A short message from Welfare Minister Gatis Eglitis on the social media site twitter and the reaction to it reveal certain trends in Latvian society that are likely part and parcel of a democratic society, but leave one wondering: what do we accept, what do we object to, what do we endorse, and what are we worried about?

If a Cabinet member reports that state (our collective, taxpayer) money is being distributed not according to nationally understood benchmarks – the best, the most necessary, the most advantageous – but based on other criteria – to a party colleague, a friend, or an outsider, a clear response was needed from... for example, the State Audit Office, which certainly knows, has audited, and could briefly state: that is not true (or), that is the case! In Latvia, with our well-known abundance of supervisors and control mechanisms (as in the film “Unfinished Supper”), there are undoubtedly state institutions or people who know and can quickly explain what is happening. Instead, silence! We are talking about a matter of national importance where there can be no compromises!

Exactly the same reaction has been observed (for many years now) from official staff at VARAM if someone (and in Latvia – quite often) happens to express themselves completely incorrectly on environmental issues. From the current minister Arturs Toms Pless's reaction to the objections of farmers and forest owners regarding the spending of state money to provide misinformation, it is understandable that the minister is more worried about the possibility that the ministry's desire to explain the situation scientifically and legitimately could be understood or interpreted by someone as censorship or a restriction of freedom of speech. Odd: misinformation about important sectors of the national economy – please, comrades, speak, broadcast, spread it, but an official explanation... Could someone think that we want to gag the liars and windbags? ... A peculiarly simplistic yet powerful sentiment from a party group that at least uses the word “development” in its name and claims to be “for” something.

The attempt to explain the anger of farmers and forest owners as objections to the Green Deal raises other reflections. Many weave the term Green Deal, as well as sustainability, biodiversity, etc., into sophisticated conversation, but... It seems it has been a long time since those setting policy and wishing to set it have been so far removed from life and work in the countryside and forests.

For some time now, Latvia has lacked a clear and independent stance on many issues, as well as a critical and analytical attitude toward important European Union decisions. It often seems that the task of some ministry staff is to keep their hands clean and sanitised so that, upon hearing any voice from the “shelves” of the EU, they rush to applaud. Latvia has every opportunity to use the Green Deal valuably and wisely, which is not stimulated in any way by the Prime Minister bragging about wanting to be the first climate-neutral nation without consulting entrepreneurs, nor by the head of VARAM pretending that everything in the country is fine and that misinformation in large doses improves international freedom of speech ratings. Yes, when did Krisjanis Karins and Arturs Toms Pless last work as entrepreneurs, earning money for the state, not spending what others have created? (There is certainly a specific answer to this question!)

In summary: it is high time for state institutions to change their working style and methods, minimizing to zero the possibility of interfering in the work of companies, creating excellent conditions for them to work as much as possible, and showing that independent institutions and politicians of an independent state operate in Latvia. Servility, sycophancy, and flattery are, of course, a part of human expression, not the most praiseworthy, but they should not be made cornerstones of national policy.