The Saeima elections of October 3rd were flagged up in advance as the most important for a long time – but in the end only the narrowest majority of the electorate bothered to vote: 51%.
In an attempt to find out the reasons why so few people chose to exercise their democratic rights, Latvian Radio’s Gints Grūbe spoke with Jurijs Ņikišins, a leading researcher at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences of the University of Latvia, who has been studying political participation in Latvia for about 15 years.
Gints Grūbe, Latvian Radio: Was the low turnout in the Saeima elections an unexpected surprise for you as a researcher?
Jurijs Ņikišins: Since I mainly deal with comparative research and look not only at what is happening in Latvia, but also try to include it in a broader context, this is not something unique. Electoral activity tends to decrease in other countries as well. For example, quite recently I had a conversation with a colleague from Romania, who showed data with very similar trends as in ours, although the numbers were different. Of course, when analyzing each country, even if the trends are similar, we should still look for possible explanations, factors and causes, not relying only on what research findings from other countries say, because after all, each country is a separate story, quite unique.
What is the reason? Does this mean that this very instrument of democracy – elections – is losing its importance?
The electoral paradox – one of the main ones that is not often paid attention – is actually not why people vote little or vote less than they should in a democracy, but why people have made the decision to vote – to go and cast their vote. Because participation at any level, including, for example, throwing a ballot into the ballot box, still requires a resource such as time. Ideally, it also requires time to delve into the election programmes, the candidates’ past history, reputation, and achievements. So, some additional information needs to be obtained. Consequently, it is often the case that we would get many more interesting answers and explanations by studying those people who have consciously made the decision to go out and vote, rather than just focusing on those who, for some reason, refrained from such an opportunity or civic duty.
I found a conversation with you about the analysis of the 2018 election process, in which you said that voter turnout in Latvia of 50–56% is a common occurrence and that this voter turnout is in line with trends in other European countries, as people lose trust in elections as an institution over time. If 50–56% is a common occurrence, it means that we are still within the same percentage range you have set.
We are in this corridor, but looking at the overall trend, of course, there is something to worry about, because not everything that is normal is good or desirable. “Normal” is something that corresponds to overall trends, but these trends can also be positive or negative. The fact that voter turnout is decreasing in other countries – like in Latvia – does not mean that we have nothing to worry about.
This is partly explained by the fact that many people do not see in the party proposals and the work of politicians what they expect – both at the level of results and at the level of reputation, honesty, consistency. The fact is that many people consider politics to be, in colloquial terms, a dirty business, and we can understand them. People often choose who to vote for, guided by specific personalities, and it is not only about the locomotives of the electoral candidate list.
For example, if a person were to run for office from a certain [party] list, his acquaintances would vote for him, and not so much because he represents some values or political orientation, but because they know him as a decent, honest person. This applies even more to political leaders and candidates for the post of Prime Minister. For example, looking at the success of the United List in these elections, the election posters had the slogan – “Kulbergs is the solution”. So the appeal was not to the programme, but more to the person – to his abilities or gifts to take responsibility and become a leader who knows how to act in order to quickly and effectively achieve the desired changes or protect the country from worsening the situation.
However, this is a time of confusion, a time of danger, a time of insecurity, and many people may simply feel that it would be undesirable to change leaders at this time.
If he [Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs] came to power, then let’s strengthen his position and give him all the responsibility so that he can now choose his partners. Let’s see what he is capable of. Of course, this is only a partial explanation, but there is one thing that worries me and which also appears in the comparative research data, that Latvia is among the countries where there is a fairly large proportion of people who equally positively assess both democracy and a system centered on a strong leader who does not have to think about parliament and elections.
All these ideas about a popularly elected president and the like that gain popularity from time to time?
Partly yes, because people are apparently often looking not for a programme or a very broad team that would be able to put forward this program, but for this one person who will come and solve everything authoritatively and effectively. How democratic or undemocratic it will be, that doesn’t really concern many people.
So you see in these election results that a portion of voters are expressing a desire for leadership that has certain historical traditions in Latvian history.
Yes, that’s a partial explanation. We can’t reduce everything to this, but to a large extent yes, and it explains not only Kulbergs, but also [Latvia First leader Ainārs] Šlesers’ relative popularity both 20 years ago, when he first successfully entered politics, and now, when his party has won second place.
What else is hidden in this phenomenon? On election day, one of the most influential European political analytical publications, Politico, announced that “populist Kulbergs” had won in Latvia. Many protested and asked the question, is Kulbergs a populist?
It is too early to judge whether he will be a populist or not. I think that here we see a gap or discrepancy between what researchers who have studied this phenomenon call populism and what the people and the media often call populism. At the everyday level and in an everyday sense, populists mean politicians who offer seemingly simple solutions to complex problems.
However, the scientific and academic definition of populism is different: populism is associated with the desire to radically change the existing political system, and is characterized by a dichotomy or opposition, where on one side there are the “pure” and moral people, who suffer from the corrupt and deceitful political elite. Populists are those who say – we will now stand up for the people, for their interests, we will clean this entire political scene from crooks, from corrupt and dishonest politicians and we will make all decisions for the benefit of the people and in the name of the people.
In recent world politics, US President Donald Trump should be mentioned as a phenomenon, but this is probably a different kind of populism that researchers can no longer call populism, as it is more in line with theories of elitism or the like.
