RL: Since you mentioned not standing for election and it is known why you cannot stand...

J. Bojārs: But I voted for that myself! No one writes about that, but I pressed the button myself. Only beforehand, I made a statement, poked my finger at them – at Anatolijs, who was chairing the session at the time: who was commanding whom? Because Anatolijs himself was the curator for that institution [1. Meaning the USSR State Security Committee.] along party lines. Who was commanding whom? Well, I didn’t ask him about the Nuremberg principles, of course – that would have been too much. Muciņš did mumble something there, wanting to add something about party officials too, but his mouth was shut quickly.

RL: But why do you consider that you made the right choice?

J. Bojārs: I emphasise again – because I consider it to be right. That’s all. Enough. What else do you need?

RL: We are also not clear on what exactly you did at that institution.

J. Bojārs: I worked in counter-intelligence – such a thing exists. I left there 29 years ago, in 1971. People tend to forget that. As well as the fact that I only worked there for six years.

RL: You mention those six years very often in interviews. But information about your departure is contradictory – one piece of information is that you left secret documents where they shouldn't have been, another...[2. “Actually, it was quite funny. I forgot a secret paper in a place where it shouldn’t have been forgotten. [..] But I did forget it... Later others told me: ‘Damn it, you thought that up very cleverly.’ No one can ever prove whether I did it intentionally or unintentionally. Naturally, I say unintentionally, but well...” (from an interview in Tev, 26.09.1994)]

J. Bojārs: How I left is my business. I submitted a resignation twice – without success. It is difficult to get into that institution, but even harder to get out of it. But that is not the main part of my life. I have lived for another 29 years since then, and worked at the university for the rest of my life – that is the main part of my life.

RL: But you surely wouldn't say it hasn't influenced your life?

J. Bojārs: To a certain extent, even positively.

RL: In what sense?

J. Bojārs: Very simple. You see, if I had perhaps stayed in parliament too long [..] [3. A rather long story about Juris Bojārs' activity in the USSR Congress of People’s Deputies and his merits for Latvia's independence has been omitted here.], I would not have achieved so much in science. Someone has sat and warmed a seat – for a month, two, a year, two, five – but no one remembers that. But what is done substantially, what students learn from for decades afterwards – that remains. Personally, that is more important to me.

RL: You have also evaluated the education you received at the KGB schools positively. [4. J. Bojārs is a graduate of the Diplomatic Academy of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs.]

J. Bojārs: Yes. There were indeed great opportunities to learn well there if a person wanted to. I was given the same education there as at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations – the standards were about the same. Languages, legal sciences, international relations. I gained a great deal there, which is why some things cannot be fed to me now – that annoys many people because they know that I know something more, but they don't know whether I know who they are. I can’t do anything about that. I also don’t go around saying – I know about you...

RL: You have already named a few names, claiming that you know clearly and have proof. For example, Inkens.

J. Bojārs: Well no, I don't think I have talked about Inkens.

RL: You have.

J. Bojārs: But Inkens already had a court case – what is there for me to talk about then? There have already been several such court cases – what would I talk about there? I don't tend to speak out without need. [5. “Regarding Milbergs and Siliņš, I cannot say anything. But the other three – they are the real ones. There is no mistake there. They deny it in vain; they have worked for so long, and I know that they have worked, I personally know it. – You mean Andrejevs... – Kreituss and Inkens. I know, and I can personally testify that they served the KGB.” (Rīgas Balss, 09.05.1994)]

RL: What specifically were the matters you had to deal with at the KGB?

J. Bojārs: No comment. [6. (English in the original).] Every great power engages in intelligence and counter-intelligence. It is technical work – like catching criminals, catching intelligence officers – it happens all the time.

RL: But that is a subject many people are writing memoirs about now...

J. Bojārs: But I am not writing them. As long as I can write something new, I will not write memoirs. Memoirs, in my opinion, are a very one-sided thing – willy-nilly, a person has to praise themselves. That is somehow not in my nature. One should write something that gives people something. In Latvia, there was no school of international law at all – neither before the war, nor during the Soviet era. Even now, we do not have a single judge who would be professionally prepared to litigate, let's say, the case of the sawed-up ship, the Lattelekom case – on par with foreign judges. There isn't one! And that is terrible – we are at the level of an island nation. So we have lagged behind in international law. (Shows his books.) If no one else is making them, I have to – what else can be done.

