When the Ministry of Finance comes forward with the idea of cancelling the legal prohibition on privatizing “Latvenergo” and “Latvijas Valsts meži”, the issue of organizing a referendum to prevent these companies from being privatized is once again brought to the forefront. In the heat of debate, some even mistakenly recall that this issue was once decided by a popular vote. However, the claims that the people have already prohibited the privatization of “Latvenergo” and that therefore such a thing is no longer possible, and that a referendum could prohibit it in the future, do not correspond to reality.
The issue of privatizing “Latvenergo” has appeared on politicians’ agendas with some regularity since the end of the last century. In 2000, the idea was raised again and was driven so far that the public intervened in the process, not wishing to allow the privatization of the energy giant. Voters submitted their own draft law stipulating that “Latvenergo”, as a nationally important economic asset, is not subject to privatization and that all “Latvenergo” shares belong to the state. Bowing to voter pressure, the Saeima approved this draft law in its final reading in August 2000. Had the people’s representatives not heeded the will of the voters, a referendum would have had to be held, which at that time was much easier to initiate due to the lower threshold of voter signatures required.
Even after the Saeima’s 2000 decision, the issue of “Latvenergo” privatization has appeared several times on the list of topics discussed by society and politicians. As time went on, the discussions more and more frequently included reminders that “Latvenergo” cannot be privatized because the people once prohibited it.
However, such a claim is incorrect, even taking into account that the number of signatures required to hold a referendum was indeed collected and that the legislative power approved a draft law submitted by the people.
Gunārs Kusiņš, who headed the Saeima Legal Bureau in 2000 and was a Constitutional Court judge from 2014 until September 2024, reminds us: “In the understanding of the Constitution, it would not be correct to regard this draft law as submitted by the people. Purely in terminological terms and for the sake of understanding the concepts, it should be considered a draft law submitted by one tenth of the people.”
The legal expert points out that the authors of the Constitution granted the right to submit a draft law to parliament to one tenth of the voters, and in another article they stipulated the procedure for examining such a proposal. Namely, if the Saeima adopts the draft law or constitutional amendments submitted by the voters, then a referendum does not take place.
“It is a widely used form of expression to say that these are draft laws submitted by the people, but within the constitutional system this is separated. The people speak through a referendum, while one tenth of the voters is another, numerically smaller group,” says G. Kusiņš.
Similarly to the events 25 years ago, today some of the loudest opponents of “Latvenergo” privatization are the Latvian Farmers’ Union, or the Union of Greens and Farmers (the Union of Greens and Farmers was formed for the next, 8th Saeima elections, but the parties have now gone their separate ways, which did not prevent the “farmers” from legally retaining the name ZZS). At that time it had no opportunity to decide on “Latvenergo” privatization because it was not elected to the 7th Saeima, but now it is a coalition party and its voice is heard even more loudly.
Following the news about the Ministry of Finance’s intention, ZZS issued a statement in which it “categorically objects to the Ministry of Finance’s intention to sell on the stock exchange a part of companies strategically important to Latvia – ‘Latvenergo’ and ‘Latvijas Valsts meži’. ZZS believes that a decision on the possible privatization of strategically important state-owned companies could only be made by way of a referendum, inviting the people of Latvia to express their opinion.”
However, even a referendum in which the people prohibit the privatization of even part of a state-owned company does not guarantee that a few years later the Saeima will not overturn the will of the people.
The issue of the effectiveness of referendums was already examined in 2000, before the need for a referendum was averted by the Saeima when it adopted the draft law submitted by the people, in the publications “Jurista Vārds” and “Latvijas Vēstnesis”, by Constitutional Court judge (2000–2010) Juris Jelāgins. viewed here.
Twenty-five years ago (and nothing has changed in this respect since then) there were formally no prohibitions that would prevent the Saeima, even the day after a referendum, from adopting a law contrary to the will of the people expressed in that referendum. The only obstacles to such potential action are the principles enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution – Latvia is an independent democratic republic.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that such a move against the will of the people expressed in a referendum could be politically fatal for the political forces that support the idea.
However, according to J. Jelāgins’ view, the Saeima elected after the referendum would have every right to move forward with a draft law contrary to the people’s will. “This position also arises from the very nature of a popular vote – the people intervene because the Saeima has not properly coped with its duties. Thus, on the issue submitted to a popular vote, the people in fact correct the inaccuracies committed by the Saeima, whereas the new Saeima is not bound by such a will of the people,” reasoned J. Jelāgins.
This historical assessment is also shared by Jānis Pleps, former Legal Policy Adviser to the President and Associate Professor at the University of Latvia. “I agree that the expression of the people’s will is legally binding or to be taken into account until the next expression of the people’s will. Saeima elections are also an expression of the people’s will,” says J. Pleps, adding that there has been no discussion in Latvia about what “expiry date” should be applied to the will of the people expressed in a referendum.
“We have a tradition that the same Saeima cannot return to that question. That would be the legal aspect. The political aspect is how long the will of the people is respected. Here one can also talk about what the parties’ rhetoric was before the elections, what promises were made to the voters. If the issue is revisited, then one must reckon with political consequences – some citizens may wish to express themselves on it. In Latvian practice, no approach has been developed as to how many times one can or cannot return to an issue on which the people have spoken,” says J. Pleps, adding that in some countries referendum decisions have a defined “expiry date”. At the same time, he notes that there are not many agreements among political parties as enduring as that on not privatizing “Latvenergo”.
Originally published at https://inc-baltics.com/latvenergo-un-lvm-ar-referendumu-ilgtermina-nenosargat/
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
