An interview with Edvards Ratnieks, advisor to the Minister of Agriculture and a current NA/LRA candidate for Riga City Council
The Riga City Council deputies elected in August have slowly begun their work. Regarding the elections, an important question remained unanswered—one that was discussed only briefly, but which is and will (or so it seems) remain relevant: the low voter turnout. Why?
One must start with the fact that this time the Riga City Council elections were 'drawn out', and the residents of Riga had to wait too long. It was certainly noticeable that the 'Saskaņa' voter no longer trusted 'Saskaņa'. This was evident during early voting at polling stations where this party had previously achieved convincing success. Even then, it became clear that the Latvian-oriented forces in the capital would win. Conversely, people's reluctance to vote could be explained by the predictability of the result. If you feel certain about something, motivation to participate fades because 'everything is already clear'. Of course, when talking about motivation, it does not always disappear, but as we can see, that is what happened this time. In addition to this, the desire to vote was certainly affected by the long election process mentioned at the beginning: wait and wait, you, the voter, are offered March or April, later a version about July surfaces, and in the end—you go to vote at the end of August. Perhaps the issue, having been 'ripened' for too long, diminished the desire to participate and make a decision. However, I would like to add that the results are not bad, because Riga has been taken away from 'Saskaņa'.
The elections and the issue of leaders ('locomotives'). After 29 August, one often hears it said: 'If Nils had been on the back or side of the bus together with the 'Saskaņa' candidates, the result would have been different.' This thought is not denied even by those who are publicly against having strong leaders or personalities on electoral lists. It is evident that Mārtiņš Staķis 'took along' many of his colleagues on the list.
Yes, one can support, deny, or criticise the 'locomotive principle', but it works! We in the NA/LRA ran as a unified team; it was important for us to highlight the candidates as members of a team. 'Saskaņa', on the other hand, 'coasted' for quite a long time using the image of Nils Ušakovs. The result was often incomprehensible either to the city or to those who did not vote for 'Saskaņa': the elected deputies were unable to express themselves, were unable to understand, did not know the Latvian language, did not understand the needs of Riga residents, etc. Here we see the weakness or flaw of the locomotive principle: if there is a very convincing leader on the list, less support (number of pluses) is needed to elect other candidates: a few hundred pluses can already mean election.
Does the public (voters) agree with and accept lists led by one or two leaders? It is not just about 'Saskaņa'.
Overall, such campaigns work well, meaning a portion of voters agree with highlighting one or a few people. Of course, much depends on the people who are running: if a person does not want to stand out, the result can still be good. If there is one leader for whom everyone 'works' during the campaign, the others face or may face problems with recognition, which I consider to be a mistake made by 'Saskaņa'. Nils Ušakovs currently works in the European Parliament, and in his place, there are no very familiar faces! We see the result...
Seeing the events from up close, what is the situation currently in the political leadership of Riga? The list that won the majority feels quite merry, but when communicating with the deputies and talking more concretely, one gets the impression that the deputy or the person who has now become a deputy does not have a clear understanding of the work and the situation in the capital.
If one looks at Riga while driving through the streets and compares it to other cities, the situation is sadder: where in many places there are no potholes, in Riga they appear. If we look at footpaths, many Latvian cities have overtaken Riga in terms of quality. Riga, unfortunately, is not the best example to praise. Furthermore, if more than 100 million euros must be invested annually (>10% of the city's budget) into 'Rīgas satiksme', that is a sum that is not being invested in Riga's infrastructure elsewhere. Understandably, no one intends to cancel discounts for public transport in the city, so it must be concluded that we have to continue living with this baggage and get by with what we have. Here one must remember the principle of communicating vessels: every discount forces money to be 'taken' from somewhere or someone. For example, if we talk about possible real estate tax discounts, money will accordingly have to be taken from something else, etc.
Regarding the cash flow of the Riga City Council, there is frequent talk about investigations and court proceedings, but—are there any hopes, and what kind of hopes could there be, of recovering the squandered money or at least some part of it? That would be quite important.
(Broad smile) In my opinion, if the responsible people declare in their official declarations that they own one trailer and nothing else, there are and will be very few chances of actually recovering anything for the Riga budget. Yes, there are loud headlines in newspapers or online news portals, but only those who have not taken care to tidy up their affairs in time will 'get caught', if one can put it that way! My view is realistic, not pessimistic.
The European 'Green Deal', which is talked about quite loudly in Riga. What do we each understand and call 'green'? Regarding the Riga City Council elections, I was surprised by a thought that was voiced quite regularly – there will be money in the city budget, we (the deputies) must think about how to spend (use) it. Regarding the elections, hardly anyone talked about: how to earn it.
The way things have been managed in Riga so far has created the basis for the thought that the volume of funds, as it has been until now, will also be available in the future, even if the power changes. At the moment, it looks like there will be less money in the Riga budget for various reasons: the worsening of the economic situation (Covid-19), changes in state regulations, etc. Furthermore—people tend to be optimists and hope that things will be as they wish! When we get to the numbers, it turns out that what was wanted has not come to pass. The NA/LRA did not promise much during the pre-election period. What we definitely want: to solve the issue of social worker salaries, as well as the salaries of preschool educators. That is the responsibility of the local government.
