It would be nice if it were explained somewhere, according to what criteria and how the results of the experiment are measured, with which they are compared, how is its course monitored, when the experiment ends? I have not heard that elsewhere in the world today, urban planning decisions were made not by modeling flows virtually, based on precise numbers and calculations, but by experimenting in nature. But maybe I don't know something.

I think it is a very bold move to experiment in this way, but I do not want to rush to conclusions. The world belongs to the brave. Sometimes it is necessary to act boldly. Maybe this is the case. Let's see.

Budget and taxes. Is it smart to make such significant tax changes during covid?

This government pays more for public relations services than any other government in the history of Latvia, but communication is a huge problem for it. The way in which ideas and proposals were communicated to the self-employed, the recipients of royalties, was below criticism, and I believe that it was only because of communication mistakes that the government set a very important section of society against itself. I do not really think that Jānis Reirs (New Unity, Latvian: Jaunā Vienotība) is a bad minister, but these mistakes will cost him dearly. Objectively, the state steered through at least the first wave of covid very successfully from a financial point of view, and it certainly can't be accused that the state had squandered and used money inefficiently. Although there were many opportunities to squander. The finance minister guarded, so to speak, the country's wallet very well. The main problem that emerged from the calculation of downtime benefits - that a huge number of people, in fact a third of workers, make social contributions from a sum of less than EUR 150 - is also really very socially and structurally dangerous. Reirs again made a small communication mistake by saying that these people do not make any contributions at all, and therefore the fact checkers of the non-governmental organization Re:Baltica stated that he was misleading the public. Although Reirs was right in essence, one third of workers have virtually no social security contributions, which means that they make only minimal contributions and are completely socially vulnerable. But as Re:Baltica swiped the problem under the rug with an easy hand, it was more interesting for them to say that the minister was misleading the public than to warn 270 000 workers and their families that their pension is likely to be in double digits and that they cannot count on any significant help in other crises. The Minister may have conveyed this awkwardly, but he was right in every way - it is a huge problem, and that could be understood by anyone who cares about this country. However, it was more important for Re:Baltica to selfishly shine its feathers and, by nitpicking words, hang its tag on the minister. But well, they are a private office, they can do what they want - the minister should communicate more clearly and professionally. In general, of course, it all a mess and a muck. As I said, communication with the public is below every criticism.

You mentioned Re:Baltica fact-checkers. What does this new phenomenon mean - a private office decides what is true and what is not?

There is a lot of debate about it in the US, even books have already been written, there are many interesting aspects. Let us start with the fact that in post-truth politics, the political debate has changed radically in that we often discuss not what the best strategy would be in the light of the facts, but what the facts are at all. If we cannot agree on the facts, we cannot even start discussing what is the best course of action in these circumstances. Then come the fake news, that is, fake facts deliberately spread in one way or another, and it is very difficult for people to navigate in this new environment. They should be somehow helped. The role of the fact-checkers would be to provide such assistance. There can be no objection to that. And yet, as always, much depends on the integrity of these fact-checkers. Firstly, they should be politically neutral people, able to separate this professional work from their sympathies, antipathies and political agendas. But are, for example, Re:Baltica like that? In my opinion, it certainly is not. I think these ladies have never particularly hidden their political likes and dislikes. What are the ways in which the political bias of fact-checkers manifests itself? Well, first of all, already selecting the facts that are being tested. Through this selection, the agenda can be shaped, public opinion can be influenced, and certain politicians can be lifted up or sunk. If you are just waiting for one of the politicians you want to sink to say some nonsense and then expose it, then it is a regular political activity that is hidden under independent journalism. Also very debatable are some notations and ratings that are used that allow for a wide range of manipulations.

