Latvian Political Monitor

📻 Listen to LDDK education and employment expert Liene Voroņenko @Gimenes_Studija on how to find a balance between young people's career choices and the needs of the national economy: https://t.co/pn73MCHqxH

Rarely does a matter enter Latvia's political agenda that provokes not only discussion but even hatred, setting two opinion camps against each other and radicalizing them to the point of promising physical retaliation. I see the fuss around the Istanbul Convention as an excellent lesson in democracy, proving that not all questions can be settled by a simple majority of votes. It is still unclear how to balance the political will of the silent majority and the hyperactive minority. What role do participation and political activism play as an argument for being 'right'? And where should we place the passive onlookers who have no opinion on this matter? Those who try to answer these questions by explaining decision-making algorithms in a democratic society are the true statesmen, taking on the role of mediator. Without such commentary, Latvia will most likely sink to the level of tribal thinking, where different societal and interest groups will draw insurmountable red lines against one another, and people with a different opinion will not be allowed to remain. At present, politicians are doing everything possible to bring society closer to a brawl. The president should take on the main mediator/peacemaker role, as the harmonizer of political cliques and society's interests, while protecting the people from parliamentary arbitrariness, ensuring that votes stem from the common good rather than political expediency, PR tactics, or similar principles. Unfortunately, Rinkēvičs once again demonstrated cowardice by hiding in the lilacs and 'kicking back' to the Saeima the examination of the question of withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention. In doing so, the will of the people's elected representatives was denied, even though the ratification that took place two years ago was the product of the president's own party's political trading, completely unconnected to voters' values. The Istanbul Convention demonstrated another truth. Our elected representatives are not political philosophers but mere hangers-on, seeking every opportunity to cling to power. It remains to follow the rumours about throwing ZZS out of the coalition, when the United List and the National Alliance 'agree' with the president's proposal to entrust the examination of the denunciation of the Istanbul Convention to the next Saeima. That elected deputies are not great thinkers is proven by the 2 November 'Nekā personīga' report, in which some ZZS representatives were asked 'What bad has happened because of this convention?', and the only answer was 'No, I will ask you, what good has happened?' Obviously, these biological voting machines can only follow faction discipline, not reason and conscience. Therefore, seeing how arbitrarily and irrationally decisions are made, with lines drawn between 'good' and 'bad', one must ask whether politics is just the sum of subjective views, or whether there are questions in which only one correct answer exists regardless of political orientation. Both yes and no. Mostly it is the result of choices based on subjectivism, but on questions involving undeniable, non-redefinable reality there is only one answer, and the will of the voter is not an argument there. I also support the denunciation of the Istanbul Convention, because several formulations used in it are unacceptable to me: first, the historically existing structured violence of men against women (where in Western culture is that acceptable?) and, second, the term 'gender', understood as socially constructed sex/gender roles. The fact that only ladies wear ball gowns is also a socially constructed stereotype, and let us not criticise the Edgarses who wear bikinis. 'Husband' and 'wife' are also socially constructed roles. If so, then a man can also choose the image of a wife and in the future marry a man who embodies the image of a husband. And they will be able to adopt children. And that is just one word, one concept that denies biological reality, which they try to silence with an awkward explanation about the need to strengthen the determination to fight violence (in that case, I propose composing an anti-violence declaration once a week and sending it to all EU member states). In fact, that is where this discussion begins and ends. And counterarguments such as 'let us fulfil only the good points of the convention' are also irrational, because, as supporters of destructive ideologies grow in the Saeima, one should not prematurely provide a legal basis that enables laws contrary to the common good. The rest of the convention's content, which genuinely concerns reducing violence, is already woven into Latvian laws. Try hitting any accommodating woman and remaining unpunished. And you will also be punished if you hit a man. And no supporter of denunciation is an apologist for violence. That cannot at all be said about a country whose executive branch has only one ministry with a slight male majority (the Ministry of Defence). And a few more coincidences. On the political front, the biggest and loudest defenders of the convention are the same people who believe that better than a safe and peaceful environment for a woman are a machine gun, mortar, and howitzer, i.e. military service, where, believe me, the chance of suffering violence is quite great (in wartime, of course). And what a wonder that the picket outside the Saeima, in which reportedly several thousand people took part (including many minors and mere passers-by), was organized by NGOs that receive EU and Latvian taxpayers' money to bring to life the ideology derived from the Istanbul Convention, holding seminars on gender quotas in corporate boards, justifying it with the fight against institutionalised male violence? And then there is the Society Integration Foundation, which has created a movement (?) 'Diversity', disseminating information about non-binary identity and gender-neutral Latvian language. 'Centre MARTA', 'Mozaīka', 'Papardes zieds', which already teach primary-school-age children a very broad spectrum of sexual education topics, including 'gender' identities. If the convention, which repeatedly emphasises state and NGO cooperation, were denounced, the source of money for the protest organisers would threaten to run dry.

Is NATO currently experiencing the biggest crisis in its history? Raimonds Bergmanis unravels the complex question.

@JurgisLiepnieks NA invited Sprūds to a meeting already in early September. Still today 'looking for time'... So this is about attitude, not inability. For comparison, the health minister not only responds to opposition party invitations, but himself maintains contact and informs about what is important in the sector.

@EmilsJakrins @Apvienotais_ @Jauna_Vienotiba Three years conditionally :)

@EmilsJakrins @Apvienotais_ @Jauna_Vienotiba Let's be precise! What makes one reassess is the difference between a deputy's and a parliamentary secretary's salary... 😊

Seems a mistake has crept in. Surely it was meant “...will become an INDEPENDENT deputy” https://t.co/Tw2M6IpYCG

@DievaSuni You know very well that all that fussing about NA is your private grievance, a private quarrel with specific people. They forgot you long ago, but you've been ranting here for years. Come now and talk face to face like a man when you can get an answer! :)

@DievaSuni Well, just ask Parādnieks, instead of spreading nonsense again, Ringold! How long will you hold a grudge over the fact that you weren't admitted to the party in some privileged manner? You haven't poured out as much bile on any pro-Russian force as you have on NA. See you, let's talk and cooperate! https://t.co/FfKnNVGjNL