Friday, July 25, 2008

Go and vote AYE on August 2, 2008!

Campaign goes on in earnest, and there are several political parties and interest groups (SCP, JL+PS+VL+Mozaīka+ Tautvaldība, SC) that actively agitate voters to not just participate, but to vote AYE in the forthcoming referendum. The latter is about the Saeima bill No. 695, that the parliament's Legal Affairs Committee rejected on May 28, and that also majority MP's refused to pass on June 5. Today the major conservative People's Party (TP) is the first political party, that cowardly asks its voters not to take part in the referendum about constitutional amendments. Such TP behaviour shows how shallow is their comprehension about democratic governance. Instead of asking their supporters to participate in democratic plebiscite and vote against the motion: "TP cannot call its voters to take part in the referendum, because the amendments lack substance and create substantial risks to constitutional stability." ("nevar aicināt savus vēlētājus uz dalību referendumā, jo iesniegtie grozījumi ir nepārdomāti un rada būtiskus konstitucionālus riskus.")


Amendments to Articles 78 and 79 of the constitution would allow not just the president, but also 1/10 of eligible voters to submit a draft resolution calling for procedure that would initiate the dismissal of parliament. Under the current language of the constitution (Art. 48), only the president is entitled to initiate dissolution of the Saeima.

First, in case between 500 000-700 000 Latvian voters would say AYE in the forthcoming referendum, it would most probably force the president to consider whether he should yield to the popular pressure and use his constitutional rights as outlined in the Article 48 of the constitution. And second, if 756 000 voters would say AYE the parliament would have to yield to the will of the people and constitutional amendments become valid. After the amendments would be passed the new procedure (to already established one in Art. 48-50) for possible dissolution of the parliament would read as follows:

- public motion starts with collection of 10 000 notary approved citizen's signatures and submitting them to the Central Election Bureau;
- then signature campaign would follow where at least 1/10 of the Latvian voters (circa 149 thousand) , signatures must be collected and the result submitted to the parliament;
- then parliament would be voting;
- if parliament rejects public motion then plebiscite is announced where half of the electors who participated in last elections must participate for considering the referendum valid;

- if majority (50+1) of those who participated would vote AYE only then parliament is considered dissolved, and the further procedure would follow as outlined in Art. 48-50 of the Satversme.

In case any of aforementioned two scenarios would be achieved the president would have to call for a new referendum, and ask whether Latvian voters want to sack the existing parliament.

P.S. Just to remind those who forgot already. The existing parliament was illegally elected in October 2006 after governing People's and Latvian Way/Latvian First parties breached the Law on funding of political organizations.

7 comments:

KT said...

proovi kolme lausega veenda mind. mitte et ma hääletada saaks, aga ... oleks ju põnev proovida, kuidas seda teha kolme lausega? :)

Veiko Spolitis said...

Tere!

Hea kysimus eriti, kuid poliitiline psyhholoogia pole just minu ala:) Kuid yritan siis oelda seda Laeti kontextis, ja kuna Sa ei olnud kui pikad laused peavad olema, siis on minu vastus!

If you are unhappy with the way your representatives squander your taxes, their disability to implement the rule of law, and the wrong strategic direction of your res publica you should not vote such representatives next time, right?

But if your representatives have shamelessly lied particularly during the last 2 years after they stole faire elections, and are selling your and your children's future without even consulting you, because he knows that you have no constitutional rights to call them back and because only MP's elected president is endowed with such rights, so what do you do?

You want to decide about your and your children's future after all, right, thus you call other democrats together and ensure that the constitution is changed in such a way that would keep future posible trespassers of law in the parliament alert about immediate response from vigilant voters!

Veiko Spolitis said...

Vōi ehk lyhidamalt ōeldes Karmo, siin on kolm vōlusōna (trust, accountability, transparency):

Kui vabariigis pole olemas USALDUST valitsejate ja valitsevate vahel, ja kui valisejad ei VASTUTA ei milegi eest, ja LĀBIPAISTVUST nende valitsemisel pole siis tule rahvahāāletusele ja ytle JAH:)

KT said...

nonäe, oskad ju küll;) mis sest, et teed seda mitte politoloogina, vaid poliitikuna ... aga ilmselt seda teisiti ei saagi:)

Veiko Spolitis said...

"Kuiva politoloogia juttu" tavakodanik kahjuks harva vōtab kuulma:)

Koos kolleegi Dr. Axel Reetziga oleme nii mitmel korral Laetis taehele pannud ja kurba seletust oma elukutse kohta leidnud. A'la....politoloogi saatus on maerksa raskem arsti, juristi, inseneri voi isegi majandusteadlase omast. NIMELT, tavakodanik vaehemalt usub arsti, ineneri ja majandusteadlase ekspertiisi, KUID, iga inimene kes on kasvōi kord lehte lugenud arvab, et on on rohkem paedev poliitikast raeaekima kui "sina politoloog":)

KT said...

on kolm valdkonda, kus iga kodanik on pädevam kui spetsialist - need on meditsiin, haridus ja poliitika:)

Veiko Spolitis said...

Mis siin muud enam oelda - ei komentaari:)