RL: There have been books spotted about KGB influence methods, including telepathy...

Bojārs: At that time, such a course didn't exist yet. I know they carried out experiments similar to the Americans. I think that whole Kashpirovsky [7. Kashpirovsky, a psychic who performed on Soviet television, influencing viewers from a distance.] business was their experiment. And, in my opinion, it succeeded very successfully – showing that you can lead large crowds of people to ecstasy, to the level of an idiot. In principle, that was already known earlier. You can see that if you read the Bible or, let's say, the ancient Greek and Roman historians; it is clear that they were able to do it then too – to manipulate mass consciousness. I am writing a book on the history of democracy right now – I am very interested in this topic. But, you see, politics takes up a lot of time. The main writing happens at home on weekends and during holidays.

RL: But surely no one is forcing you to be involved in politics.

J. Bojārs: Yes, but, you see, there are things there that I can do, but others cannot. And I don't want to let others into that niche. I don't want them to destroy a very great piece of work that I have done, and which they are currently trying very hard to destroy – this niche. Well, Šķēle has already announced that by autumn it will be all over for the Social Democrats. Well, Šķēle has bragged about little – but this proves that he is really doing it. Well, he does one thing, we do another. Today we have won. I like being a winner. It’s an athlete's nature – I used to be involved in combat sports, special combat sports.

RL: You have repeated many times that you want to fight against crooks. Likewise, you say that the only complex you are willing to admit to is an allergy to scoundrels. Tell me, please, are there any crooks and scoundrels in the ranks of the LSDSP?

J. Bojārs: Well, there are people who have been shoved in among us and are being paid. They are trying to do that especially right now. But those people show themselves very well. You see, in special services there are two such things – there is an agency meant only for intelligence gathering, they don't show themselves at all – one can catch those too, but it is very difficult – one has to create very cunning combinations. But after a while you know who they are. But there are also agent provocateurs – they show themselves very quickly. There is also an influence agency which is infiltrated, let's say, into the state government, the ruling party, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They act the same way in politics. Well, then one can buy off such people, if such occur. People are people.

RL: Did you like the film about Stierlitz?

J. Bojārs: Well, that is a fictional film. You know, I don't read spy literature – it’s not interesting. Because I know how it’s done. The spying itself is absolutely not interesting to me. It is interesting for me to find out the technique – how it happens, nothing more. I don't indulge in such events because, in their deep essence, they are dishonest.

RL: But surely there is a certain romance there?

J. Bojārs: No, I don't have that. Romance to me is associated with the love of youth or with good hunting. Everyone has their own sphere of values – one likes heavy rock, another – hockey, another – drinking. Simply getting drunk. Some Westerners have said to me – what’s the point of eating when you are drinking, because the goal is to get drunk. My goal is not to get drunk. The work I do requires a clear head – the maximum clear head, even more than a clear head.

RL: Have you never been drunk?

J. Bojārs: You know, if I’m serious, in Siberia in my younger days, I was pushed some home-brewed beer. I, being a young lad, didn't know what it was. Later I found out that they put tobacco leaves in the bottom of the barrel as well. That was the only time – lack of experience. That was death potion.

RL: But surely you have some weaknesses?

J. Bojārs: Yes! None of us is an angel, as James Madison said [8. James Madison (1751-1836), US statesman and 4th President, one of the founders of the US Constitution.]. But I don't have the weakness of undressing in front of others, especially journalists. Those who like it – those are of a masochistic (sic!) nature, but I do not have a masochistic nature. I also don't like people of a masochistic nature.

RL: Tell me, please, does morality exist in international relations?

