of the government to solve the main problems confronting society, and in their own ability to influence it?
The 1999 poll results of the local government leaders (deputies, leading officials of the executive apparatus, leaders outside the local government) indicate that the people most often look for support from the town
executive director and the local level officials (66%), and local bureaucrats and elected officials (38%), but on very rare occasions from the local party leader (7%).
The understanding about the legality, democracy and ethics of the majority of the leaders is indicated by the large proportion of positive answers to the following statements:
l the citizens have the right to demand that the public officials justify their decisions (97%);
l honesty and fairness must be placed above all (97%);
l each individual and groups of individuals must have the right to sue government institutions (94%);
l it is the governments responsibility to ensure the protection of all minority rights (93%);
l the local leaders must always be frank about their mistakes regarding the social measures taken (92%);
l under no conditions can the authorities disregard the Constitution (91%);
l all decisions may be contradicted and checked by an independent institution (85%).
Unfortunately, almost two thirds (64%) of respondents believe that the widespread public participation in decision-making often leads to unpleasant conflicts, and more than half (53%) of the respondents that the majority of the decisions should be left to the experts. 43% of the leaders believe that public participation is not necessary, if the decision-making is in the hands of a few trustworthy and competent leaders.10 A greater understanding among the leaders about the necessity to inform the public and involve them in the local government activities is required.
Results of the fall 2004 public opinion poll by the Baltic Institute of Social Sciences indicate that the peoples confidence in their ability to influence local government decisions is not great, yet it is greater than the confidence in the ability to influence national government decisions. When asked the poll question Would you think it possible for yourself to do something, if the local government institutions adopted decisions contrary to public interest? 30.4% of the respondents answered that perhaps they could do something, 29.6% that they would not be able to do anything, 23.1% that more likely they would not be able to do anything, and 10.3%
answered that they definitely would be able to do something.
The Administrative Procedure Law (in force since February 1, 2004) protects the people against national and local government arbitrariness. The law regulates the administrative relations between the public administration and local government institutions and the individual.
The administrative procedure is a procedure regulated by the law of the way an individual can contest an administrative regulation issued by the state or local government institutions, and to appeal it before the court. An administrative document is a legal enactment issued by an institution of public law areas regarding an individually selected person or persons, establishing, amending, ascertaining or terminating specific legal relations.
When the administrative process has begun, the individual has the following rights:
l to acquaint oneself with the administrative case materials;
l to express ones opinion upon starting and reviewing the case;
l to demand that the institution explain in verbal or written form the obligation placed by the administrative documents;
l to contest an administrative document received in accordance with the subordination procedure by a higher institution;
l to appeal the administrative document in an administrative court;
l to demand that the institution cease the actual activity that causes losses to the individual;
l to demand from the institution or the court that the institution compensate for losses that have been caused to the individual as a result of the administrative document or the actual activity of the institution.11
To increase the publics trust and confidence in the government institutions, it is important to introduce a just system which would provide for compensations to persons for losses caused by government institutions.
Currently the law does not specify the procedure for the way government institutions compensate losses caused to an individual.
The Cabinet of Ministers has supported a draft-law on the calculation and compensation of losses caused by government institutions, according to which persons will be able to receive compensation for losses caused by national and local government institutions. The right of a person to compensation of losses is already specified in the Law of Administrative Process. However, this law does not give sufficient detail on the procedure for compensating losses.
The purpose of the draft-law is to ensure the rights of the person, specified in the Constitution, to compensation for material losses or personal harm (including moral) that has been caused by issuing an unlawful government institution administrative document or by performing unlawful actual activity or inactivity, or by canceling the administrative document. It is expected that after its adoption the draft-law will enter into force on January 1, 2005.12
Summary: progress during the past 35 years
Very Good Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor
12.1. X
12.2. X
12.3. X
12.4. X
12.1 There are public consultations, albeit irregular, regarding the activities of the government structures and the legislation in Latvia. A law on local referenda is not adopted. Therefore, the evaluation scores as satisfactory.
12.2 The deputies elected to Saeima and local governments are accessible to voters. Therefore, the evalu-ation scores as high.
12.3 The national government and local government services are accessible to those who use them, but the user opinion polls are carried out irregularly. Therefore, the evaluation scores as satisfactory.
12.4 The popular trust and confidence in the government institutions ability to solve the most important problems of society is not great. Therefore, the evaluation scores as satisfactory.
Best Feature: The legal enactments prescribe comparatively many options of participation in public administration activities of various levels. More and more explaining is done to the population and other groups about these opportunities.
Most Serious Problem: Still, the population is insufficiently knowledgeable about public administration, including local governments. Not always is the information presented in an understandable and clear form.
Suggested Improvement: An option of recognition of organizing local referenda by the legislation should be considered. An ombudsman service should be created.
REFERENCES
Latvijas Republikas Satversme. Latvijas Vçstnesis, 2002, 16. lpp.
Bçrziòa, G. un Vaièe, A. Mçs kopâ to varam Valmieras sociâlo NVO koalîcija. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 47.-49. lpp.
Boldiðevics, K. Sabiedriskâ organizâcija Vecâki Jelgavai. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ.
Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 60.-64. lpp.
Damkevica, D. Latvijas Republikas normatîvajos aktos noteiktâ informâcijas pieejamîba un iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas un lîdzdalîbas kârtîba. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 33.-37.
lpp.
Daòiïeviès, K. Aizkraukles novada konsultatîvâs padomes ieguldîjums sabiedrîbas attîstîbâ. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 44.-46. lpp.
Explanatory Report on the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1986, 30 p.
Grambergers, M. Iedzîvotâji kâ partneri. ESAO rokasgrâmata par informâciju, konsultâcijâm un sabiedrîbas lîdzdalîbu politikas veidoðanas procesâ. Rîga: ESAO, 2003, 116 lpp.;
Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 88 lpp.
Jâkobsone, G. Liepâjas domes komunikâcija ar iedzîvotâjiem. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ.
Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 38.-43. lpp.
Kâ saprast savas paðvaldîbas budþetu. Rîga: Sabiedrîba par atklâtîbu Delna, 2004, 32 lpp.
Kurika, P. Iedzîvotâju aktivitâte un lîdzdalîba lçmumu pieòemðanâ Somijâ. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 13.-17. lpp.
Loughlin, I. Preliminary Draft Report on Public Participation in Local Affairs and Elections. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2004, 17 p.
Ogres pilsçtas un Hengelo (Nîderlande) kopprojekts Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðana mâjokïu uzlaboðanâ. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 82.-85. lpp.
Sasaukðanâs Lubânas pilsçtas un Indrânu un Oðupes pagasta kopîgais projekts. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 74.-81. lpp.
Suija, I. Cçsu pieredze PIPE projekts Latvijâ. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 50.-56. lpp.
Ðíerbergs, R. Atlîdzinâs iestâþu nodarîtos zaudçjumus. Neatkarîgâ Rîta Avîze, 2004, 13. sept., 8. lpp.
Talsu novada fonds pirmais kopienas fonds Latvijâ. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga:
Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 57.-59. lpp.
Tavas tiesîbas administratîvajâ procesâ. Rîga: Latvijas Republikas Tieslietu ministrija, 2004, 32 lpp.
Vanags, E., Krastiòð, O., Vilka, I., Locâne, V., Ðíiòíis, P., Bauere, A. Daþâdâ Latvija: pagasti, novadi, pilsçtas, rajoni, reìioni. Vçrtçjumi, perspektîvas, vîzijas. Rîga: Latvijas Statistikas institûts, Valsts reìionâlâs attîstîbas aìentûra, 2004, 539 lpp.
Vesikansa, S. Ceïâ uz demokrâtisku sabiedrîbu. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ . Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 4.-12. lpp.
Vietçjie politiíi + iedzîvotâji = labi lçmumi. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 65.-74. lpp.
Vilka, I., Pukis, M., Vanags, E. Country Report Latvia. Indicators of Local Democracy in Latvia. In: The State of Local Democracy in Central Europe. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, 2002, pp. 107-179.
1Damkevica, D. Latvijas Republikas normatîvajos aktos noteiktâ informâcijas pieejamîba un iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas un lîdzdalîbas kârtîba (Information Accessibility Prescribed by the Regulatory Enactments of the Republic of Latvia and the Procedure of Public Involvement and Participation). Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ (Examples of Good Practice in Public Involvement in Finland and Latvia). Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 33.37. lpp.
2Vesikansa, S. Ceïâ uz demokrâtisku sabiedrîbu (Toward a Democratic Society). Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ (Examples of Good Practice in Public Involvement in Finland and Latvia). Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 4.12. lpp.
3Daòiïeviès, K. Aizkraukles novada konsultatîvâs padomes ieguldîjums sabiedrîbas attîstîbâ. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 44.46. lpp.
4Daòiïeviès, K. Aizkraukles novada konsultatîvâs padomes ieguldîjums sabiedrîbas attîstîbâ. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 44.46. lpp.
5Jâkobsone, G. Liepâjas domes komunikâcija ar iedzîvotâjiem. Grâm.: Iedzîvotâju iesaistîðanas labâs prakses piemçri Somijâ un Latvijâ. Rîga: Latvijas Paðvaldîbu savienîba, 2004, 38.43. lpp.
6Ibid.
7Ibid.
8Ibid.
9Vanags E., Krastiòð O., Vilka I., Locâne V., Ðíiòíis P., Bauere A. Daþâdâ Latvija: pagasti, novadi, pilsçtas, rajoni, reìioni. Vçrtçjumi, perspektîvas, vîzijas. Rîga: Latvijas Statistikas institûts, Valsts reìionâlâs attîstîbas aìentûra, 2004, 539. lpp.
10Ibid.
11Tavas tiesîbas administratîvajâ procesâ. Rîga: Latvijas Republikas Tieslietu ministrija, 2004, 32. lpp.
12Ðíerbergs, R. Atlîdzinâs iestâþu nodarîtos zaudçjumus. Neatkarîgâ Rîta Avîze, 2004, 13. sept., 8. lpp.
Dace Jansone and Inga Vilka
Are decisions taken at the level of government which is most appropriate for the people affected?