The last few years, with various problems that originated outside Latvia but which have a very direct impact on both our country's residents and the state as a whole, have forced us to forget both arithmetic and mathematics, as well as other previously understandable cause-and-effect relationships. By worrying about trifles, it can happen, as it did this year – at the end of February, quite a few people “came to the realization” of well-known but hitherto unaddressed issues. People in Europe are complaining that they did not listen to Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia or Poland, while in Latvia, the conclusion is that the warnings about the influence of the aggressive neighbouring country were even “too” well-founded.

The National Alliance (NA) is often accused of operating in a “terrible” government. Isn't such an accusation rather hypocritical, if every politician's desire is to be in power in order to implement their ideas?

I can very well understand that many people might not like the government as a whole, so – in their opinion – there is no reason to stay in such company. Emotionally, I sometimes have this feeling too. The problem is that no government in Latvia has been particularly popular so far. What to do? Walk away from every government in the hope that it will become “less terrible” because of that? The place would not remain empty. Who could fill it in this Saeima? Aldis Gobzems or Jūlija Stepaņenko? Saskaņa? The “remnants” of KPV? In Latvian political history, there is no example of a party leaving the government on its own and the voters having evaluated it positively. And, in my opinion, that is justified.

What is better – a political compromise or not addressing an issue, or does it depend solely on the situation? (This refers to the fact that a government formed by 4 or 5 parties will rarely agree on a single party's proposal, however good and necessary it may be.)

Sometimes not addressing an issue is the only possible compromise... Some want higher property tax, others want lower, and as a result, they agree not to touch it at all. Of course, what is better in which situation depends on the issue. One thing is clear: the more fragmented the government, the more strained the compromises and the more issues that “do not move forward”. This trend could be reduced if Latvia had three or four large ideological parties. Two that together command a majority in the Saeima would form the government. But for that to happen, we must stop experimenting in elections and waiting for a “miracle worker”.

What if you are not satisfied with the existing parties?

Then, in all likelihood, you will not be satisfied with the others (the next ones) either. There are no perfect parties. I say this confidently even about the one I represent and lead – the National Alliance. Even if only because, ideally – we as people are different; our views, characters, interests and abilities differ; this is true both in life and within every party. It is important for a party to have a unifying core that does not change and that the voter can count on. And then, if something is unsatisfactory, changes can already be made to the lists with pluses and strikethroughs.

In society, there is quite frequent and long-standing talk about the problems of bureaucracy and its sometimes unbearable pressure on residents, even in everyday life. What must happen for someone to finally start, step by step, to audit or review various requirements? Because of bureaucratisation, it is no longer possible to logically carry out procurement or work normally, because bureaucratisation “robs us of the strength and desire to work with joy”.

It is difficult to solve any problem by looking at it in the abstract. There is no magic wand that would change everything. Excessive, unfounded or harmful bureaucratic requirements appear in very specific cases, in specific institutions. Each institution is under the supervision of a ministry or local government, and therefore also under the supervision of some political force. The relevant party has elected deputies, there are office addresses and telephone numbers... Changes happen where there is pressure to act. In a democracy, everyone has the right to be the implementer of such pressure.

Shouldn't the Latvian state use its veto power more often when coordinating various European-level decisions? For example, regarding the expression of protected areas in percentages. We must protect what needs to be protected, not x% of the territory. We must not weaken ourselves, because the national economy and residents suffer greatly, and it is not the promoters of green projects who have a “headache” over this.

I fully agree that our national interests are paramount! I am certainly not one of those who denies the threats of climate change or does not support sustainable management, but it must happen proportionately and balanced with the interests of the national economy. Our Minister of Agriculture often objects to the common position in the EU Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers; for example, in connection with the consequences of the war in Ukraine, we asked for opportunities to use fallow land for sowing. Veto power, of course, is heavy artillery. It cannot be used often without becoming an outcast, but in certain strategically important cases, such an option should not be excluded.

Does “overzealousness that leads to over-exertion”, quoting Ēvalds Valters in the film “Vella kalpi” [Devil’s Servants], not put Latvian residents in a disadvantageous situation compared to others? Banks and the resulting business problems, nature conservation, “we had better freeze, we will not use peat”, etc. Does an experienced politician have a plan on what to do so that over-exertion does not cause harm?