J. Bojārs: Interests. But there ought to be morality. Much is written about it. The United Nations – look (points to a tall stack of paper), I receive two bags of UN literature every day – I am the only one from all the higher education institutions who receives a full deposit. If one could manage to read it... It’s a utopia, of course. One of the lines there is morality in international relations, which developing – underdeveloped – countries especially call for. That doesn't mean that great powers couldn't practice moral policy too. Sometimes they stand up, moralising about something, or sometimes they are forced to do so. But overall, there are only interests there.

RL: But where do those interests come from? Governments change, the social order changes? Why, for example, is Russia friendly with Iraq, with Serbia?

J. Bojārs: I don't want to answer for Putin. They refer to the fact that those are their traditional friends. They are in a strange situation – they are in a situation where they have no more friends left. Havel correctly said that they are in a state of confusion. Russia has always sought its identity. But surely no one forced them to seize foreign territories. Read Gumilyov – that process is well described there. It is called passionarity. (Retells Gumilyov's theory.)

RL: Are you a passionarian?

J. Bojārs: It’s not important how we call each other. What is important is whether the work is done well or not.

RL: Tell me, please, what does it mean for you now to look at an article that you wrote, say in 1977 [9. See, for example, the article "The USSR's struggle for the universal realisation of fundamental human rights and freedoms" (Horizonts, No. 14/15, 1977)], where you talk about human rights, about the right of nations to self-determination, analysing everything in the aspect that capitalists have interests, but in the socialist camp there is morality?

J. Bojārs: Yes. In Soviet times quite successfully... First of all, you have to understand that everyone back then had to pay dues. Those who boast hugely now, they don't want to admit that they paid dues. There you are. They operated very well with this morality, with anti-colonialism...

RL: You say “they,” but...

J. Bojārs: ...as long as it didn't concern them personally. And it all sounded very nice, because colonialism as such existed. Remember that in the West they usually operated with the Wilson doctrine – as if Wilson had been the author of the idea of self-determination. That is complete nonsense. Rosa Luxemburg with daddy Lenin and the Social Democrats very actively discussed the right of European nations to self-determination in the press. And all those works are very correct. It was precisely during the Awakening that I operated very much with Lenin’s quotes from his 1913-1915 works, where there is nothing to add or take away. At that time, quotes from Marx, Engels, and Lenin were like a sword – against that they had no arguments.

RL: Good, that is the period of Perestroika and the Awakening, but the talk is about earlier times...

J. Bojārs: Yes. So, this moral category was used very well precisely in anti-colonial issues. That is why they got into all sorts of jungle countries and put their rulers there. But I think that for them it was relatively unsuccessful.

RL: But you yourself? Did you know in 1977 that the Soviet Union was an empire? And were you writing what you wrote consciously?

J. Bojārs: But tell me, who in the Soviet Union in 1977 could have published something where it would have been written that the Soviet Union is an empire?

RL: The question was, did you believe what you were writing?

J. Bojārs: Let famous national independence fighters tell me what they want now, but in the 60s there was little hope that Latvia would gain independence. But Khrushchev was relatively young, he had condemned all those Stalinist repressions – of course, he didn't say that he himself had participated in them – and we believed that the system could improve. And democratization of the system happened – that is a fact, after all. And it was important for us that this process continue. If it hadn't been able to continue, then we would not have become free. That is why I also believed to a certain extent.

RL: You have written during the stagnation period, you have written during the times of Perestroika and the Awakening, you are writing now. Can you imagine any historical-political situation where you would rather choose silence?

J. Bojārs: A situation? I don't know, I don't write about absolutely all problems. I completely avoid expressing myself on things where I am not a specialist. Unlike other mouthpieces. I don't know what situations will be ahead – for example, I would gladly leave politics if I saw – yes, this is a very smart boy, completely honest, he can fully replace me...

RL: Is Adamsons not one?

J. Bojārs: Well, I don't want to discuss personalities. Adamsons has simply already arrived.

RL: And your son?

J. Bojārs: My son doesn't want to be in politics at all. He is more of a businessman. He doesn't like sitting in high chairs. In the Presidium [10. Meaning the Saeima Presidium.] he was completely bored. He was on the podium very rarely. He likes operational work like that.

