We spoke with Uldis Biķis, a father of three, a sixth-generation landowner and someone working in the Latvian forestry sector, about everyday human interests, pre-election promises, forestry, investments, competent leaders, and their place and significance in Latvia's future.
If, for example, I am an employee, I care about my salary, paying the bills, and my children's future. Why should I think about a broader (cross-sectoral) perspective on various things and events?
Because in everyday life, all sectors are closely linked, even if we do not notice it. Your salary depends on your workplace, the workplace – on the company's ability to sell and develop. Bills are affected by energy prices, housing prices – by construction, and children's opportunities – by education.
If every ministry has a narrow view of only its own task and its assigned duties, the individual can fall between these boundaries. A cross-sectoral perspective basically means a very simple thing: before making a decision, understand how that decision will affect a person's (or people's) life as a whole.
Before the elections, many promise better wages, accessible (cheaper) housing, and a strong state. Why are promises not enough?
Every promise needs coverage – 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 that funds them.
From a politician (current or prospective), I would like to hear three things: what they are proposing, how this proposal will work, and where they will get the money to implement it. A voter should not be convinced by a loud sentence or slogan alone; they should be given a clear opportunity to understand the consequences of the proposal, including the uncomfortable ones.
In discussions about forestry, we hear: we should harvest less, and we must build more from wood. It sounds contradictory and absurd...
The absurdity starts if both these slogans are presented as a ready-made plan without calculating how to combine them. A wooden building, naturally, requires timber. If we want to use more wood in construction and simultaneously reduce timber harvesting, it must be clearly stated how this will or can be achieved.
We can use timber more efficiently, reduce its waste, recycle more, and reuse materials. Of course, all of the above is possible, but the scope of these options must be calculated. One should also not forget about imports and their impact. The voter deserves to know more than just two beautiful, mutually incompatible, albeit perhaps pleasant, promises.
The call to harvest less is understandable – people want to preserve the forest.
Of course, it is understandable. I also 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 envision for each territory: where the main goal is the preservation of natural values, where – forestry and timber production, and where it is possible to combine multiple functions.
This is land use stratification – the division of territories according to their purpose. Land use must be clearly defined and must comply with management regulations and the results to be achieved. In nature conservation areas, it must be completely clear what we are protecting, why we are protecting it, and how we will evaluate the result. In commercial areas, there must be an opportunity to manage land responsibly and productively, to regenerate the forest, and to invest in its future value. Conversely, where we combine goals, we must determine how we will coordinate them and where the boundaries will be.
Such clarity is needed by society, the landowner, and the entrepreneur 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 the land and its resources can be used. If we set restrictions on economic activity due to society's common goals, we must reach an agreement (not just speculate 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 have a reasoned discussion about where and how much to harvest, what to preserve, and what value to create. The argument becomes meaningless if one side calls its opponents destroyers, and the other – opponents of progress.
I work for a set salary. Why should I care if 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 weather more difficult times.
If we spend everything we earn today, there are fewer opportunities for tomorrow's investments. A company's growth should also be felt by the employee – in working conditions, skills, and remuneration. It is reasonable to be interested and to ask how the company's success improves the lives of the people who create that success.
Politicians say: we need innovations and products with higher added value. Is that complicated, and if so, how much?
The path from a concept to a product that someone is or will be willing to buy is complex. It requires people, research, equipment, trials, and time. Some attempts will not succeed; one must get through that and understand it clearly.
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 on resource availability. A call of “Green light for innovation!” is not enough. Conditions must be created where people can take risks and realize their ideas.
As a representative of the forestry sector, you are surely defending the industry's interests. Why should the reader trust you?
That is a direct and honest question. I work in the forestry sector; I have my own perspective and interests that must be openly expressed. My arguments should be evaluated just as critically as the arguments of politicians, environmental organizations, or other entrepreneurs.
Trust cannot be demanded because of a position or experience; it must be earned through verifiable data, clear assumptions, and a readiness to answer difficult questions. The common good arises when we are able to reconcile our interests with the needs of society as a whole.
You call for respect for competence, but, as is well known, experts also make mistakes. Should they be allowed to be criticized?
Experts can and should be criticized and questioned. One should be interested in what data the conclusions are based on, what has not become known, and what the potential risks are. Competence does not exempt one from responsibility.
The problem starts when, instead of arguments, the person is attacked, and their knowledge is presented as a reason for suspicion. That is how we can scare away from public discourse exactly 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 view.
Before we started our conversation, you used the word “elitocide”. What does that mean for a person who does not encounter such terms in their daily life?
By elitocide, I understand the systematic and almost constant discrediting of competent and socially important people, 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 is clearly visible lately, must be called by its name so that we can recognize it each time and discuss it.
For example, the discussion about the felling of old pine trees in the Rucava area. Determining the age of every tree by drilling before logging would not be a practical solution. Furthermore, one cannot ask an operator from a harvester cabin to reliably determine a tree's age solely based on trunk diameter; therefore, it must be determined how the cutting area was prepared, what data on natural values were available, and what instructions the logging operator received. If, instead of these questions, we start defaming foresters, scientists, or nature conservation specialists without evidence (which, unfortunately, is a common occurrence), we lose the opportunity to understand what happened. A different professional opinion should not become a reason for discrediting a person. Violations must be investigated and responsibility determined based on clear facts. The identification of natural values, land-use objectives, and the marking of trees to be preserved must be part of planning before felling. Mutual insults do not replace this work.
That, of course, does not mean that people with more experience, influence, or responsibility are protected from criticism. Quite the contrary – their decisions must be carefully evaluated. Honest criticism is both based on facts and arguments and relates to a specific action, decision, or its consequences.
Unfounded character assassination is another matter. If an attempt is made to silence or push someone out of a field or a circle or group, the attention is shifted from the essence of the issue to the specific person. We do not calculate what the proposed decision will give to society and what the losses will be, but instead, we spend our strength on mutual fighting, while the issue to be resolved (which is often very urgent and requires immediate action) remains unsolved.
By the word “elite”, I mean people who, with their knowledge, experience, and responsibility, make a significant contribution to society. These can be teachers, scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, engineers, public administration professionals, or civil society leaders. Their value is determined by the work they have done, not by membership in some closed or privileged group. This knowledge and experience have been accumulated over many years, and the state must be able to use it and pass it on to future generations. Unfortunately, we often see that precisely from the side of state institutions, there is no real action. “People are important” exists in nicely formatted long-term documents, not in “life or nature”.
Disputes over ideas, money, or projects are a normal part of daily democratic life. At what point does reasonable competition turn into a heated brawl 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 fanatically so. Such fighting 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 development plans for Latvia and compete for limited public funding. One project is better prepared, with more clearly substantiated benefits and an implementation scenario, while the representatives of the other institution and their supporters begin to spread unverified claims about the competing project manager's interests, connections, or intentions. If comparing the costs, benefits, and risks of projects is replaced by personal defamation, a project whose defenders were more influential in the public fight might be supported, rather than the one that would provide 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 party from participating in a discussion or competing fairly.
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, ethical and moral principles must never be lost: honesty, respect for people, and responsibility for one's actions. Even well-founded disagreements do not give one the right to spread false information or destroy a person's reputation. State responsibility requires thinking about what our (or “my”) victory or defeat will mean for Latvia as a whole.
Can society reach a point where strong and competent people no longer want to take on responsibility?
Yes, in that case, one must evaluate the long-term consequences! If a person receives constant personal attacks for taking personal initiative and responsibility, realizing that silence and avoiding decisions are becoming the safer choice, next time they may decide not to get involved. That is precisely how society itself quite purposefully creates conditions in which it loses professional people who could lead complex processes and take responsibility for the outcome.
Let us imagine, say, a municipal leader who has taken up the renovation of a local school building. The project is complex; during its implementation, work is delayed, for which they publicly take responsibility. Instead of evaluating what caused the problems and fixing them, the municipal leader is declared “incompetent” and “corrupt” on social networks, without any evidence. Seeing this happen, other professionals may also quite safely conclude that it is better not to act... However, it must be remembered that the school still needs to be renovated and someone will have to do it. Who will want to?
Problem situations often start mundanely. Do we check an accusation or information before spreading it further? Do we separate (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 correct it?
It must be remembered that public influence means greater responsibility. Competence and previous achievements do not exempt anyone from the obligation to act honestly and comply with the law. Responsibility must be determined based on evidence and a fair process, not on collective condemnation or crowd emotions.
If in mutual fighting we push out people who are able to lead, create, and take responsibility, the consequences are felt by the entire state. We lose specific knowledge and experience, and along with them, the ability to implement projects, attract funding, and prepare the next professionals. Everything listed above requires years, which is why elitocide must also be discussed as an issue of the state's long-term development (or more accurately – a development-hindering issue).
How can we defend competent leaders while simultaneously preventing arbitrariness or privileges?
Equal and clear rules for everyone, well-founded decisions, transparent funding, conflicts of interest – disclosed, violations – objectively evaluated and appropriately addressed or punished (if necessary). Achievements do not exempt anyone from these requirements.
Let us imagine a company manager who has successfully developed a production facility and created hundreds of jobs and who wants to receive public co-financing for the introduction of new technology. Previous experience should neither guarantee funding nor be a reason for rejecting the project. The fact that an entrepreneur is influential or publicly inconvenient should not be a yardstick for evaluation. The project must be evaluated according to equal, pre-known criteria; the decision must be clear, reasoned, and verifiable. That is how we simultaneously protect public money and maintain the opportunity to invest in development.
Accusations, if 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 treason. 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 argue sharply about ideas, funding, and the country's future, demanding accountability while maintaining respect for people. The foundation of statehood is the awareness that Latvia is our collective responsibility. Even after a dispute, one must be able to work together and implement ideas that increase the welfare and security of society.
If for the sake of personal victory we destroy trust, professionalism, and cooperation, the consequences are unpredictable. This is how we weaken the state's ability to accumulate knowledge and capital, invest, and create new opportunities. That is precisely why elitocide must be discussed in society – so that we can recognize it and not allow us to lose people and their potential, on which Latvia's future depends, in mutual fighting.
You are proposing a state-funded analytical center. Will that be another institution on taxpayers' money?
There is such a risk, which is why the center must have a clear task and measurable utility. Its work should combine the competence of universities, researchers, and independent think tanks to more broadly evaluate the consequences of significant decisions.
For example, proposals for forest policy should be evaluated together with the impact on nature, jobs, housing, regional development, exports, and investments. Research, methods, and funding must be public. Such a center must help to verify politicians' proposals; its independence from party interests is essential.
What should a voter ask a politician shortly before the 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 be the ability of companies to pay them? 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 it?
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. The future of our children is significantly longer and more important than one pre-election campaign.
A photograph by Guntis Grandāns has been used for illustration purposes