composition of the legislature and the selection of the executive reflect the choices they make?
Elections are one of the most significant events in the political life of any democracy. The establishment of election institutions in new democracies has two kinds of consequences direct consequences, such as the impact on party system development, and indirect consequences through its influence on the political regime as a whole. For that reason one can well understand the active attempts of the political forces to amend and improve different norms of Saeima elections, which relates to the interest in strengthening their positions, to scare away the new parties from embarking on the fight for power; or the amendments which are aimed at stabilizing the political situation and decreasing political fragmentation. The election systems influence the number of political parties, the political stability of the state and the quality of democracy.2 The relationship between the election system, the party system and social changes is mutual and complicated, which is related to the historical foundation of the development of society which has determined the specific choice.
Fundamental changes are very rare and usually occur only during extreme historical conditions.3 Usually, the election system is changed if such changes benefit party interests, i.e., to ensure their candidate victory in the elections by gaining as many votes as possible, while the rival party gets as little as possible.
Generally, the basic principles of the election system are secured in the Constitution of the country. The Constitution (Satversme) of Latvia specifies that the Saeima shall be elected in general, equal and direct elections, by secret ballot, where the term general means the right to vote of all Latvias citizens of age (with a few exemptions); equality meaning that each voter has only one voice; directness that the legislative institution is elected directly, without intermediaries; secret ballot that the voting is personal, uncontrolled and undisclosed.
The Constitution of Latvia names proportionality as the fifth element of elections. The Constitution sets a fixed number of seats to be allocated (100), as well as a fixed term of Saeima operation 4 years, which thereby recognizes the recurrent nature of elections, a requirement usually named as mandatory for democratic elections.
The Satversme specifies the active and the passive election rights, as well as indicates the time and deadlines of the regular and extraordinary elections.
Active election rights, or the right to vote, belong to all citizens of Latvia who enjoy full rights of citizenship and, who on the election day have attained at least 18 years of age. The citizenship and age qualification are not the only restrictions on the active election rights. In Latvia, persons who, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, have been declared as incapable of action, persons who are serving time in prison, persons who are suspects, accused persons or persons on trial, if arrest is applied to them as a security measure, have no active election rights.
Passive election rights belong to all citizens of the specific country, provided that the person is not declared as incapable of action in accordance with the procedure specified by law, or does not serve time in prison. The age qualification for the passive election rights in Latvia has been set at the age of 21. Besides this one, there are a few more restrictions on the passive election rights. Persons who have been convicted for intentional crimes and whose criminal record has not been cleared or stricken, except exonerated persons, may not be entered in the Saeima elections. In the same manner, persons who have committed a crime in a state of insanity or have become mentally ill after committing a crime do not have the passive election rights. A candidate for parliament may not have been a staff employee of the USSR, LSSR or foreign security services, acted in the Communist Party of the USSR, the Workforce International Front, Latvian Society Rescue Committee, or in selected organizations of a similar nature after January 13, 1991. Also, if the State President, the State
Controller/Auditor, a judge, a prosecutor or a soldier has been signed up as a candidate for elections, the person must resign from the respective office.
Active discussions on the introduction of various new passive election rights qualifications took place during the election system development process: whether a ban to run for elected office for former KGB officers, members of selected former political organizations, and other restrictions are necessary. In this regard, the so-called KGB-sacks and their disclosure, which still appear on the Saeima agenda once in a while, becomes a current issue before each Saeima elections.
The 1922 Election Law provided for candidate lists that could be externally changed and a modification of the proportional system, which permitted voters to also include in their chosen list candidates from other lists running for office in the same constituency. The Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia rejected the idea of such a form of proportional system in the very first reading. However, a few deputies wanted to set a different election system modification. Deputies I. Elerts and E. Krastins submitted a proposal for the closed candidate lists of the proportional system, when in keeping with the candidate order on the list, the number of votes won by the list would be doubled and only then would the votes with + or - marks be added or subtracted.
Thereby, it would be practically impossible for the voters to change the candidate list. Such an amendment would benefit parties and party leaders by increasing their influence, but it would also limit voter choice.