Continuing about green issues: slogans about Riga and greenery were voiced quite a lot, but… When travelling, for example, by train (Riga–Skulte, Riga–Sigulda, Riga–Jelgava), you see greenery through the window that should be tended to or sorted out so that no dead tree or branches fall on a resident of Riga or their car. Instead, phrases are being heard...
'Green ideas' are currently very popular. Less than two years ago, I myself prepared a short film on how a deposit system for beverage packaging could be introduced in Latvia. I was pleasantly surprised that people shared it, discussed it, and watched it on social media: many were captivated by the idea and evaluated it positively.
What is worrying regarding 'greenery'? Extremes. For example, are representatives of the forestry industry, in anyone's opinion, truly considered to be not thinking green? Let us reason truly and realistically: it is very difficult to find people 'greener' than those who work in the forest and are involved in forestry matters! No forest owner or manager will be ready to worsen the quality or value of their forest by harming nature. The problem arises in exaggerations: if a person asks why one should chop down or use trees at all, they should look at the chair they are sitting on, the doors they open, the wooden buildings that are more valuable than concrete structures... does this person read books? These are logical and understandable things. Where can the cause of these extremes be found? In the lack of information and one-sidedness; often, information is also difficult to understand (we are slowly moving towards Instagram-style image information), many things are very simplified, which undoubtedly is worrying.
In political circles, there is often talk of short-term political thinking: political 'foresight' lasts four years. A forest or land owner and manager, or a proper entrepreneur, does not think in a four-year cycle, and I doubt Riga will be ready in four years...
There is one difference: this time the elections gave the Riga City Council a mandate for nearly five years. If we look at Latvia's long-lived political parties (parties whose 'life' is not a fleeting moment of stardom!), they are the big winners, with values that have always been important to people. Short-term is short-term. Parties with populist ideas, once they have made it into parliament and government, are unlikely to repeat their success with those same ideas. It is quite clear to the voter that a government decision is a joint decision, where responsibility is shared. If a government party beats its chest saying: the decision was made, we participated, but we do not think that way, it seems very odd… Of course, the voter must think about whether it is worth trusting their vote to a populist party. Have we had a party that has had great trust shortly before an election and has been able to maintain it for a long period? That too makes one draw a few conclusions!
Deputies tend to stay (in a different party), parties disappear more quickly and rapidly. Turning to the thought of the deposit system: the situation in Riga with waste in the forests, which really shouldn't be there at all, is very unpleasant and should be solved. But publicly, this causes little worry and is barely spoken of... Where is the greenness, where is the habit...
It is incomprehensible to me that people can go into the forest or a park and throw things there, for example, plastic bottles. The deposit system will be a help in this regard because either people will not throw away bottles but return them, or someone else will return the bottles thrown away by others. Not all waste is the same, but… I once experimented myself, collecting bottles and cans in the forest with my daughter: we collected 70 litres of bottles (glass and plastic) and cans. In money, that would be about 10 euros. We will see what the result is once the deposit system is introduced.
Regarding education: Instagram can show very simply – littering is bad, cleaning up (collecting) is good! One must believe that people have values that prevent them from throwing waste in the forest or wherever. You can only educate if the other person wants to listen and understand.
Speaking of greenery and parks in Riga, I see that the newly elected councillors are worried about various non-public development plans for the capital, where someone has intended a building in a beautiful green area. For example, Anniņmuiža.
That is so, and it is important to know this in good time! I think an audit should be carried out in this regard to understand what has been planned where. There is no shortage of building sites in Riga, but... in place of old buildings, it is very rare to see a flattened area where trees or flower beds are planted. They build new buildings! So...
That is not exactly a Riga issue, but the Stūra māja (Corner House) is located in Riga. How does a resident of Riga look at the auctioning of such a building?
The building is managed by State Real Estate. The building has History (with a capital H), the building has architectural value, and the building is in a good location. I think that while preserving the historical value, the 'empty part' of the building could be used for other purposes.
The Ministry of Agriculture is a ministry that thinks about work and money for the country's residents. Is the struggle for such understandable things becoming overly harsh? Many, as we already mentioned, talk about spending without thinking about where to take it from, what to spend. Have people forgotten in 30 years where the money comes from?
Yes, if a person receives money into their account without going into how and where 'it' originates, the habit forms that it comes from somewhere! Humanly, that might even be understandable. There are people who, to the question: 'Where to get logs?', answer that logs are at 'Depo'. How the timber gets to that shop is no longer important!
There are party goals and plans, but everyone surely has something of their own. What, while advising colleagues in the Riga City Council, would you like to achieve?
A field close to me is higher education and science, and in this regard, there is the idea of creating an academic triangle in Pārdaugava: the University of Latvia – Riga Stradiņš University – Riga Technical University. All three are located approximately a mile from each other; it is possible to create recreational areas, business incubator zones, and sports infrastructure (near Arkādija Park), also including the National Library of Latvia.
Will this idea be affected by RailBaltica?
The railway is already in this territory anyway and will not change anything significantly. During the time when we were in opposition during the previous council convocation, we touched upon the issue that the Riga City Council was inadequately evaluating the situation with RailBaltica plans in the city. Of course, the moment will come when the (current) council will have to prepare for changes, construction, and excavations; essentially, a certain period is expected when there will be various restrictions in the centre of Riga, and the current council will try to minimise the resulting inconveniences as much as possible so that the residents of Riga do not feel them. We will have to work diligently on that!