The majority of members of the Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia have decided to send the amendments to the State Administration Structure Law for consideration of the parliament commissions. The amendments stipulate the loyalty of the state officials to Latvia and its Constitution. Our member of the Riga City Council Vladimirs Buzajevs speaks on their meaning and what should be expected from these amendments.
Vladimirs, it is known that the Saeima handed over the amendments to the State Administration Structure Law to the commissions. What is the amended law about?
– To begin with, it is interesting how they justify the need for the amendments. It is more than 13 thousand signatures collected under the demand to ban people with pro-Kremlin sentiments to be in the positions in both state and municipal offices. The hint is more than clear, therefore. Speaking of those who are likely to be targeted by the amendments when they are enforced, it is definitely Russian-speaking personnel. Although their number is so small that they can be counted by fingers but the law would apply to also the municipalities offices where in Daugavpils, Rezekne and also in Riga there are Russian-speaking people on the staff.
Besides, state officials are not necessarily clerks. Such jobs as teachers, doctors and police officers also fall under this category. Therefore, the law can be applied to them too. It is necessary to point out that the law requiring teachers’ loyalty was adopted long ago. It means that clarity what the new law might be about still lacks. But the amended law is awaiting three more readings. Thus, the law specifics are going to be revealed. And the amendments might take an even more threatening form. Moreover, due to the fact that there are no criteria of being loyal, the law definitions can become even more vague.
I wonder if these amendements do not contradict the Constitution Article 100 which safeguards freedom of speech as the international norm?
– The ECHR made a decision in a similar case . It was Vogt v. Germany. Mrs Vogt was a teacher of German and French languages, and her ”lack of loyalty” was the fact that she was an active member of the German Kommunist party. At that, the party was entirely lawful and properly registered. However, the teacher was still fired, and 13 years later the ECHR Grand Chamber concluded that her dismissal from job had been in violation to freedom of speech and assembly.
It is interesting that the lawmakers refer to this particular case in justification of the amendments they propose. However, the initiators of the amendments interprete it referring to the admission made by the ECHR that the universal requirement to respect the constitutional structure of the state is permissible within the framework of the concept of self-defense of democracy. No doubt that it is permissible but the application of this principal to the specific teacher of the German language was found excessive by the majority of the Court judges. To all appearances, it is inevitable for us to go again to the courts. At that, we have to wait until it becomes clear what the bill would be like.
In your view, would these amendments target elected members?
The members of the Saeima are still not mentioned there at all. However, members of the municipal councils are, indeed, mentioned. It means whatever is possible. In this we will definitely take it to court. Even voting for the bill at the Saeima was perceived by some political fractions as kind of inconvenient. Also because their own loyalty was attempted to be measured. Therefore, it seems logical that the ruling fractions and the Union of Greens and Farmers which joined them voted in favour of the bill while all the other opposition groups were either against or did not vote.
Although the hot debates are not to be excluded, the compositon of political forces makes me think that the amendments can be approved. We should not also exclude the most drastic version. It definitely feels nasty as it reminds the ”witchhunting” during the MacArthur time. It does not help consolidation of the society. On the contrary, the encouragement of such collective demands indicates to the societal serious decease. Well, we will try to help the society to heal itself. There is no other way.
