VZCZCXRO6052
PP RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHRA #0180/01 0910755
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 010755Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY RIGA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5735
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 RIGA 000180 
 
NOFORN 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2024 
TAGS: PRGOV PINR LG
SUBJECT: PRESIDENT DOES NOT DISMISS PARLIAMENT; SEARCHING 
FOR INFLUENCE 
 
REF: A) RIGA 33 B) RIGA 152 
 
Classified By: Charge d'affaires a.i. Bruce D. Rogers.  Reason: 1.4(d) 
 
¶1. (C/NF) Summary: President Zatlers announced March 31 that 
he would not initiate a dismissal of Saeima (parliament) as 
he threatened to do January 14 if certain tasks were not 
completed.  The President said that enough progress had been 
made and that the new government was working well enough to 
cause him not to pursue dissolution.  At the same time, he 
identified new tasks for parliament, but did not couch them 
as an ultimatum.  He said that he retains the right and the 
willingness to initiate a dissolution if necessary.  While 
Zatlers is right that the political climate in the country 
has improved since January, some of his actions actually 
hindered the progress.  Having backed down once, he cannot 
credibly make a dismissal threat again without risking his 
own job.  The entire episode demonstrates that Zatlers 
remains naive about politics and is unlikely to greatly 
improve his standing with the public.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (U) President Zatlers addressed the nation March 31, 
itself a rare event in Latvia, to explain that he would not 
initiate a dissolution of Saeima as he threatened to do 
January 14 if certain tasks were not accomplished (ref a). 
The President reviewed the growing public distrust in 
parliament and government over the past two years and 
explained that the violence of January 13 led him to take 
tough action to restore confidence in the political order. 
He said that most of the tasks he set forth had been 
completed and that additional progress had been made in 
several areas related to rule of law.  All that remains is to 
pass constitutional amendments allowing the public to 
initiate a dissolution of Saeima.  He expressed confidence 
that these would be adopted next week.  He also said that new 
government of PM Dombrovskis was doing well and tackling 
tough issues in Latvia's economy.  He asserted his right and 
willingness to initiate a dissolution of parliament in future 
if he deems it necessary.  Finally, he said that the 
parliament should adopt a new budget, support business, 
ensure a social safety net, and undertake reforms to 
electoral and campaign laws to improve the political culture. 
 This, however, was not made an ultimatum. 
¶3. (C/NF) While Zatlers is correct that the political 
situation has improved since January, the public's trust has 
not risen dramatically from the historic lows (below 10 
percent) of earlier this year.  While the President's 
ultimatum may have helped rein in the worst excesses of the 
parties, Zatlers himself was a major stumbling block along 
the way.  He wanted a wider coalition, but seemed to insist 
on simply adding to the existing one.  He wanted ten people 
like former PM Godmanis in the cabinet when opposition 
parties were making Godmanis' removal a pre-condition to join 
the government.  He lost confidence in Godmanis on a Friday 
evening, but found it again on a Monday, spooking markets and 
investors in between.  He insisted on smaller government, but 
accepted a new government with the same ministries as its 
predecessors. 
¶4. (C/NF) While the President retains the constitutional 
right to dismiss the Saeima another ultimatum would not be 
credible.  Parties reacted negatively to this one, even the 
ones then in opposition, for upsetting the constitutional 
order.  Latvia is a parliamentary republic and the Presidency 
was created as a weak office.  Zatlers' attempt to force his 
will -- and his uneven performance that followed -- left many 
shaking their heads.  The episode did not appreciably improve 
the President's public standing (although it also has not 
weakened it).   If he mishandles the parliament in future, 
his own job could be in danger. 
¶5. (C/NF) This entire episode has highlighted Zatlers' 
limited political acumen and the lack of good political 
advisors around him.  He had the best of intentions.  He 
wanted to do something to acknowledge the frustrations of the 
people.  But ultimatums of the scope he set out on January 14 
are tricky in politics, where there are many moving parts and 
movement in one area changes the plans in another.  Yes, he 
succeeded in getting an anti-corruption chief, but probably 
not the best candidate for the job.  But approving the choice 
of the previous coalition was likely part of the bargain some 
of those parties made to join the new coalition.  In the end, 
much of the reforms in government will be driven by terms of 
the international financial assistance package rather than 
Zatlers' desires. 
¶6. (C/NF) Going forward, there are two ways Zatlers could 
more effectively influence events.  Latvia still lacks a 
leader willing to level with society about the breadth and 
depth of the coming budget cuts and explain their necessity. 
In his speech, the President only said they would be painful 
and difficult.  He could start trying to create a national 
consensus on the need to accept the pain now for the sake of 
the future.  He also has the right to submit draft 
 
RIGA 00000180  002 OF 002 
 
 
legislation to parliament, something he has only rarely used 
 If he wants to see changes to the laws on campaigns and 
party financing, for example, he should submit draft bills to 
parliament to shape the debate.  These would be far more 
effective ways to exercise influence. 
ROGERS