RL: From the way you reason about different countries and historical events, it can be concluded that you really like to analyse the personal relationships and characteristics of different rulers. From your analysis, the impression arises that perhaps your dislike for the European Union comes from the fact that...

J. Bojārs: Who told you that I have a dislike? I haven't spoken about the European Union at all, and you are already saying that you get an impression!

RL: Good. How do you evaluate the impersonality of the European Union leadership?

J. Bojārs: Well, you see, then I will express myself more precisely. I am absolutely against a European federation. I, of course, among European leaders, am a rather insignificant personality, but if France and Great Britain are behaving sceptically towards this idea, one must think that there are reasons for it. I think that Latvia should also not rush from one federation into another. I have had to be at various conferences, and one of the nicest was in Lugano – and there, how those Europeans were cursing that strawberries are standardised, tomatoes are standardised by size – all these idiotisms! So they themselves speak critically enough about that. But, you see, taking into account that under this sun nothing is perfect – that is already said in the Bible, well, in the book that is called Ecclesiastes, although they don't use the word “perfect”... Well, why then should the European Union be perfect? Everything in this world is perfecting itself – people, humanity, unions, Europe. I hope that it will perfect itself. The Soviet Union was also perfecting itself until it collapsed. The model by which it developed was not viable. It collapsed – very good. If the European Union exists, then it is objectively necessary. It exists. And if we join it, then we will have a greater opportunity to influence it, so that it perfects itself in a way that would better satisfy us, not in a way that would satisfy the largest European country. They will make a federation with their 80 million, and then there will be! Havel also talks about that...

RL: Well, he is a bright personality too. The question was about that seemingly impersonal, grey leadership of the European Union – maybe you don't like it by style?

J. Bojārs: No, no – there are many bright personalities there. Who leads the European Union then? The European Union is led by prime ministers, and Tony Blair is, without a doubt, a bright personality. The President of France is also a bright personality, and many others. But what dissatisfies everyone the most is the Euro-bureaucracy. You see, that is a process that is also happening in Latvia – one needs to get something done, for example, to make a cup like this. Well, immediately a committee or commission for boiling coffee has to be created. But I just want to say – boil me some coffee, and strong. By the way, during all this time I have had only one secretary who boiled good coffee.

RL: Do your secretaries change often?

J. Bojārs: Just like in the whole university. You see, secretaries are basically students. They satisfy their craving for knowledge – wages at the university are very low, especially for secretaries – so one has to try to combine things in different ways, so the girl could get dressed and be interesting as a bride – that is also very important. Just like finishing studies, because university staff study for free. You see, they want to force me to renovate this façade at the students' expense, which is in a terrible state. And the dilemma is immediate. The building belongs to the ministry, not the university. The university’s experienced men say: well yes, we will invest immediately – it needs a minimum of 50 thousand – but Šķēle will privatise it because it is Šķēle’s minister. They are trying very cleverly to privatise it here. That is why the university set up that fund – on the basis of Morbergs – so that they cannot grab it. Because otherwise – aha, one could grab that and put, let’s say, the World Bank – what money would come there, top notch! But I started with that, that one must help the students. And I do help. They study for three, four years, then they leave and get married or go to firms where they pay better.

RL: That, however, does not refer to your comment about secretaries, but from some of your statements in the press, the impression arises that you don't value women's intellectual abilities very highly. [11. “But, speaking of women, their feelings are unfathomable. Some get great pleasure watching boxing and wrestling matches. They are excited by the bodies of strong, sweaty men. Those are vital women, and their cravings are generally healthy as well. They don't have high demands on a man’s intellect because they themselves crave precisely the crude, animal strength, and there is nothing condemnable in that. There are women who swoon after poets. They can look at the stars for hours and long for something distant, unknown. And there are women with a predisposition for political idols. [..] One feels most sorry for them, because there are not many honest and clean politicians at all.” (Nevienai neko nesolu, Sieviete, No. 1, 1993)]

J. Bojārs: Oh, no! I value them accordingly.

RL: According to what?

J. Bojārs: According to the specific woman. There are very beautiful women, there are women who are smart – also in the Saeima. Then one immediately has to search for the classics — King Lear, where the daughters value the father very "accordingly". Who looked after him there in the end – Goneril, I think...