Diligence cannot be excessive if it is directed in the right direction. Over-exertion in the field of financial sector supervision, in my view, was not diligence in the interests of Latvia's growth. What to do? Do not allow people with such disoriented diligence to reach or remain in office. You saw the result of the Saeima vote... I also assume that we are like-minded regarding the possibilities of using peat in agriculture. The instruction for our ministers is clear – both in Europe and in Latvia, to actively defend the position that it (the use of peat in agriculture) should be possible.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, very many Europeans suddenly “woke up”, whereas Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles and Czechs had been talking about what they had experienced for years. In Latvia, it was just as “suddenly” realised that there are problems with residents who are completely disloyal to the state, the use of the language, etc. Is there anything else one should be cautious about?

I would say that many Latvians realised this back during the protests by defenders of Russian schools, later during the referendum on bilingualism. But many have felt and feel the presence of Great Russian imperialism all the time: in the shop, on public transport, on the street, on the 9th of May... The invasion of Ukraine, both in 2014 and this year, rather starkly reminded us how dangerous this “5th column” issue is. What else should we be careful about? That imperceptibly, cunningly and indirectly, “5th column” political forces can still find a way to get into power. Everyone thinks that “Saskaņa” is already dead, but they do not notice that a new draft is coming through the back door...

What about the Latvian Russian Union and “Stabilitāte!”?

These two are explicitly pro-Russian, but even right next to them are A. Šlesers, A. Gobzems, and A. Lembergs. In the case of low voter turnout, we could experience all sorts of miracles. Especially if foreign intelligence services have done their calculations and put in the effort.

In sports or other competitions, being first is good and an honour. Is it not the case in Latvia that we too often forget our own residents because of a desire to be “politically correctly first”?

In the performance of the Latvian Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, we feel this desire to be the most disciplined in our attitude towards state debt. Latvia is among those countries that have borrowed the least. One might say “we will not live at the expense of future generations”, but I do not agree with such an interpretation at all. If the other countries with which we are in a single economic network borrow and invest more in their growth – in science, modernisation, export capacity – but we save and stay (stand) in place in terms of development, close down companies, lose people, in my opinion, it is precisely by doing so that we cause greater harm to future generations.

Latvia is rich in resources that are renewable. Despite this, there is quite often a desire to restrict, not do, not work, not earn. How to solve this issue politically wisely? We cannot afford to lose even more working-age people who are looking for opportunities to work elsewhere. How to get back the 400,000 of our compatriots who live elsewhere? Is it even possible?

Thanks to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Latvian government took long-awaited steps in the sector for more effective forest management. It is still visible what disinformation and resistance we encountered. I would never support decisions that would mean squandering our natural wealth, but today the main problem is precisely the pulling into the opposite ditch. The balance has been lost, and balance is the most important word here. In each individual case, one should rely not on emotions and also not on blind service to the interests of any merchant, but on a reasonable middle ground.

What would be clear and achievable state goals for the future of Latvia (similar to the EU, NATO, the euro...)?

It is fashionable now to name three things. I would say: gain independence from Russia, first and foremost from its energy resources. Increase Latvia's export volume to 27 billion euros in 2027. Become the most child-friendly country in Europe. In my opinion, ambitious but possible.

Is the NA thinking about how to limit (control) the now obvious (especially in the capital) and uncontrolled flow of migrants? Thousands of people have arrived here from the East (and Central Asia), whose loyalty to Latvia is neither known nor understood, especially in these geopolitical circumstances.

Now, this is the case where the interests of individual merchants to attract the cheapest possible labour cannot be decisive in state policy! We have always stood for the fact that we can only accept well-paid and highly educated arrivals, for whom there is a real shortage in the relevant sector. The National Alliance is the main dam that weeds out any attempts to subject us to new mass immigration in regulatory acts and party political plans. It does not always succeed. We were outvoted, for example, in attempts to prevent the circumvention of the Immigration Law through support for the opportunities of third-country students to work here full-time. “Students” should probably be put in quotation marks in this case. But here, voters must also make their own choice. If this is important, give the National Alliance more influence to strengthen a Latvian Latvia!