For example, in the example of the Minister of Finance I mentioned, Re:Baltica claimed that the statement was exaggerated and misleading. You know, "exaggerated" is such a slippery concept. It is often said that exaggeration is a lie of an honest person. Yes, there is such a rhetorical technique, very widely used both in political communication and in everyday life, completely normal and acceptable. Making it reprehensible, color it in a negative light, is one way in which we unnoticeably present an unpleasant politician or statement negatively. And do we really expect politicians not to exaggerate anymore? Seriously? In this case, for example, did Reirs not exaggerate in order to bring the public's attention to a huge problem? I think he tried. It was the Minister who acted here in the national and public interest, but the fact-checkers nitpicked and acted to the detriment of the public. I think they did it just because they didn't like Reirs.

Who will check the checkers? In large countries, this is not such a big problem, because there is media criticism, competition between centers of excellence, but in a small country like ours, where there is none, it can be a problem. Because there is a great influence held in one hand that has no counterweight.

Isn’t it too much to talk about great influence. Do many really take into consideration such writings?

Perhaps at the moment in Latvia it may seem that it does not have a big impact, but this impact will definitely increase, because fact checkers definitely are and will be needed. It is one of the essential components of the future of quality journalism and beyond. The point is that large social networking platforms will increasingly use such outsourcing to regulate what appears on social networks. We already see that Twitter can easily delete or tag US President's tweets. Then imagine how easy it would be to do that with us if a private office thought that we were exaggerating too much, for example.

There is a very heated debate in the United States at all levels. The US fact-checkers are also faced with the fact that their findings continue to be actively used by stakeholders in political marketing tools in a way that may not have been imagined by the fact-checkers. It will also take place in Latvia and will bring a lot of surprises to all kinds of rebalticas, which, I am afraid, have not read or studied much in the exact field they are engaged in. And I am especially trying to annoy them now, to provoke them to read, to think, to follow the literature and to approach some reasonable standards.

How could the activities of the President be assessed? He has been in office for over a year.

There is a concept in politics of expectation management. All professionals know that before the elections, politicians are trying to raise the hope that something better will be associated with them. The higher the expectations and hopes before the elections, the more important it is to adjust them after the elections. It has different strategies, because if you don't, people expect something impossible from you and quickly experience a disappointment that is just as strong as the expectations before. You seem to have pulled back the rubber band to get elected, but then it comes back with the same force. It can turn a very loved one into a big disappointment at some point.

Egils Levits has not attracted any specialists in his team who would be oriented in Latvian domestic politics and politics in general as a specific field of communication. The consequences are visible. Incompetent communication at all levels, no policies at all, no values, no visions, no understanding of what society is currently going through, what difficulties they are going through, absolutely nothing. The invention of new names was a pleasant little pepper, but it is clear what people will think of a chef who each time serves only exotic peppers, without the food itself. Remember, Māra Zālīte said before the election of Levits that he was like a bright star that shines even in the darkest corners of our country. Unfortunately, it does not shine. It does not shine anywhere at all, which is especially bad in a crisis situation, when society needs leadership, authorities that are able to formulate goals, visions, unite and mobilize, thus helping us overcome difficult times. The whole political history of the world shows how important leaders are in crises. The president should be one of the central figures. He could also make a significant contribution to the government by taking on the task of mobilizing society. I will not talk at all about the fact that the President has enough powers to influence the work of the government and the Saeima. We have had presidents who can fill the presidency with content. I do not know what President Levits is doing. I don't see anything at all. He is the president who makes us remember the question that arises from time to time, whether we need a presidential institution at all. For what do we pay him a salary, provide an ostentatious place to live, transport, security, employees?

What is their contribution, where are they? What are they doing? What is the point of them? We already have Ināra Mūrniece (National Alliance, NA), the Speaker of the Saeima Presidium - a beautiful hairstyle, formal phrases, a good costume, a face to photograph. Why would we need another one? It is very sad. I will admit, I also thought Levits could be a good president, I also wanted to an intellectual in this position for a change. He seemed to have all the prerequisites. Unfortunately, he turned out to have no idea what a good president is.