In Latvia, only those candidate lists with at least 5% of total votes across the country participate in the division of deputy seats. The division of seats among these lists is done according to the Sainte-Lague method, i.e., the number of votes for each list is divided by 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. Therefore, the lists with the largest quotients get the seats. To gain representation in the Saeima, this method is favorable to medium-size parties, which results from mathematical regularities and, in fact, is not very precise in ensuring the proportional representation of various political parties.
There have been many discussions in the Saeima on the percentage barrier for political parties and electoral associations, which has been one of the most controversial issues during the process of election system development. Initially, a 4% barrier was erected, yet later the barrier was increased to 5% to decrease the political fragmentation of the Saeima and to consolidate the political party system, to develop a more stable governing coalition, and to facilitate decision-making. A 7% barrier for party coalitions was discussed, yet it did not earn support of the political parties.
In the 5th Saeima elections, when the election barrier was 4%, 10.68% of the cast votes were not represented; in the 6th Saeima elections, when the election barrier rose to 5%, 12% of the voters were not represented; in the 8th Saeima 16.2% of the voters are not represented.
Latvias experience so far indicates that the Election Law has been amended almost every year. So, before the 5th and the 6th Saeima elections new election laws were drafted, the last version of which was twice amended before the 7th Saeima elections and saw several amendment initiatives. It should be noted, however, that the amendments to the laws have been more of a technical nature, for example, amendments on voting and vote counting procedures. Still, there is a possibility of initiatives for significant amendments.
Due to the great migration of peoples by the deputies elected to the Saeima, which was particularly characteristic of the 6th Saeima, there have been aspirations to change the election system at the very foundation: by moving from the proportional to majoritarian or mixed election system. The main argument of these political struggles was the supposedly existing opportunity to increase the qualitative composition of the Parliament with the help of the Election law, to increase the accountability of the deputies before the people, thereby increasing the quality of politics as well, which would be more capable of satisfying the carrier of the sovereign power of the state as a whole.
One of the ways to discipline the current deputies would be to introduce the imperative mandate, to ban
migration from one party to another, etc. Yet, by doing so, the deputies would place restrictions on themselves.
However, it should be noted that in Latvia there is no direct connection between the election system and the stability of political institutions and the quality of their operation (and the ensuing potential economic growth), because the current trends indicate that the search for a better election system is obviously related to populist self-seeking of access to power, or a cry for help stemming from the existing reality, created by politically incompetent forces while searching for all the possible, even if it only seems so, solutions for the social problems of society.
The change of Latvias current election system from proportional to majoritarian or mixed election system would benefit smaller parties, which are otherwise unable to overcome the 5% election barrier, yet which have one or a few outstanding leaders potentially capable of ensuring election into the Saeima, thereby providing access to power. In the current situation, such changes would increase political fragmentation of the Parliament
and slow down the decision-making process. The larger parties oppose these proposals of the smaller parties, as they are not interested in adding new rivals.
Another initiative is the amendments related to the possibility to change party candidate lists to turn the closed or changeable lists into open or free, the main argument in favor being the expansion of the voter choice or the ability of the voter to single out more precisely the people who they think will be capable of solving problems topical to the voters.
The proposal to restore the free or externally changeable candidate lists that existed in Latvia in 1918 was submitted at the beginning of 1998 by Kârlis Leiðkalns, a politician from the party Latvias Way (LC). He pointed out that the new system would allow to expand opportunities for voters to influence the composition of the Saeima. Besides, the Constitution would be served more exactly, as it stipulates that deputies represent the people, not some segment of the voters or a party. Such a system would limit the opportunities for the pre-election locomotives to draw unpopular candidates into the Saeima. The free candidate lists benefit parties with many popular personalities, and disadvantage the new, less known parties.
The political forces in power want to maintain the status quo in the power relations by increasing their power at the expense of the smaller political groups, by increasing the election barrier, the required minimum number of party members, by attempting to introduce the party age qualification or by expanding restrictions of election rights. In some cases amendments of the election system have been discussed that are not oriented toward improving the positions of selected parties in the general political struggle for power. Instead these amendments aim at strengthening internal party discipline and the positions of the internal elite of the parties.
