Full or partial entries of my blogs may be found at LatviansOnline + Forum Home + Open Forum – The-Not-Voter. If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and http://the-not-voter.blogspot.com/ or to this bloggers main site at http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/
I suggest you look at the links imbedded in these blogs or at the end of the blog as an integral part of my argument.
21 Where To?
A survey by Factum, published at the Latvian portal “Delfi” (July 2nd), tells that if elections were to occur in the month of June, the political parties would get their deputies or seats in about the following order:
29 seat to the “Center of Tooning” (Saskaņas centrs).
24 seats to “Unity” (Vienotība);
18 seats to the “Greens” and “Farmers” coalition;
15 seats to “LNNK” and “Visu Latvijai” coalition;
9 seats to “TP” and “LPP” coalition; and
5 seats to “Human Rights in United Latvia” (Par cilvēku tiesībām…).
A crude and perhaps oversimplified interpretation of the East or West political divide and tilt of the above mentioned is 29 East; 24, 18, 15, 9 West; 5 East (=100).
29 Tooning +5 Human Rights = 34
24 Unity, +18 Greens & Farmers, +15 LNNK & VL, +9 TP & LPP = 66
In other words, 34 seats tilt toward the East and 66 seats tilt toward the West. If we presume that this split of seats remains in force after the elections, Latvia is in effect divided in two geopolitical regions, re Riga-Daugavpils vs the rest of Latvia. Riga is of course Latvia’s engine of wealth under the current political and economical setup.
While the number of seats favoring one or the other side of the geopolitical divide changes over time, the two states within one system continues in effect. The system is in existence from about the time of the reestablishment of Latvia (1991) as a sovereign nation.
Because the economic interests of the elites of the East and West are concentrated in Riga, whatever the political differences between the two, these are smoothed over by their business interests. Generally speaking the business attitude of these business interests is neocapitalistic, a mix of American, German, and Russian characteristics at their worst. This smoothing of the differences with regard to commercial interests (however rough) occurs at the expense of Latvians who live impoverished in the countryside. This has resulted in an exodus of about 200,000 Latvians (mostly laborers and their children) to the far abroad of England, Ireland. Reports from the Latvian countryside speak of vast stretches of near empty, sparsely settled land, especially in the regions of Latgale and Vidzeme. The ruins of farmsteads of a more populous Latvia lie in ruins, in abandoned apple orchards, inns, and mute trees about a house that once was.
Though the above is an oversimplification of the political and economic pie, it correctly points to why political misalignments serve to impoverish (also: dumb down) Latvians. The condition encourages the political arm of the business elite to encourage divisionism among the people of Latvia, which keeps the various ethnicities of Latvia permanently on edge with regard to each other. Thus, for example, no ethnic group is able to work toward a new cultural syncretism in Latvia, but practices political reactionism. This short-changes creativity and harms economic development.
There are some geopolitical solutions to the political-economic knot, which--though amenable to solution--do not lend themselves to a solution under Latvia’s “natural” democratic divisions. They are solvable only by means of an authoritarian system the purpose of which is to revised the "ņatural" democratic system into an “open” democratic system.
One of the aims of Latvia’s authoritarian government ought to be the redirection of Latvia’s economic development, away from a vaguely defined system of “exports” by whatever businesses that finds a home in Latvia, and move toward a more precisely defined area of economic interest, less short-term, more future embracing. The future embracing ought to focus on
b) cloned individuals will necessarily create new household structures; this in turn will create at the university a separate department on Future Households, one next to sociology and anthropology;
c) the right to die;
d) regeneration of Latvia’s population not necessarily through an increased birth rate, but by creating an image in which Latvia sees itself as a room in a household which is happy to see our neighbors come for a visit as our conditions permit, but we may be distinctly unhappy if other than accustomed room-mates were to come to stay; and
e) taking advantage of a declining population and redefining the character of the nation; for example, why not a decision to leave behind the glass and concrete cancer that is chewing away on its tail, the agricultural economy, and come to live in a virtual city in what may become a forest dwellers’ economy.
1. knows all about genetics and related medicine,
2. rethinks life-death issues,
3. restructures its family system into a system of households,
4. assures community identity under conditions of falling population numbers,
5. reforests the land by letting itgo fallow, and
6. accumulating capital by being the first on the planet to institute laws that allow movement in radically different directions.
Thus, Latvia may exit from the political and economic fiasco into a new society.
* * *
Of course, the differentiation by the media of the Latvian community by its ethnicities and languages makes the above imagined NOT-VOTE not possible.
This is why the entry of Guntis Ulmanis, the first Latvian president (1993-1999) of a reconstituted (and remade) Latvia, is a highly charged and, thus, radicalizing and reorienting situation. It could change not only the face (surface) of Latvia, but the way Latvians see themselves.
By reentering the elections on behalf a two highly suspect (of corruption) businessmen [and rationalizing his entry by stating that the leaders of the two respective parties (TP & LPP) have become “better” men], Guntis Ulmanis puts the blunted edge of politics to the whetting stone and stakes both his forebear's and his own reputation on this potentially existential act. At stake is the honor of not only Guntis Ulmanis personally, but Latvia, too. The existential question whirls about the thoughts that come over what happens when the two parties that Guntis Ulmanis has agreed to front, thank Ulmanis for bringing them an election victory, then tell him as King Lear’s two daughters told their father: “Thanks, dad, for the kingdom; now be off to Old Pensioners Home”?
Does Mr. Ulmanis have a radical answer to the hypothetical—nevertheless real—likelihood that messieurs Shkehle and Shlesers give him the hi-ho? And even if they were to be so generous and not do so, what does Ulmanis offer to do on behalf of Latvia for his part? Will he be a neutered or an authoritarian democrat? Will he do what needs to be done to turn Latvia around and into tomorrow, or does he let the boat continue drifting Westward and on into the sunset?
Asterisks & Other Readings
Compulsory voting in the EU Parliamentary elections
The abstentionist elephant
On the Meaning of Voting
British Government Attempts to Bracket the Constitution
Ground Zero for Thought
Why Forced Positive Thinking Is A Lot Of Crock?
If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com or http://the-not-voter.blogspot.com or http://melnaysjanis.blogspot.com/ . You are invited to view them all to make heads and tails of it all.