We spoke with Uldis Biķis—a father of three, a sixth-generation landowner, and a professional working in the Latvian forestry sector—about daily human interests, pre-election promises, forestry, investments, and the place and significance of competent leaders in Latvia's future.

If I am a salaried employee, my pay, paying the bills, and my children's future are what matter to me. Why should I think about a broader (cross-sectoral) perspective on various things and processes?

Because, in daily life, all sectors are closely linked, even if we do not notice it. Your pay depends on your workplace, and the workplace depends on the company's ability to sell and develop. Bills are influenced by energy, housing prices by construction, and children's opportunities by education.

If each ministry has a narrow view focused only on its own tasks and entrusted responsibilities, a person can end up falling through the cracks. A cross-sectoral perspective basically means something very simple: before making a decision, understand how it will affect a person's (or people's) life as a whole.

Before the elections, everyone promises better wages, affordable housing, and a strong state. Why are promises not enough?

Every promise needs backing—practical, financial, reasonable, and real. If we want higher wages, we must be able to create more value. If we want better public services, there must be successful economic activity to fund them.

From a politician (current or prospective), I would like to hear three things: what they are offering, how this offer will work, and where the money to implement it will come from. Voters should not be persuaded by a loud sentence or slogan alone; they should be given a clear opportunity to understand the consequences of the offer, including the uncomfortable ones.

In discussions about forestry, we hear: we need to fell less, but build more with wood. That sounds absurd...

The absurdity starts when both of these slogans are presented as a ready-made plan without calculating how to connect them. A wooden building requires timber. If we want to use more wood in construction while simultaneously reducing timber harvesting, we must clearly state how we will achieve this.

We can use timber more efficiently, reduce its waste, and increase recycling and the reuse of materials. Of course, that is possible, but the scale of these opportunities must be calculated. One must also not forget about imports and their impact. Voters deserve to know more than just two beautiful, mutually incompatible—perhaps merely beautiful—promises.

Is the call to fell less incomprehensible? People want to preserve the forest.

Of course, it is understandable. I, too, want my children and grandchildren to live in a Latvia with healthy forests, and that is precisely why we need a clear, long-term land policy. First, we must agree on what role we envisage for each territory: where the primary goal is nature conservation, where it is forestry and timber harvesting, and where it is possible to combine multiple functions.

This is land-use stratification—dividing territories according to their purpose. Land use must be clearly defined and correspond to management regulations and the results to be achieved. In nature conservation areas, it must be perfectly clear what we are protecting, why we are protecting it, and how we will evaluate the result. In economic territories, there must be the possibility to operate responsibly and productively, to regenerate the forest, and to invest in its future value. Conversely, where goals are combined, we must determine how they will be coordinated and where the boundaries will lie.

Such clarity is needed by society, landowners, and entrepreneurs alike. Growing forests and developing production facilities require long-term investment. For a person to be able to accumulate capital, invest, and introduce new technologies, they must be able to plan in the long term how land and its resources may be used. If, for the sake of common societal goals, we impose restrictions on economic activity, we must agree (not just discuss that we should) on fair compensation and its funding.

The forest is a natural asset, a resource, and a workplace for many people. Responsible policy evaluates these needs together and sets clear land-use goals so that we can debate in an informed manner where and how much to fell, what to preserve, and what value to create. The dispute becomes pointless if one side labels opponents as destroyers and the others label them as opponents of development.

I work for a fixed salary. Why should I worry about whether the company is accumulating assets and capital?

The company's ability to invest and develop also affects the future of that workplace. Accumulated funds, production facilities, equipment, and other assets provide a strong foundation for development and help to survive more difficult times.

If we spend everything earned today, there remain fewer opportunities for tomorrow's investments. The company's growth should also be felt by the employee—in working conditions, skills, and remuneration. It is reasonable to ask how the company's success improves the lives of the people who create that success.

Politicians say: we need innovation and products with higher added value. Is that complicated?

The road from concept to a product someone is or will be willing to buy is complicated. It requires people, research, equipment, trials, and time. Some attempts will fail, and that must be endured and clearly understood.

If we want to obtain more complex and valuable products from timber, companies must be able to invest. There must be an understandable long-term policy regarding resource availability. A call for “Green light for innovation!” is not enough. We must create the conditions in which people can take risks and implement their ideas.

As a representative of the forest industry, you certainly defend the sector's interests. Why should the reader trust you?

