A conversation with Andris Bērziņš, Chairman of the Board of Latvijas Ceļu būvētājs

As far as I know, the Danes have been counting for about four years now how many insects cars driving on roads “smash” against their windscreens. Such activities by our colleagues make us think too, and encourage us to act more in balance. But balance is not one extreme or the other! Matters and problems here are often discussed in an aggressive way, so it would be better to use more humour, irony, and if necessary – sarcasm, which I think we have no shortage of in our genes! We need to laugh at the extremes!

Is the situation with roads and their condition in Latvia unbalanced?

I don't know how the idea formed or arose that, for example, many things in Latgale are bad. Currently, the roads in Zemgale are worse than in Latgale. If we look at the country as a whole, with the help of European funding, we have more or less sorted out the main roads. 73% of main roads are in good or very good condition, and if we look only at these roads, they are better for us than in Lithuania. The European Union provides money for main roads because it is transit, it is trade, it is also tourism. Of course, we must think about explaining why cohesion funds are readily allocated to main roads, while forgetting about local and regional roads. If we look at regional roads that connect municipalities, 52% are in good condition.

A long-standing problem in Latvia is the lack of horizontal (mutual) cooperation – each ministry operates vertically, with mutual cooperation missing! To a certain extent, this is a political guideline, because ministries are under the control of different parties, and, unfortunately, the civil service is overly politicised. Back when the Civil Service Law was drafted, the idea was that a civil servant could have political sympathies for whoever they liked, but they should not meddle in politics. It is clear that a civil servant should not implement a specific policy in their work, but should work for the benefit of a unified state policy! Currently, in many places, civil servants are selected for work based on party membership or partisan sympathies. Such “selection” leads to a loss of the ability to look at the country more broadly and to solve problems, for example, globally. Most of the time, problems should be viewed not from the ground, but from a “bird's eye view”. That does not happen! For example, forest or road issues are not the matter of one ministry, but of the whole state. Both nationalists, liberals, orthodox, and conservatives drive on the roads...

The national economy loses a pile of money every year because of bad roads, is that a lot or a little...

Regarding the figure of 1.12 billion euros published by the Ministry of Transport in 2019 – as a practitioner, I have always wanted to ask about the details. For example, I wanted to find out from the ministry how much of the 1.12 billion is “made up” by fuel. I didn't find out; they didn't explain. The philosophy is simple – time consumption, competitiveness, fuel consumption, reduced speeds, operating costs... Here are these direct, horizontal correlations. If there is a direct correlation between the pension system and the healthcare system – the more pensioners there are in a country, the more expensive the healthcare system is, a similar correlation can be observed on the roads – the greater the losses, the lower the competitiveness... We can find such contradictions in many places, and that is not just a problem for Latvia alone.

Since the 90s, all political forces that want to be in the Saeima and form a government have been talking about national development. Is it a deliberate action to forget this (horizontal) cooperation? Is it a habitual style?

Every election and every political force's activity has its own logic! Whether you like it or not, you have to find a topic or a problem that will touch and reach the voter's ears and settle into their consciousness. It's a competition. That is the great populism of the last election: 3x700, 3x500... There is no point in remembering that, because the stories are not based on any concrete calculations, methodology or experience; it is a desire to make everyone happy in one fell swoop...

When I had the honour to work in politics – in the 90s – the situation was not simpler, but clearer, because at that time we continued to build and strengthen the foundations of the state. For example, independent state institutions had to be established, everything had to be done so that the state could function as a state, we had to act to open the market, so that we could economically survive and develop! There was a goal – the European Union and NATO. At the time I was Prime Minister, we carried out the main tasks; my successor only had to sign the documents and take away the flags after a few months. The main prerequisites for the country's development were realised. We talked about how everything is only beginning with joining the European Union and NATO – life in the EU economic space meant something completely different! We had to learn to argue, prove, justify, get, “pull the blanket to our side”, explain a lot, etc. That was also something new! It seems that a part of society had a simplified idea: “We are in the EU and now everything is in order!” Capitalist society is much harsher! We were witnesses that, for example, for many, the restoration of property rights was something completely new; we had heard something from our fathers and grandfathers, but in practice... There was no real understanding. For some, it turned into bitterness – who is to blame? “Probably others, not me! The government, parliament, the neighbour...” Then followed the realisation that only about 10-12% of people in society can be entrepreneurs! The rest, whether they like it or not, will be employees.

In recent years, a phrase associated with 1905 is often heard: in some Latvians, the spirit of a “burner of the baron's castle” still slumbers...

That is true! Burning castles was a “classic social democrat thing” and, as we can read, its initiation is attributed to Felikss Cielēns. The transition from one political system to another is never simple. There is a saying that wanders from mouth to mouth, supposedly about H. Ford. He was asked how he got his first million. The answer was surprising: “Look, I'll tell you about every cent today, I'll report in detail, but don't ask me how I earned the first million!” I think quite a few of ours today would answer similarly! That is how it is!

