Once, or rather during the early post-communist period of the Republic of Latvia, a professor stopped me on the stairs of the University of Latvia and said, "Let's build a civil society!" Confused by such a revolutionary proposal, I shook my head at the time, but since I knew that the esteemed lecturer had once walked the path of Lenin, I concluded that she knew what she was talking about; she was, after all, the very person who had once taught me that political participation is an inseparable component of any human activity, and that for an ordinary, state-minded citizen, such opportunities are few. An individual is politically involved even when they do not participate in the decision-making process; their inaction can have the same political consequences as the actions of individuals who write letters to newspapers, wear party badges, participate in rallies, call radio stations to say that the Latvian nation is perishing, or call for hands to be taken off the Prime Minister. They all have plenty of free time to be interested and to express their interest publicly, and I knew that all those who call or wear badges are closer to civic consciousness than those who are not interested in politics at all, although over time I have realised that a lack of interest in politics or not knowing the names of ministers might indicate good mental health for an individual. The theory that calls itself political science teaches that in totalitarian and democratic states, political participation at a formal level occurs similarly; the only difference is that in the former case, it is stimulated or paid for by the state, while in the latter, the individual finds the stimuli in their own head. No one is born a state-minded person. One becomes one voluntarily, and ten years have passed since that call to "build a civil society", which means that something should already have been built, that the number of those who, upon learning that their friend is preparing an assassination attempt against a state official, would be ready to report their friend, should have grown. From the point of view of civil society theory, a civic-minded individual would be considered one who reports on their friend, comrade, or colleague, because they care about the state not falling apart. On 28 November of this year, the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia, Jānis Maizītis, in a Latvian Radio broadcast discussing the criminal case concerning the actions of officials in the digital television implementation project, called on all residents who have a supposedly good reputation and who have information about the criminal offence in the digital television case to decide on an extraordinary step – to report to the KNAB or the Prosecutor's Office. Two concepts in this statement draw attention – "residents" and "extraordinary step". So, the Prosecutor General has turned to the residents, which suggests that there is a certain percentage of residents among the population who have some information, and which suggests that these activities took place more or less publicly, and that a large portion of the residents had the opportunity to observe them and for some reason keep what they saw to themselves. But rather, one can see here a cynical irony inherent in prosecutors – to label those who have special knowledge about this special case as "residents", even though it is quite clear to the Prosecutor General that by "residents" he here means a very limited part of the population, for whom the term "residents" is rarely, in fact never, used in political theories. Of course, in this specific case, the call was meant for those "residents" who might be intimidated by the idea that if they do not provide information, the consequences might also affect them, because their knowledge could one day be exposed; and those who are afraid might also report, thus betraying themselves and their comrades, but on the whole standing up for a good cause – the common cause of the state. Therefore, this urging by the Prosecutor General can also be perceived as an instrument of civil society, with the help of which it is possible to stimulate the masses to political participation, but to decide on such a step, one must first know where to go or whom to call to say that I have not only a good reputation, but also valuable knowledge, the passing of which to the appropriate institutions will increase that reputation and strengthen the might of the state, because in this case, no money was promised for reporting, nor was there a promise to protect one's family or grant any other benefits. Thus, the Prosecutor General is appealing to the civic consciousness of the residents, with the help of which a crime would be uncovered in the state. In doing so, the state power would reduce its state of power-anaemia, because a citizen who confirms their participation is the goal of every civil society, yet at the same time, such a citizen is also dangerous because overly responsible citizens can acquire knowledge and cease to believe in state power. In this case, the difference is that the call to report is expressed publicly and not through recruitment. Thus, the reporter must love the state, must be interested in ensuring the stability of the state; they are required to have not only loyalty, but also what could be called a high level of civic consciousness. The principle of reporting, viewed purely historically, is by no means a new thing in the history of the Latvian state and is by no means applicable only to the totalitarian and authoritarian period of LPSR history, when informers were called "stukači" (snitches) and were considered the lowest scoundrels. Therefore, the term "extraordinary step" chosen by the Prosecutor General does not correspond to the historical realities of the formation of the Latvian state. In the recent history of the existence of the Republic of Latvia, several processes have been observed regarding the establishment of a reporting tradition. One is historical, which requires a civic responsibility rooted in an awareness of history for those processes that you have not experienced yourself, but about which stories have been heard. Reporting on historical events, even if it concerns crimes committed, is doubly complicated because, first, you must possess memory and you must be convinced that it corresponds to the truth. Second, thinking at the level of historical truth, you must be convinced that you are not infected with current ideological offerings about the relevant historical period, and from a human point of view, that is almost impossible; therefore, in such cases, money serves to fulfil the civic duty and stimulate consciousness. Last year, the Simon Wiesenthal Center announced the "Last Chance" operation, in which it called on the residents of the Baltic states to report individuals who may have participated in the extermination of Jews during the Second World War and promised to pay 10,000 dollars. As the target audience for reporters, the centre mentioned those who suffered in the Holocaust and survivors, people who did not participate in the crimes but are witnesses to them, as well as war criminals who were convicted during the Soviet era and served their sentences, who do not have to fear being tried again. The centre's director, Efraim