Green patriotism as a worldview is increasing its number of conscious supporters. In the USA, Donald Trump has adopted the stance of national patriotism; in Great Britain, supporters of this school of thought are driving Brexit; similarly, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Estonia, and other EU countries are moving increasingly rapidly along the path of patriotism.

Edgars Tavars, Chairman of the Board of the LZP, zp.lv, 27 September

On 7 April 1775, while discussing politics, the British writer Samuel Johnson remarked: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” (Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel) There is no record of whether the delegates of the European Green Party (European Green Party, EGP) in Tampere remembered this phrase on 10 December this year when deciding on the expulsion of the Latvian Green Party (LZP). However, they certainly had access to an article by the LZP Chairman of the Board, Edgars Tavars, titled “Green patriotism must be promoted in Latvia”. This became one of the reasons why 94 out of 115 voters expressed themselves in favour of expelling the LZP.

Of course, this was not the only reason. The Board of the European Greens proposed the expulsion also taking into account that membership fees were not paid on time, representatives were not sent to EGP meetings, and the LZP leadership did not really respond to invitations to meet in Latvia either. Furthermore, EGP rules require that parties maintain gender balance in their governing structures. The LZP did not fare well here; it is a kingdom of middle-aged men: only men on the Board, and of the 11 people heading the sectoral councils, only one is a woman.

It is possible that promises to improve would have worked. However, it turned out that the EGP also had quite a few ideological objections. Actions noted as being against Green values included voting against the Civil Union bill, the rights of ethnic minorities to education in their native language, and the Istanbul Convention, as well as homophobia and hostility towards migrants and refugees. This could still have been presented as a mistake or a passing phase, and LZP members in Tampere did this desperately, while the Chairman of the Board proudly argued that they had wanted to leave themselves. But his article on patriotism was unequivocal: “The global slogans [in Green politics – author] have been chosen by those same people (plus the most naive young people) who also simultaneously and actively stand for the promotion of LGBT+ and communist (liberal branch) ideas, as well as propaganda for accepting refugees in Europe and the world. The same people who deny the role of a nation-state but promote federalism or 'more Europe, more world'.” To this, Tavars contrasted “green patriotism” in the formulation quoted above.

At first glance, it might seem that the LZP could be partially right. Indeed, what do the Greens have to do with the Istanbul Convention or homophobia? A simplified answer would be that EGP rules stipulate that only parties whose policies are not just “ecological” but also “social, democratic and progressive” may be admitted. But it must also be taken into account that the understanding of the concept of ecology in European politics has evolved. This is linked to the global nature of the climate change problem: the Greens can no longer act only locally; a global response is required. A modern understanding of diversity has also played its part: if it is protected by thinking about animal or plant species, why should the attitude towards people and minorities be any worse? It is precisely this approach, adopting progressive positions from social democrats and liberals (and even surpassing them), that has allowed the European Greens to continuously expand their representation in parliaments and governments, abandon the identity of a “niche” party, and impose their own nature conservation priorities on others.

There is no denying that the Greens of Central and Eastern Europe have a harder time here. In part, this is linked to the fact that Western European Greens largely grew out of left-wing and liberal student movements, whereas in Eastern Europe, including the Baltics, they rather sought to save nature from communist or socialist industrialisation and represented conservative politics (for example, they stood against migration). The voters think accordingly as well. Generational change and cooperation at the European level are bringing corrections, but this cannot happen if there is no real cooperation.

However, it would be a mistake to allow patriotism to be privatised only by conservatives. The aforementioned Johnson quote refers to cases where other interests hide under the guise of patriotism; in other conversations, Johnson praises the love of one's homeland. Everyone has the right to judge the interests of their homeland and people for themselves, and therefore patriotism can encompass openness to migration, support for same-sex marriage, and the transfer of areas of competence to international organisations, including the federalisation of the European Union. Therefore, the formula “A patriot is only one who supports nationally conservative ideas” does not work.

Every European political party must sometimes decide on the actions of its partners. The centre-right European People's Party has to judge the status of the Hungarian Fidesz party; the centre-left Party of European Socialists discussed colleagues from Slovakia and Romania a few years ago; the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is often asked uncomfortable questions about the Czech ANO. Latvian parties may also have to answer – what is the true position of Saskaņa on the issue of LGBTI rights or the opinion of Attīstībai/Par! on the relocation of refugees in the European Union or the rights of ethnic minorities? It is gratifying that the European Greens have managed to decide on action consistently and quickly. Another question is – will anyone be ready to fill the void and stand up for progressive Green politics in Latvia?

The author is a legal advisor to the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament, but this commentary reflects the author's own opinion and cannot be linked to the European Parliament or the Greens/EFA group.
The article was first published in the December 2019 issue of the magazine Rīgas Laiks