If you look critically at the 90s we experienced, at the so-called primitive accumulation of capital... One had to “go through” it and that's that! Due to a lack of experience and misunderstanding, many things happened incorrectly, but one must come to terms with that! In every situation, one must look at the decisions of each person, each owner – nothing has fallen from the sky, nothing has been dictated or written out in advance... Both capitalism and democracy must be learned, and democracy is not a cheap pastime! For myself, I can say that in all the positions where I have had to work, I have had many decisions where I have sought balance! Any development (similar to wars) not only changes, dismantles, degrades, or sweeps away into the past, but also creates! For example, what has been characteristic of this time – balance or development and preservation? Just preserving by doing nothing will steer the road straight into a ditch! Do we need that? What do we want?

For example?

At one time, on behalf of road builders, I went to talk about habitat mapping issues and invited them to write in the documents that roads and their buffer zones are not included in the mentioned plans! I offered transport to take researchers into forests and bogs where no one had set foot for 200 years to study, but not to operate in road zones!

We have a very bad example – the road through the Kangari hills! The Ērgļi railway line was closed and, as compensation, they promised to repair and pave the road so that one could get to Riga quickly from Suntaži, Ķeipene, and Ērgļi. The work was progressing smoothly until the moment when... they discovered that something “protected lives” on the side of the road. Moreover, the protected object lives there not because it is natural and in its place, but because at one time the road workers didn't have the money and the roadsides were not tidied up: ditches not cleaned and bushes not cut. No one knows if such a protected object is still found anywhere else in Latvia. And if they don't know, stop all construction! 9 years have passed since this decision, and 20 km of the Riga-Ērgļi highway are not finished – the project is waiting, as is the European money. What next? There was a proposal to build a 62 km long bypass road. There was another bypass road proposal with other costs. Who will pay for that? All of us – the state... Wait... For a doer, naming such an example does not bring a good feeling! An emphatically green conviction must not dominate over science and reason!

More or less, in 30 years of independence, we already know how to manage property.

Restructuring has happened; that is natural. Of course, we may not like many things, but... One may not like big producers, one may not like big owners or big properties... The process is logical!

If we look at Latvia's experience 100 years ago – the 1920s and land reform – the division of manor lands! Land was one of the reasons to keep people together – we will have our own country and you will have land! If we look at it economically – well-functioning organisms were taken and divided – manors – which had each specialised in their own niche. 12-15 years passed, and K. Ulmanis concluded that the small, fragmented pieces did not “work” individually! Large farmers appeared! In 1990, after 50 Soviet years, we returned to the situation of the 20s, and now the same thing has happened as in Ulmanis's time.

In 30 years, restructuring has happened: landowners who had ideas and plans are implementing them, those who didn't manage to are still learning, and those who didn't know or didn't want to have sold their property. I think a certain process will still continue and another generation will have to change until we learn to operate with property.

You have had to be the Mayor of Riga and the Prime Minister. As time passes, many events certainly look different!

The work of a Mayor of Riga (compared to the position of Prime Minister) is much, much better! More rewarding! It is a job where you see the return immediately: there are problems, you solve them, you see what you have done.

In Latvia (speaking of working in ministries and as Prime Minister), everything is more complicated because it is linked to the drafting of regulatory documents, various institutions... I worked in the Cabinet of Ministers for 10 years (of which 2.5 years as Prime Minister) and, unfortunately, I didn't see any big return for my work. The only thing I did experience, however: when I “finished” with politics, I couldn't go and work anywhere, because there was no sector for which there hadn't been a decision made by the CM at some point. The then anti-corruption law stipulated that! What was left: to start my own company! In reality, that was a serious problem because, perhaps, you... “deciding in the CM, you already knew that you would have to work here or there...”

Do we need a law on the capital city?

No!

If there were other circumstances and an opportunity to run for the elections in Riga now, would you run?

One – the new generation must come! If I were younger – I would certainly run! “Fiddling around” in Riga now would be quite interesting!

I ended up in the Riga City Council after 8 years in the government. During my time, there were no extraordinary issues in the city. I have always liked working with smart people; it is a pleasure to be among people smarter than me! The voter had not been stingy with bright personalities in that convocation! I am an optimist; I like to unravel complex issues and situations. When there is a “tangle” in front of me, it is my calling to tackle it! There were 13 parties in the Council, and the coalition was formed from 8 parties. The story of the first budget. Once, two coalition deputies came up to me and said: we will not support raising heating tariffs and public transport tariffs. So... Then another deputy signs up who “wants to get sick”. What did I do? I used my contacts with the Stockholm City Council. We calculated that if three Riga social democrats were on a business trip in Stockholm and studying Swedish social democracy, the budget could be passed. We found out that it is possible! I call one of the trio: “Do you have contacts with Swedish social democrats?”

“We do!”

“We have been sent a funny fax from Stockholm with an invitation for three representatives to go and study.”

That could be!

Within half an hour, I asked them to name three surnames, because they would have to head out the very next morning. I waited – will they call, will they not... They call! The surnames are named!

That is how the 1998 budget was passed! All those involved are still in good health!