RL: Cordelia.

J. Bojārs: Cordelia, is it? In the beginning he was terribly enraged by what she said, but in the end he was left exactly with her. So I am also – accordingly. Whatever she is, she is. Smart – excellent! Also beautiful on top of that? Mighty! Wonderful! Women are becoming more beautiful in Latvia.

RL: Since when?

J. Bojārs: Generally. In my lifetime. I feel that they are becoming more beautiful, there is something like... I am not gay, that is why I am talking openly with you here – and I have always said that I don't like gays. So that it is immediately clear, I am saying that I don't like men.

RL: But those are supposedly effeminate men...

J. Bojārs: Well yes, but I am not an effeminate man. I am not! (Laughs.) And so, during my already rather long life – how old am I? sixty-two or sixty-three, I don't really know – I see that they are becoming more beautiful, understand.

RL: And smarter?

J. Bojārs: That question has two sides. Students in general are becoming less educated. They watch television, but no longer read books. The fact that television was poorly developed in Soviet times, it turns out, was good. Indeed, Western society is facing a very great moral crisis. Irreversible changes in this society’s mentality and culture can occur. Europeans are still resisting, but elsewhere no one is resisting anymore.

RL: Where are they not resisting?

J. Bojārs: There are countries which simply are unable to resist. I wrote a book for two months in Switzerland, and there I had, of course, to watch Swiss television. But they don't have their own cinema! Understand, as a result for them – horrific things. An entire branch of art is missing! Although it is a very wealthy country. Otherwise, I like that society in many respects – on the streets you don't see drunk people, there are no fat people, it’s a sporty nation. It is one of the countries where I could live – there are not many of those.

RL: Could you live in exile?

J. Bojārs: I cannot live abroad longer than one week. I even went to Switzerland together with my wife – I simply cannot. After I was in Rome for two months — Rome, Italy – well, you imagine, nothing more needs to be said there. But even there after a week I was completely ill. No, I could not live in exile.

RL: At a time when Social Democrats were not yet performing very well in elections, you said that the people were not yet smart enough, if they were listening to such populists as Zīgerists and Kauls...

J. Bojārs: But they are no longer listening. The times of Šķēle and Zīgerists are over!

RL: And now it is the time of the Social Democrats, and consequently the people have become smarter?

J. Bojārs: No, no, you see, that... I have been in all these campaigns, starting from the time of the Awakening, I have huge experience. And don't think that in the mentality of the people, even in many millennia, one can achieve a major breakthrough – it is not possible quickly and painlessly. In their wisdom, man has not improved since the times of the ancient Greeks and Assyrians. He has only become more learned. His main qualities have not changed – greed, lust, and all the rest. One cannot achieve a breakthrough quickly. One can fool them for a short time, until the people come to their senses. Lessons for the people are best learned through the stomach. If one has to drill a new hole in the belt, then it hits home very quickly. I think that now this experience is so great that it showed in these elections. Of course, I try very hard for us to reach a stage where the people would have a normal, civilised understanding of political parties. (Knocking at the door.) Wait a bit! No, but maybe let them come, let them listen and learn! (Continues.) More than two parties are not needed. In every country, one nationalist party is also needed. What do you see? Italy – one of the lands where democracy was born. But such a Berlusconi is already fooling the people a second time, because he has three television channels. But there is a part of the people that doesn't read newspapers, watches television, and goes to football – they don't have the slightest sense of politics. It is relatively easy to confuse their heads – that is where those social technologies work.

RL: But surely it won't be a secret to you that there is a sufficiently large part of the people who consider that the Social Democrats also feed the people with populist promises that have no coverage, and that the success of the Social Democrats in the municipal elections by no means indicates that the people have become smarter, but rather that this specific political force has not yet been tried.

