Democratization and political participation in postcommunist societies: the case of Latvia

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
On September 30–October 1, 1995, Latvia conducted its second parliamentary (Saeima) election since the August 1991 resumption of national independence. A new government (cabinet) was not formed until shortly before Christmas of that year, however. In the intervening eleven weeks, the “right,” “center,” and “left” parties, under the watchful eye of the country's President Guntis Ulmanis, negotiated intensely for the right to form a cabinet that would reflect the voters' preferences. But these preferences, reflected in the comparative strength of parties, were not clear. The first cabinet – proposed by the “right bloc” – failed to receive a majority in the parliament (49 for, 51 against), as did the second – proposed by the “left bloc” (50 for, 45 against, 5 abstaining). Ulmanis, as was his constitutional right, finally reached outside the competing “blocs” for a prime minister – Andris Šķēle, formerly a deputy minister of agriculture and now a successful entrepreneur. Šķēle's cabinet, merging persons from parties in both “blocs,” received on December 22 a 70-vote majority (24 against, 6 not voting or absent) in the Saeima – an impressive mandate. The interregnum permitted the Latvian media ample time to ponder whether the post-election wheeling and dealing was appropriate in a “democracy,” how an ostensibly democratic election could have brought so close to power as “irresponsible” a party as the right-wing National Movement for Latvia and its adventurer-leader Joachim Siegerist (who did not even speak Latvian), and whether Šķēle's cabinet – composed of ministers with diametrically opposed views on many basic questions – would be capable of governing.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: