Politician Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis: Latvian Russians do not accept assimilation policy

Interview with Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis, a politician and chairman of the Commission for Sustainable Development, on integration and assimilation, on the delicate relations between the opposition and the position, and other current issues.

Saeima deputy Dagmāra Beitnere-Le Galla (New Conservative Party, Latvian: Jaunā konservatīvā partija, JKP) has expressed in the Saeima debate that there is no intellectual Russian-speaking personality in Latvia who could bring the discussions to life, start deeper debates on "where these people, whose home and mother tongue is Russian, actually belong. Which country do they belong to and which media space do they belong to.” Is that so?

Beitnere-Le Galla has, at best, been extremely unsuccessful in formulating her idea. It is better to ask herself what she meant by what she said. But

many from this understood that Beitnere-Le Galla had contempt for people of other nationalities.

Unfortunately, this happens regularly, and Latvian Russian-speakers are accustomed to this attitude from an early age.

What is positive and what I would like to note is that, for example, the Latvian politician Evija Papule immediately said clearly and firmly that it was not acceptable to say that. That is good, and it is important that there are Latvian politicians who believe that this is not acceptable, and have the courage to say so.

The policy on non-Latvians is not really formulated anywhere, although there are about 40% of them. The actual policy today is assimilation. This was once said by Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš (New Unity, Latvian: Jaunā Vienotība, JV). So-called Russian-speakers and Russians are offered to become Latvians, thereby renouncing an important part of their Russianness - giving up learning in their mother tongue, watching TV channels in Russian, etc. Latvia's establishment or elite believes that the integration of Latvia's Russian-speakers means that Russians need to assimilate. And they believe that this issue has been decided and closed.

Recently, the Swedish and Dutch embassies financially supported an extensive study conducted by the research centre SKDS on the views of Latvian Russian-speakers.

And then we can look at the facts - how many Latvian Russian-speakers are ready to accept this assimilation choice? How many Latvian Russian-speakers accept European values, etc. Two thirds are in favor of European values, but a maximum of 13% could be ready for assimilation. These 13 out of a hundred give some illusory reason for the Latvian society to think that this assimilation project has been accepted. Especially if we are talking about the part of socially active people who live in the so-called Twitter space. But there are still a lot of people who do not live on Twitter, who essentially reject this offer of assimilation.

88% of respondents, whether or not they share European values, believe that they should have the right to receive education in their mother tongue.

84% of Russian speakers say that Russian cultural space is the main one for them.

On the question of belonging to the Russian cultural space, we see that the answers are almost the same in all generations. Young people also believe that it is important for them to read books or watch movies, to get an education in Russian. I think that these facts indicate that some 87% of Russians are not ready and do not want to accept this assimilation process. And it won’t significantly change in the future either.

But integration is not assimilation - those are not synonyms…

There is no integration policy in Latvia. What I see is a policy of assimilation. By its very nature, it is an ostrich policy - the political establishment is trying to live as if there were no Russian-speakers in the country at all, either, believing that in the very near future they will all assimilate. But there will be no such assimilation, so the bi-communal problem exists, it will continue to exist, and it is serious.

There are two questions everyone should ask themselves and think seriously about the answers. The first question is, "Do you think that a country or any organization can thrive if nearly 40 percent of its population or employees are alienated or considered strangers?" The second question for Latvian politicians: "Do you think it is sustainable to maintain only a policy of active confrontation against a country whose language is spoken at home by 40% of the Latvian population?" It is worthwhile for everyone to ask themselves these questions and think about the answers.

You have said in your Twitter account: “The coalition rejects our conceptually new micro-enterprise tax draft law. The 3x500 author, Krišjānis Feldmans (JKP), spoke, saying that the offer was "absurd". It's a model that has been operating in France for several years plus Estonia’s unified account." But that is what the position does - everything that comes from the opposition is rejected…

The advantage of a well-functioning democracy over a dictatorship is that it works as a team in which the baton moves from the position of the opposition, from those who lose the election to those who win. After that, those who win lose again, but the baton continues to move forward. The one who is tired passes the baton and there is an interaction between the position and the opposition.

Unfortunately, a large number of people who are in position are random - they have been elected due to a protest mood in society, thanks to populist "3x500" promises. Therefore, these politicians do not have a long-term vision, no understanding, no wisdom to see that constructive proposals often come from the opposition. Instead, they behave arrogantly, not realizing how stupid it really looks. In addition, here it is that part of the opposition is eternal - it has never been in power in government, and part of the position is also eternal. Therefore, a maximally unconstructive attitude develops on both sides, which is not good for the country's development. Stubbornly sticking to bad, ill-considered decisions - in order not to accept the criticism and proposals of the opposition, they are hurting themselves first and foremost.

Is it right to make significant tax changes during a pandemic?

Of course, this is not a wise thing to do. The negative consequences will be felt not only during Covid-19, but also in the long run. We have a government that does not have an economic development block at all - economic policy is shaped by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Welfare. The Ministry of Finance everywhere sees only those who don't pay or optimize taxes, but does not see the role of small entrepreneurs and start-ups. They see an economy made up only of employers and employees, they do not understand anything outside of this formula. But a misunderstanding of the regularities of economics does not absolve one from consequences and from responsibility for consequences…

Both the President of the Bank of Latvia, the Prime Minister and even the President of Latvia have said that we have just "driven into the opposing ditch" - banking supervision is too strict. However, Ilze Znotiņa, the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit, says that there is no "second ditch" and everything is in order. Isn't it the case that Znotiņa is now more powerful than the president and the government?

It must be remembered that in Latvia we created the financial services export industry ourselves, we worked hard to convince non-residents to trust our country so that they would keep their money here. But then it was said by "external forces" that this business should be stopped. But in that case, in my opinion, the money that is stuck in Latvia should be returned to its owners. Of course, unless it is actually criminally obtained and there is relevant evidence. Then you have to investigate and prove it yourself, of course. Instead, a mechanism has been set up which cannot be called legal: it is assumed that suspicion alone is enough to consider the money criminally obtained, and then the owners of the money have to prove its legal origin. It is an expropriation that corresponds to the actions of the Bolsheviks in 1917. This is not acceptable! This destroys confidence in our country, its financial system. Confidence may have already been shattered for decades to come.

One minister has resigned, but there are ministers to whom a resignation request has already been made or will be made. Doesn't that threaten the stability of the government?

Unfortunately, the concept of resignation request as such has recently been degraded.

But it seems as if this should be a very serious matter: the resignation of ministers is not demanded by passers-by, but by trade unions.

I am afraid that the next time the dues for what they have done will arrive in the politician mailboxes will be the next Saeima elections. The ruling coalition is arrogant, it does not take into account the opposition, the industries it runs, or the people least of all.

Will there be a new party?

I'm sure there will be.

One in which you will be a leader?

It will be a party of like-minded people, not a personal party. And there are many such like-minded people.

When will it happen?

All in due time.