Zuroff, expressed hope at the time that the funds for paying the bonuses would also be obtained from the Latvian state budget. The then Minister of Justice, Labucka, announced that state participation in projects of this kind was not envisaged and that the organisers themselves should take care of the implementation of the campaign, while simultaneously expressing support for this initiative and pointing out that it could stimulate the provision of information about crimes. As can be understood from the results, the historical civic consciousness of the Latvian resident is negligible, as the response to this campaign has not been what was hoped for, and probably not because "all Latvians are fascists", but because history, as Paul Valéry writes, is the most dangerous concoction that the chemistry of the intellect has created. This substance causes dreams, intoxicates whole nations, sends them false memories, quickens their reflexes, does not allow old wounds to heal, haunts them in their sleep, or leads to megalomania and a persecution complex. On 2 September, the Wiesenthal Center in Jerusalem announced that it had received information about 38 people who could be suspected of crimes against Jews, but no one had contacted the centre with information who had themselves participated in the implementation of the Holocaust, been tried during the Soviet era, and wanted to provide information. Most likely, this campaign in Latvia will not cause any of the processes intended by the centre, not even a cleansing of historical consciousness. The second section of the history of reporting is related to criminal history, where success should be greater, at least judging by the increase in the demand for crime fiction in the range of consumer goods. In March of last year, the internet portal TVnet invited readers to write about the drug dealing locations known to them in Latvia, and the portal received information about more than 500 such places, but among them was also listed the address of the Cabinet of Ministers at Brīvības bulvāris 36, adding that anyone who wanted to could purchase narcotic substances on the 3rd floor of this building, where the Prime Minister's office is located. Civil society theory teaches how difficult it is to instil in residents the consciousness that they have someone to call, somewhere to go, to whisper, give hints, confess, gossip, and establish an illusion of participation. In political science, such people-reporters are called communicators or "forest rangers", who are said to make up only about 13% of any society. Their influence on the decision-making process is not great, but they orient themselves relatively accurately in political events, and they quite like to communicate with representatives of state power. However, representatives of power tend to exaggerate the importance of communicators, thinking that those who communicate represent the whole nation. As a new phenomenon in Latvia's history of reporting, the concept of a "hotline" or "anonymous telephone line" has been introduced. Already in 1995, the State Revenue Service introduced a "hotline" where residents could report violations in the field of tax payment. This tradition was continued by the Riga police, then followed by the Valmiera Criminal Police, which in January 2001 introduced an anonymous telephone line to which, by calling, residents could inform an automatic answering machine about irregularities observed in the economic and criminal spheres. The Chief of the Criminal Police explained at the time that it is psychologically easier for residents to call by phone and record their observations on an answering machine than to call or come to the police, where they would immediately be asked for their name. In 1998, the Riga City Council introduced a "hotline" to which one could call during the month of cleanliness announced in the city. At that time, 260 Rigans called to report uncollected piles of rubbish. The City Council admitted at the time that the residents turned out to be more active reporters than the rubbish collectors. The current Latvian reporter is distinguished from the true civic-minded person by anonymity; they are not asked for their first name, surname, and patronymic. The authorities crave information because all other channels of political information have apparently turned out to be empty or inaccessible to the authorities themselves. Only very recently, in the autumn of this year, the Ministry of Agriculture began a campaign to stimulate civic consciousness, introducing a Rural Support Service "hotline" with the aim of providing advice and consultations to rural people. Initially, all telephone calls and callers were registered, but after this "hotline" had functioned for five months, the leadership of the Rural Support Service announced that it would soon be possible for rural people to report anonymously as well. Minister of Agriculture Mārtiņš Roze justified the necessity of an anonymous telephone line by claiming that "special attention of society is devoted, for example, to receiving SAPARD funding or, for example, to food safety, but it is often the case that it is very difficult to report potential violations to higher-standing institutions – how will you live afterwards in a parish where everyone knows each other well." The Ministry innocently dubbed this "hotline" of theirs "feedback", which had already been used by several hundred rural people. It cannot be called a model of high political participation – the reporting has, after all, been set up by the state power itself with its own money and with one goal – to feign concern, justify expectations, and obtain information, which quite corresponds to the expressions of the political culture of a totalitarian state. However, it is impossible to imagine that the LPSR Committee of State Security would have ever introduced a "hotline" or made anti-state-minded citizens report to the institution. It would, in fact, have meant a degradation of that organisation's effectiveness. The popularity of reporting in the new Republic of Latvia most likely indicates the emergence of a new species of state-minded people who report not out of fear, but with the awareness that with their snitching they are strengthening state power. The new tendency of reporting in the Latvian state may indicate that a civil society has arisen here, but for now, the easiest path of a civil society representative is being taken – calling anonymously, rather than paying taxes and performing all other considered duties of a civic-minded person. On the other hand, this mechanism works successfully also because the effectiveness of reporting is known from Soviet times. The only difference is that back then they were snitching to a foreign state, and the majority of society considered informers to be morons, but when reporting to one's own state, the moral fulcrum certainly changes, but the essence of reporting itself does not. Historically, it has been proven that authorities overestimate the importance of reporting, because the majority of society will always be those who will never call, will never go anywhere, and will never report. Regardless of the historical era, the political system, or the Prime Minister's rating.
Article first published in the January 2004 issue of "Rīgas Laiks"