THE PRESIDENT

Basic information

Text by: Valts Kalnins,
Latvian Institute of International Affairs LIIA, October 2001
Updated by Mikko Palonkorpi in August 2003

In 1993 the 5^th Saeima elected Guntis Ulmanis as the President. He was a former communist party member and communal service manager. The pre-war dictator Karlis Ulmanis was a brother of Guntis Ulmanis' grandfather. Guntis Ulmanis acquired the office largely thanks to his well-known ancestor and his family name that promoted nostalgic sentiments in certain parts of the population. Nevertheless Guntis Ulmanis would stick to democratic values and Western orientation. He served for two terms until 1999. Among his major accomplishments were the successful attempt to democratize the citizenship law in 1994 and the declaration of a moratorium for the execution of death penalty since 1996.

Upon the expiration of the second term in 1999, the Saeima replaced Ulmanis with Vaira Vike-Freiberga. Vike-Freiberga was born in Latvia but lived most of her life in Canada until her election for president. She is a psychologist by education and has been active in the field of science. Vaira Vike-Freiberga has enjoyed considerable popularity ever since her election. Her intellectual capabilities, independence of various domestic political forces, and the ability to present Latvia internationally are often mentioned as the sources of her popularity. Vaira Vike-Freiberga was re-elected for another four years term in June 2003.

Political Role

Presidents of state have played a crucial role at certain moments. As mentioned, in 1994 the Saeima adopted the citizenship law. The law contained the so-called quota arrangement whereby the Cabinet of Ministers would have the discretion to decide on how many people would be able to acquire Latvian citizenship through naturalization. Several international organizations and foreign governments regarded this norm as unacceptable mainly due to the potential arbitrariness left to the Cabinet. The president Ulmanis used his suspensive veto and returned the law for a repeated review in the parliament. The Saeima then amended the disputed norm thus obtaining international approval for Latvia's citizenship policy.

Vaira Vike-Freiberga has actively used her authority to suspend the promulgation of laws. Since her election, the president has used this tool nine times as of October 2001. She played a crucial role when she returned the law on state language for a repeated review in July 1999 soon after she became the president. The law regulates the use of the official Latvian language and other languages on the territory of Latvia. Several articles of the law were claimed to be excessively intrusive in the private sphere and contradictory to international human rights. Consequently the Saeima softened some norms of the law. In a number of cases, the objections by the President have actually been taken into account. The personality of the president thus plays a crucial role since the parliament has no obligation to change the law. However, parliamentarians find it sometimes difficult to ignore legitimate and reasonable objections posed by president who enjoys respect and popularity. Presidents have also used their right to submit legislative initiatives to the parliament. Ulmanis submitted twelve bills while Vike-Freiberga - two - as of June 26, 2001.

Also the authority to nominate a candidate President of Ministers has been politically highly important. Before nominating a candidate, the President holds consultations with major factions of the Saeima. Since any candidate would need parliamentary approval, opinions of parliamentary factions are usually of decisive importance. Therefore when parliamentary majority is relatively clear-cut, the role of the President may be of secondary importance. However, when parliamentary composition is less clear, the President has more discretion for independent moves. Thus in 1995 after the elections of the 6^th Saeima, Guntis Ulmanis chose first a right-wing candidate and then a left-wing candidate both of whom consecutively failed to gain sufficient parliamentary support. The stalemate ended with the nomination and approval of a non-partisan candidate Andris Škele.

The Idea of a Popularly Elected President

Ever since regaining of Latvia's independence, there have been discussions about the introduction of popular presidential elections. The roots of the debate lie in the fact that a large proportion of the population would support this shift of the system. Indeed, at some points in time as many as 70% of the population have voiced support for a popularly elected president. The major argument is that such a move would contribute to the strengthened accountability of the whole political system. Several political parties have at some time proposed respective amendments to the constitution. So far none of them have been sufficiently influential as to actually achieve the adoption of these amendments.

In 2001 the chairman of the Latvian Social Democratic Workers Party Juris Bojars drafted major amendments to the constitution. These amendments provide for a popularly elected president with extensive functions including the authority to appoint a range of top state officials. The amendments essentially provide for an entirely changed political system whereby the president would acquire the central place. Nevertheless social democrats as an opposition party in the Saeima are not in a position to hope for the adoption of this constitutional bill.

The debate about presidential elections reflects mistrust in political institutions and a tendency to rely on strong leaders who in some way would be able to solve the major problems of the country. Major criticisms against the idea of a popularly elected president rest on the fear that (1) a popularly elected president would use his or her popular legitimacy to justify the abuse of power, (2) popular sentiments may result in the election of populist candidates who are able to promise short-term benefits but are unable to propose and implement real solutions, (3) in case not only the method of election is changed but also presidential authority is extended, the system would become much less capable of dealing with social conflicts. The President would make decisions as one person who might not be able to accommodate conflicting interests. It is reasonable to expect that no change in the method of presidential elections would take place as long as present right-wing parties are in power.