LATVIA: Record-high voter turnover for language referendum

 Lisa kommentaar

On 18 February, Latvia held a somewhat surprising referendum. The question at stake? Introducing Russian as the second state language. The results have been less surprising: 75% of all voters voted against the idea, so official bilingualism is not coming to Latvia anytime soon.

Opposing views

Even those who proposed the referendum freely admitted that it has no chance of reaching its stated goal, but nevertheless believed that it is necessary to "start a dialogue" and "draw attention to Russians in Latvia". It is arguable whether they have reached these goals, too. Instead, the main result seems to be a surge of nationalism from both sides.

The Russians saw the referendum as a chance to make their voices heard. The very fact that they gathered enough signatures to hold the referendum was seen as a major achievement. The tone has now turned to a more sombre one as the referendum results can hardly be interpreted as victory.

The Latvians, on the other hand, saw it as an attack at the very core of the Latvian statehood. Even those who usually ignore politics or consider themselves quite liberal on the national issues actively took a stand. As a result, the referendum has seen a remarkably high voter turnover: almost 71%. For the last Saeima elections, the number stood at 60%.

So, if the referendum has failed to reach its stated goal, then what has it changed?

For one, it has launched the political career of its initiator Vladimir Linderman. A former member of far-left National Bolshevik party, his previous political undertakings enjoyed little support, but he has hit the mother lode with the language issue. He is not shy to exploit it: Linderman has already promised to continue his fight for the Russian language and is also planning to step up the activities of his political party.

The outlook looks much less optimistic for Saskanas Centrs (SC) and its leader Nils Usakovs. SC is traditionally seen as a Russian party and, indeed, the referendum has cemented Usakovs' popularity among his usual supporters. However, the party has previously also attempted attracting the Latvian voters, which will now be a very difficult task. Coupled with the fact that some of SC's Russian voters are likely to cross over to Linderman's side, SC is now facing a shrinking number of voters. Moreover, it will now also have considerable trouble attracting any Latvian parties as its political partners, so it is also facing a shrinking political influence.

As to the Latvian parties, the biggest winner could the nationalistic VL-TB/LNNK. It is, however, still to be seen whether the increased nationalism will last until the next elections. The other Latvian parties might gain back the Latvian voters who previously voted for SC.

Finally, there is little doubt that Russia has been following – and, indeed, steering – the referendum very closely. It has issued a statement about the referendum, claiming that it does not show the real situation: many Latvian Russians are not the citizens of Latvia and therefore cannot vote.

Regional differences

Another possible way how to put a pro-Russian spin on the results is the regional differences: Latgale stands out as the only region where the proposal has more support than opposition. 55.6% of all the voters in Latgale voted for the proposal. The number stood as high as 85% in Daugavpils, the second-largest Latvian city which is overwhelmingly Russian.

Latgale, bordering Russia, has always had a higher concentration of Russians than the rest of Latvia. Moreover, it also has always been the most economically backward region of Latvia, and the vote could be seen as a protest against what is seen as the government's inability to fix the situation.

Linderman has already announced that he will now focus on fighting for the regional status of Russian language in Latgale. Moscow has favoured similar divide-and-conquer tactics in other countries as well, so Latvia is increasingly likely to meet continued pressure from its Eastern neighbour.

Far away yet so close

Another peculiarity of this referendum has been the high voter turnover outside Latvia. Unsurprisingly, the leaders here are the UK and Ireland: 16,040 voters voted in the UK an 4,864 in Ireland. With 2,950 voters, the USA came in third, closely followed by Germany with 2,698. 2,009 Latvians voted in Norway.

With the exception of the USA whose Latvian diaspora dates back to post-WWII period, most of the foreign voters are recent Latvian immigrants. As a result, the voter turnover shows the most popular destinations. It also suggests that, even though the Latvians have left their country, they have not abandoned it and are following the developments back home. Moreover, since online voting is still unavailable, the foreign voters often had to go to great lengths to vote. Numerous foreign voters reported queues up to an hour long and people coming to vote by carload.

And perhaps that is the most enduring lesson learned from the referendum: even though Latvians often criticise their country, they are also ready to stand up for it if need be. The referendum has encouraged many Latvians to reconsider what Latvia means to them – and, if they have left it, it might encourage them to consider returning.