That is a direct and honest question. I work in the forest industry; I have my own perspective and interests, which must be expressed openly. My arguments should be evaluated as critically as the arguments of politicians, environmental organizations, or other entrepreneurs.

Trust cannot be demanded because of one's position or experience. It must be earned with verifiable data, clear assumptions, and a willingness to answer difficult questions. The common good arises when we are able to balance our interests with the needs of society as a whole.

You call for respecting competence, but even experts make mistakes. Should they be allowed to be criticized?

Experts can and should be criticized and questioned. One should inquire about what data conclusions are based on, what has not yet been revealed, and what the potential risks are. Competence does not exempt one from responsibility.

The problem begins when, instead of an argument, someone attacks the person and presents their expertise as a reason for suspicion. In this way, we can scare away from public discourse precisely those whose experience we need. Democracy requires both free criticism and the ability to listen to a reasoned response—even if it does not match our initial opinion or perspective.

Before the start of this conversation, you used the word “elitocide”. How should a person who does not encounter such terms daily understand it?

By elitocide in this conversation, I mean the systematic and almost constant discrediting of competent people who are significant to society, the undermining of their authority, and their exclusion from public life. A person's work and decisions are not honestly evaluated—instead, unverified claims, distorted facts, personal attacks, or various manipulations are used. This process, which has been clearly visible lately, must be named so that we can recognize it each time and discuss it.

For example, the discussion about the felling of ancient pines in the Rucava area. Determining the age of every tree with an increment borer before logging would not be a practical solution. Nor can an operator in a harvester cab be expected to reliably determine a tree's age based solely on the trunk's diameter. Therefore, it is necessary to find out how the felling site was prepared, what data on natural values were available, and what instructions the harvesting operator received. If, instead of these questions, we begin to smear foresters, scientists, or nature conservation specialists without evidence (which is, unfortunately, a common occurrence), we lose the opportunity to understand what happened. A different professional opinion must not become a reason for discrediting a person. Violations must be investigated and responsibility determined based on clear facts. Identifying natural values, land-use objectives, and designating trees for preservation must be part of the planning before felling. Mutual insults do not replace this work.

This, of course, does not mean that people with more experience, influence, or responsibility should be protected from criticism. On the contrary—their decisions must be carefully evaluated. Honest criticism, however, is based on facts and arguments; it relates to specific actions, decisions, or their consequences.

Unfounded damage to reputation is a different matter. If an attempt is made to silence a person or exclude them from a certain sphere or circle, attention is shifted from the essence of the issue to the person in question. We do not calculate what the proposed decision will bring to society and what the losses will be; instead, we spend our energy on fighting each other, while the issue that needs to be solved (which is often very urgent and requires immediate action) remains unresolved.

By the word “elite”, I understand people who, through their knowledge, experience, and responsibility, make a significant contribution to society. These can be teachers, scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, engineers, professionals in public administration, or civil society leaders. Their value is determined by the work they have done, not by membership in a closed or privileged group. This knowledge and experience have been accumulated over many years, and the state must be able to utilize them and pass them on to future generations. Unfortunately, we often see that there is no real action on the part of state institutions. A person is important in beautifully formatted long-term documents, not in “real life or nature”.

Arguments over ideas, money, and projects are a normal part of democracy. At what point does competition turn into mutual squabbling or a desire to destroy a competitor?

Competition and criticism are necessary for us to arrive at the best solutions. The line is crossed the moment the desire to win becomes more important than honesty and when the desire to discredit a person becomes a goal, often a fanatical one. Such a fight over an idea or project begins to undermine the ability to work together for the state's development.

For example, there are two state institutions that offer different plans for Latvia's development and compete for limited public funding. One project is better prepared, with more clearly justified benefits and an implementation scenario, while the representatives of the other institution and their supporters begin to spread unverified claims about the interests, connections, or intentions of the competing project leader. If comparing project costs, benefits, and risks is replaced by personal smearing, a project whose defenders were more influential in the public fight might be supported, rather than the one that would bring greater benefit to the state. Thus, we risk losing both public money and development opportunities, as well as competent people in public administration.

This happens if facts are deliberately distorted, unverified claims are spread, unproven intentions are attributed to someone, or personal insults are used in communication. It is even worse if political or administrative influence is used to prevent the other side from participating honestly in the discussion or competing.