J. Bojārs: Yes... And that proves once again... I always say this: I am not Jesus Christ – therefore the entire Latvian people are not obliged to love me. If even Jesus Christ the people replaced with Barabbas – they screamed twice, crucify him, at least according to the Gospel of Matthew. Pontius Pilate asks: but who will answer for that? We will, the people answer. It may be that they were mainly priests. They said, we will take this sin upon our children and children's children. I immediately have a question – why don't you talk about the Holocaust right away? Might it be that that is where your sin is being redeemed? Well, I allow that, but I am not religious. But so, if one is not obliged to love me – what surprises you? There were always people who hated even Jesus Christ – although he healed so many from illnesses and from demonic possession. Therefore, if such people earned crucifixion, then why are you asking me so naively at all?

RL: Because I want to hear your answer.

J. Bojārs: But I am answering you! It is all very normal. But over time it all sums up in the consciousness of a specific people, and then such a... Well, what is the difference – faith in Christianity or faith in Social Democrats? There is no difference at all. Faith in Jesus, faith in Buddha, faith in Mao Zedong – what is the difference? If a person absolutely must believe in someone, then it doesn't matter who occupies that niche. It is important whether it is constructive, whether it gives some positive results. Since Social Democracy as a doctrine is scientifically grounded – and Marxism is also a scientific doctrine, and they were at the beginning of Social Democracy, yes, then they went in the wrong direction and Bolshevism was formed there – but Marxism is taught in all universities in the West. This doctrine has yielded positive results in a huge part of Europe – the best welfare states have been created where these huge Social Democratic parties are, which have achieved these social changes – in America, there are none, there have never been, and there are terrible slums [12. (English in the original).]. For example, South Bronx [13. A district in New York.], where the Latvian House is located – even taxi drivers, black taxi drivers, refuse to drive there at night. There is trash, there are rats, there are people... In the middle of the night they dance on the street, throw bottles at the taxi – good thing they are plastic. In Europe, that is not the case. Because in Europe there are Social Democrats. That could be concluded – lo-o-o-gically.

RL: Is it true that you were in a working group that wrote the constitution of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan?

J. Bojārs: No, no connection. I have only been near the Afghan border once in my life – hunting in Soviet times.

RL: Speaking of hunting, you have said that you don't hunt hares, you like large animals – why?

J. Bojārs: I have a granddaughter who regularly checks my kills and, I think, she would really not like it if I shot little bunnies. I called her "bunny" myself when she was smaller. I am not interested in such small animals – it can't really defend itself, nothing.

RL: But those big ones can't defend themselves either.

J. Bojārs: Well, you know, I wouldn't want you to fall into the jaws of a wild boar. Every year a couple or three hunters get patched up, though. There are cases when they go to the next world too. In December, when they are in rut – they have such scars as if cut with an axe. And they have a kind of armour at that time – people don't have armour. Well, why hunt the small ones... I don't hunt ducks anymore either, since they started walking in parks – I don't perceive them as wild animals anymore. Moreover, my wife doesn't like the taste. Well, if my wife doesn't like it, why would I hunt them.

RL: What could you name as your worst nightmare?

J. Bojārs: I rarely have nightmares. I don't overeat at night (laughs).

RL: Then perhaps in a figurative sense – what event or process would be your worst nightmare?

J. Bojārs: If this power were to prolong – the kind that is currently in the Saeima. That would have very negative consequences. That already has negative consequences. Before, we were at the head of the socialist countries in terms of national product, now we are at the bottom of the list. We had a gigantic industry that commanded the parade in the entire Comintern. VEF was the largest enterprise, but they deliberately let it go to the bottom. Lattelekom did not give a single order to a national enterprise. VEF said: we will provide the equipment for rural telephony – but they gave them nothing. That is a crime against one's own people.

RL: But...

J. Bojārs: That dying out of the people didn't start from nothing. Last year 11 thousand more died than were born, a whole small town.

RL: Do such demographic consequences set in so rapidly?

J. Bojārs: Well, why am I chattering here – look, here is... (Searches for a statistical yearbook.)

RL: There is no doubt about the numbers, but...