Consequently, one can see that in Latvias case the election systems are not to be seen as the causes of the party system or political environment organization; rather, the election systems are the consequences of the latter, because their origin is of political nature, i.e., the political forces have tried to deal with their mutual relations with the help of election systems, which, to the contrary to what has been claimed, have not been aimed at solving the political, economic, social or other problems relevant to the voters. Also, in terms of chronology, the political parties of Latvia formed and developed long before the development of Latvias election system, i.e., the origins of the party system development can be traced back to the period before the adoption of the Election law in the late 19th century and the early 20th century.
Finally, in answering the question on the development of a legislative institution adequate to the public interest, one can conclude that it is impossible to single out the best election system. This conclusion is based on comparison of election systems in many countries of the world.
On December 10, 1991, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia adopted the constitutional law Human and Citizen Rights and Responsibilities, which prescribed that citizens have a right to establish political parties.
Before the 5th Saeima election an election barrier of 4% was set 23 candidate lists participated in the elections, 8 of which won parliamentary seats. During the operation of this Saeima two governments were formed. Before the 6th Saeima election the barrier was increased to 5%. Although the number of candidate lists participating in the elections decreased to 19, 9 lists won seats in the Saeima this time. Twice they could not agree on the government coalition. During the 6th Saeima the Parliament voted confidence to three governments, and the Prime Minister, Guntars Krasts, demanded a special vote of confidence to his government. At this point, however, the amendments reached their goal to a certain extent, because by preserving the election barrier at the level of 4%
one more political force would have entered the Saeima. Yet, overall, the result was not as expected, and despite the increased election barrier, the 6th Saeima was more fragmented than the 5th Saeima.
Since the restoration of Latvias independence, there have been 9 governments (both minority and majority).
The current coalition government (in 2004) led by Prime Minister Indulis Emsis is the tenth.
Table 5.1 Governments Approved During the 5th Saeima
Prime Beginning of End of Length of Number of Parties That Minister Government Government Government Form the Government
Operation Operation Operation/
days
1 Valdis Birkavs 08.07.93 14.09.94 432 2 (LC + LZS)
2 Mâris Gailis 15.09.94 20.12.94 461 2 (LC+TPA)
Number of Governments
Table 5.2 Governments Approved During the 6th Saeima
1 Andris Ðíçle 21.12.94 12.02.97 419 6 (DPS+LC+TB+LNNK+LVP+
LZS, KDS+LLDP)
2 Andris Ðíçle 13.02.97 06.08.97 174 5 (DPS+LC+TB+LNNK+LZS, KDS,
3 Guntars Krasts 07.08.97 25.11.98 243 3 (TB/LNNK+LC+DPS4+LZS, KDS, LLSDP)
Table 5.3 Governments Approved During the 7th Saeima
1 Vilis Kriðtopans 26.11.98 15.07.99 230 3 (LC+TB/LNNK+JP+LSDA5
2 Andris Ðíçle 16.07.99 03.05.00 299 3 (TP+LC+TB/LNNK)
3 Andris Bçrziòð 04.05.00 06.11.02 916 3 (TP+LC+TB/LNNK)
Table 5.4 Governments Approved During the 8th Saeima
1 Einars Repðe 07.11.02 09.03.04 4 (JL+LPP+ZZS+ TB/LNNK)
2 Indulis Emsis 09.03.04 02.12.04 3 (TP+LPP+ZZS)
Although both the rightwing and leftwing political parties and electoral unions have formed Cabinets of Ministers, all governments have tried to implement rightwing-oriented policy. The broadest government coalition was during the first and the second government of Andris Ðíçle.
The governing coalitions have never engaged leftist parties, which represent mainly the interests of non-Latvians, i.e., Peoples Harmony Party (although several governments have been approved and have acted with support of the TSP, for example, by not participating in the approval of the Vilis Kriðtopans government and by voting in favor of the Indulis Emsis government), the Latvian Socialist Party and the movement Lîdztiesîba (Equality).