One must compete for state funding and projects with a better offer, clear and transparent criteria, and demonstrable public benefit. Different visions for Latvia's future are necessary, but in the fight for ideas, funding, or influence, one must never lose ethical and moral principles: honesty, respect for people, and responsibility for one's actions. Even well-founded disagreements do not give the right to spread false information or destroy a person's reputation. State responsibility requires thinking about what our (or “my”) victory or loss will mean for Latvia as a whole.

Can society reach a point where strong and competent people no longer want to take responsibility?

Yes, and here we must evaluate the long-term consequences! If a person receives constant personal attacks for taking personal initiative and assuming responsibility, realizing that silence and avoiding decisions are becoming a safer choice, they may decide not to get involved. In this way, society itself quite purposefully creates conditions in which it loses the professional people who could lead complex processes and take responsibility for the result.

Let us imagine, for example, a municipal head who has begun the renovation of a local school building. The project is complex, and during its implementation, work is delayed, for which they publicly take responsibility. Instead of evaluating what caused the problems and how to fix them, the municipal head is declared “incompetent” and “corrupt” on social media, without any evidence. Seeing what is happening, other professionals may conclude quite confidently that it is better not to do anything... But one must remember that the school still needs to be renovated, and someone will have to do it. Who will want to?

Problem situations often start in a mundane way. Do we verify an accusation or information before spreading it further? Do we distinguish (or are we capable of doing so) facts from assumptions? Are we able to acknowledge someone else's success if we do not agree with their views? Do we allow a person to admit a mistake and fix it?

It must be remembered that public influence means greater responsibility. Competence and past achievements do not exempt anyone from the obligation to act honestly and observe the law. Responsibility must be determined based on evidence and a fair process, not on collective condemnation or mob emotions.

If, in mutual fighting, we push out people who are capable of leading, creating, and taking responsibility, the consequences are felt by the entire country. We lose certain knowledge and experience, and along with them, the ability to implement projects, attract funding, and prepare the next generation of professionals. All of this takes years, which is why elitocide must also be discussed as a question of long-term state development.

How can we defend competent leaders while at the same time not allowing arbitrariness or privileges?

Uniform and clear rules for everyone, well-founded decisions, transparent funding, conflicts of interest—open, violations—objectively evaluated and appropriately addressed or punished (if necessary). Achievements do not exempt anyone from these requirements.

Imagine a company manager who has successfully developed a production facility and created hundreds of jobs and who wishes to receive public co-financing for the introduction of a new technology. Past experience should neither guarantee funding nor be a reason for rejecting the project. The fact that an entrepreneur is influential or publicly inconvenient must not be a yardstick for evaluation. A project must be evaluated according to uniform, previously known criteria; the decision must be clear, well-founded, and verifiable. In this way, we simultaneously protect public money and maintain the possibility to invest in development.

Accusations, if there are any, must also be based on verifiable facts. An unpopular decision is not a violation. A different vision for the country's future is not betrayal. Sharp criticism, if it is reasoned, honest, and aimed at evaluating a specific action or decision, is not elitocide.

We need a political and social culture in which we are able to have sharp discussions about ideas, funding, and the country's future, demanding responsibility while maintaining respect for the person. The basis of statehood is the awareness that Latvia is our collective responsibility. Even after an argument, we must be able to work together and implement ideas that increase public well-being and security.

If, for the sake of personal victory, we undermine trust, professionalism, and cooperation, the consequences are unpredictable. In this way, we weaken the state's ability to accumulate knowledge and capital, invest, and create new opportunities. This is precisely why elitocide must be discussed in society—so that we can recognize it and prevent the loss of people and their potential, upon which Latvia's future depends, due to mutual fighting.

You are proposing a state-funded analytical center. Will that not be just another institution paid for by taxpayers?

Such a risk exists, which is why the center must have a clear mandate and measurable utility. Its work should combine the competence of universities, researchers, and independent think tanks to evaluate the consequences of significant decisions more broadly.

For example, proposals for forest policy should be evaluated together with their impact on nature, jobs, housing, regional development, exports, and investments. Research, methods, and funding must be public. Such a center must help verify the proposals of politicians, and its independence from party interests is essential.

What should a voter ask a politician shortly before an election?

Ask them to explain how their promises “hold together”. If they promise more wooden buildings—where will they get the timber? If they promise higher wages—what will the companies' ability to pay them be? If they promise innovation—who will invest and take the risk? If they promise stricter nature protection—what will be the results, and who will pay for them?

I would like to vote for people who are able to answer and also acknowledge difficult choices. Latvia needs common goals and the ability to implement them. Our children's future is much longer and more significant than a single pre-election campaign.