Elitism is actually not that far from populism. Elitism is more cynical. It openly says that people, the people, are limited, that they don’t understand anything, and therefore they need a strong leader. Populists, however, try to recognize the value and interests of the people. At least outwardly, they are not so cynical in their rhetoric when addressing the people. So there are both related things and this important difference that should be taken into account.
Moreover, if we examine Trump’s post-election speech, his inauguration speech after he was first elected, one of the central elements of his speech was precisely that we are now returning the power to ordinary people, which had previously been seized by politicians in Washington. So there was a very clear contrast between the people, who finally have the reins of power returned to them, and the political elite, who have ruled until now, thinking mostly about their own interests, not the voters.
I watched a conversation with you earlier, before the elections, in which you said that many citizens in countries with proportional electoral systems, including Latvia, feel alienated from the election results, because the parties they voted for are then forced to compromise their positions and make compromises with other parties. Well, now these 41 [parliamentary seats] for the United List could apparently reduce these compromises and thus the disappointment?
There is such a possibility, yes, but we must not forget that voter turnout is also at a historically low level. Yes, Kulberg’s result for the United List is a record, but the voter turnout is equally at a record low. There are two sides to this coin. We must not focus on only one and ignore the other.
What are the risks of low activity? Political scientists say it’s a security threat and, perhaps, various kinds of unconventional forms of political participation may have emerged and so on.
Unconventional participation in itself is not a bad thing, it is usually referred to as protest politics, but we see that the people of Latvia have historically been quite reluctant to protest. Where I see risks, but these risks are not direct either – a large part of people can really accumulate and develop this sense of alienation and consider the political system illegitimate. Not in the legal sense, but directly in the social sense. But the fact that this could convert into mass protests or riots, or attempts to violently overthrow something – at least in Latvia, I do not believe that.
Another interesting phenomenon that you have talked about is that in countries with a high level of quality of political institutions, ambivalent citizens are significantly more critical and distrustful of democratic institutions than committed democrats. This was your conclusion after analyzing the data from the European Values Survey. You also said that in countries with weaker institutions, this difference is less pronounced. Namely, that good governance itself automatically neutralizes these authoritarian tendencies.
That’s the picture that emerged from these data. I haven’t finished the article in which I analyzed it in depth yet, but there are initial observations that if the country is becoming more efficient, that the standard of living is improving, that people are feeling some kind of return…
It makes them become more critical?
Yes, because they can also quickly get used to the new bar and gradually start asking for even more. In a way, this echoes the observations of political scientist Ronald Inglehart – as people’s standard of living increases, they begin to pay attention to post-material values : freedom, autonomy, the ability to express themselves. There is never enough for people.
They expect politicians to increase the standard of living in various dimensions. Of course, everyone will have their own priorities and their own values, but people are becoming more and more demanding. Well, that’s normal.
We heard during the pre-election period and also in the analysis of the results from politicians, journalists, and political scientists very often that the concept of “values” was invoked. As a sociologist, did it bother you how this concept of values was used and applied? Isn’t it true that the more it is invoked, the more it loses any meaning?
On the other hand, if they do invoke it, politicians see an opportunity to increase their popularity and increase their chances of being elected by invoking this concept. What does invoking values mean? It sounds much more solid, much more reliable than, for example, talking about some interests. Because interest is something selfish, but values are something high and noble. We all want politicians to serve values, not their own pockets or selfish interests. Therefore, I do not think that invoking values in itself is a big problem. Another thing is what someone understands by these values. Here we see that society is not united in its values, but neither are the residents of any other country.
One of the aspects that we saw in this election campaign and also in the 100 days of the previous government was the targeting of one of the mechanisms of power sharing – the non-governmental sector (NGOs). You have also stated that, of course, first of all there is the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, but also NGOs and public media are this fourth estate, without which democracy cannot develop. If there is a targeting of one of these elements of the fourth estate – NGOs, what are the risks?
We can see the risks very well from the situation in Poland, Hungary and other countries, where politicians of a certain orientation, using certain methods, have tried to limit the ability of both NGOs and, by the way, the media to influence what people think about politicians, who they vote for, what alternatives they consider. In our case, this also echoes and overlaps with the often mentioned situation that state budget money is often spent inefficiently and non-transparently.
Targeting NGOs, which will often be highly critical of any existing government, is, in a sense, looking for a scapegoat.
At the same time, we will not look for the money, the millions, that have disappeared into some poorly managed projects, where the reason for wasteful spending was poor management or lack of control, or political interests.
This is what could be described as populism, purely analytically.
This is one of the elements of populism, but it does not constitute populism by itself.
You spoke at a conference in Serbia last year, which analyzed democracy in various Central and Eastern European countries using the European Values Study. You highlighted the problem that this is a tendency for citizens to simultaneously express high support for the principles of democracy, which you mentioned, and also for authoritarian alternatives. Is this some feature of the so-called transitional society of Eastern Europe that has re-emerged among us, or is this some new political phenomenon? How can these two desires coexist?
A large proportion of people express support for democracy not for the sake of democracy itself, but because they believe that it is a system that is able to cope well with their country, with the problems of society. If they see that another, alternative, non-democratic system could cope with these problems equally well or even better, they would be ready to express support for it too.
For comparison, in Latvia, there are close to half of such ambivalent people – around 48%. In the world as a whole, if we take the countries in which the world values study was conducted, there are fewer of them – 39%. That is also not a lot, but it is still less than in Latvia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, you are right there.