J. Bojārs: People cannot afford children. That we have a demographic crisis was clear already in Soviet times. University scientists during the time of the Popular Front described it all, it was decided that something must be done – that was still before that whole thing started, well, that 200% devaluation – that was the purest robbery as well, when in the result of one operation all the money in the country is stolen and suddenly rich commercial banks appear, but for everyone else the funds have been stolen. That didn't happen in Lithuania, that didn't happen in Poland. Here one simply cannot afford children. Previously, all our female students walked around with little babies, it was a joy to look – just from that money that they were given as maternity allowance, one could somehow make ends meet. But as soon as there was 200% inflation, it cut all that off like with a knife.

RL: Isn't it true, however, that birth rates are decreasing in developed welfare states as well?

J. Bojārs: Yes, but there it is decreasing for other reasons. With us, it is decreasing precisely because of scarcity. The one who brings children into the world here, automatically ends up in the category of a very needy person. No miracles happen anywhere in the world, everything is objective. An asteroid falls, dinosaurs die – one interpretation.

RL: So one interpretation. Do you allow that your interpretation could be erroneous?

J. Bojārs: Which interpretation?

RL: For example, the analysis which you just laid out for us.

J. Bojārs: About demographics? No, it is correct. Children cannot be brought into the world and maintained if there is no money for it. I surely don't have to tell you that – you as a woman know that well yourself. Throughout Europe, it has been discovered that the only way to improve the situation is to give large allowances to families. But that is already a multi-step system. What can one want if there is such corruption. Corruption cannot be eradicated if the "big heads" aren't rolling. The moment one has to tackle one of the "big" ones, our prosecutor's office turns into an advocate's office.

RL: But when the Social Democrats are in power, there will be no more corruption?

J. Bojārs: A system must be introduced. A Social Democrat is also just a person, he is not an angel, he doesn't have wings – there must be a system that doesn't let crooks through. In Sweden, morality is embedded as a category in politics. If even bourgeois parties say that the best Minister of Justice of all time was Laila [14. Laila Freivalde, former Swedish Minister of Justice, a Social Democrat.] – and if Laila was removed only because of a moral violation – she hadn't broken the law – she acted against those ideals that she herself had proclaimed, and that's it – Laila had to leave. But with us – a person declares 30 thousand, but the next day he suddenly has 29 million. Well, in Sweden I could live for some time. Swedes are closer to us – in mentality. They are not so intrusive, they are reserved. Although warmer people are the Finns – I think you will agree with me. Even Norwegians are warmer. Those nations that have not been empires, those are warmer.

RL: And you like warm people?

J. Bojārs: Yes, of course. Who doesn't like them? Don't you like them? You like them too, don't you?

RL: No comment.

J. Bojārs: Well look, how nice! We have agreed on a lot.

RL: Tell me, please, who first told you that you have a sharp and analytical mind?

J. Bojārs: I knew it myself! (Laughs.) Why must someone tell me what I know myself? I know my faults well, I suffer my whole life, I fight as much as it is in my powers, I don't like talking about them, I quarrel with my wife if my wife points them out – everyone must live with their own hump. And I do have one, I do. But I am a lawyer by nature. In my youth, I had a very bad memory – I had to train and train all the time. Now it is completely impossible to read lectures from a summary. If you stop in a lecture and mumble something there – that’s it, the student tunes out. One must hold them by the throat all the time. One must not allow them to fall asleep. But that is training. I have never worked at night. If there isn't a clear head, one cannot do anything.

RL: Returning to nightmares – do you ever see that person you shot?

J. Bojārs: (Pause.) Strangely enough – no. As I found out later, he had been a drug addict, one of the best car thieves in Riga, and I even received intelligence reports that even his grandfather had said – if I met that Bojārs, I would buy him a cognac. They initially threatened me, and openly at that. I said, I will not hesitate for a moment to use a weapon if I have to defend my family and myself. I shoot very well – both with a rifle and a pistol – I have a Luger. He fell because I made a mistake – the car was moving, he put his hand in his pocket, I was aiming for his right shoulder, but the bullet slid off the bone. Hunters don't use bullets with a round head because they ricochet, but this one had a round head, it slid off and went through his entire body sideways. So it was a mistake. Although, on the whole, everything was correct.
Article first published in the June 2001 issue of Rīgas Laiks
Donal Boyd photograph used