Committee system of Latvian parliament

Latvian parliament is one of the parliaments with strong committee system. Committees here often play a decisive role in legislative process. Parliament regulations state that no law can be discussed in plenary meeting without being discussed in committees. Standing committees are thus given a broad responsibility. Unlike the British parliament where there are very rare occasions when committees display disagreement with government initiatives Latvian parliamentarians via committee system are able to influence laws and even to present alternative projects.

There is no law that regulates the way how the committees are made and their composition. Parliament decides it in the beginning of its first session. But there are two principles always present - political and professional. Each committee has more or less the same political proportions as the whole parliament. But there is also the professional principle - experience and education of parliamentarians are taken into account (of course, not all parliament groups have possibilities to delegate committee members with appropriate proficiency).

Today Latvian Saeima has 16 standing committees. They are not organized according to ministerial principle because their function is not to supervise or control the work of ministries but to assist in making laws. There are some committees which are special for Latvian situation - committee of European matters, committee of implementation of the citizenship law, committee of national security, committee of human rights. The number of members in each committee is not definite and, in my opinion, is not connected to the importance of the committee. For example, one of the most efficient committees - the legal - has only 8 members.

The number and titles of the committees are established by the law of Parliamentary procedures (Kârtîbas rullis - Rules of Order). At the first plenary session each Saeima forms a working group of deputies representing each parliamentary faction. This group agrees on principles and procedure of committees. The 6^th Saeima’s Faction council formed such a group. On 9^th of November 1995 plenary session it presented project of committee formation rules. This document affirmed that committee formation main principles are found in Rules of Order but it also made some innovations. The 16 committees were divided in two groups - 9 law-making committees and 7 organizational or special committees. The Rules of Order state that one parliamentarian can be member of not more than 2 committees. 1995 regulations specify this provision - one committee of each sort. It was aimed at limiting number of memberships in core committees. Another provision to limit committee membership was: in one committee there can be more than one parliamentarian from a faction only if there is at least one parliamentarian from this faction in each committee of that sort (law-making or organizational). The reason for this stipulation was to limit concentration of one party representatives in one committee. But there was also a clause which allowed Saeima in special cases to decide as it wanted regardless the regulations. Actually, the clause of exceptions was in the centre of discussion on the plenary meeting. Some parliamentarians were worried that Saeima could use this provision against their interests, for example, electing a person to a committee which he/she does not like to be a member of.

In the next plenary meeting Saeima elected all committees without any serious discussion. See Appendix (13) for list of committees and changes in their membership over time.

At the time of election 10 members of Foreign affairs committee were also elected to other committees. The most popular organizational committees have been the Committee of European affairs (5 members) and Committee of Implementation of citizenship law (2 members). Three other parliamentarians were in Requests, Inspection and National security committees. Committee of European affairs deals with issues of European integration which is the primary goal of Latvian foreign policy. The fact that these parliamentarians are working in both foreign policy oriented committees means that they are estimated in their respective parties as specialists in foreign and security matters.

Foreign affairs committee is quite popular among parliamentarians although it does not deal so much with actual policy issues. Its attraction can be find in its high prestige and benefits which are available to the members - travelling abroad, contacts with leaders and ambassadors of other countries, possibility of later ambassador appointment.

Personnel

The main focus of this paper will be on standing committee of foreign affairs. It has 15 members. The number of members has increased over time. At the beginning there were only 13 parliamentarians. Here is the list of members and account of changes.

		Name	Party	Elected
	1.	Indulis Bçrziòð	“Latvian Way”	Nov 95
	2.	Juris Sinka	“For Fatherland and Freedom”/ LNNK	Nov 95
	3.	Janîna Kuðnere	People’s movement “For Latvia”	Nov 95
	4.	Aleksandrs Kirðteins	Reform Party (LNNK)	Nov 95
	5.	Jânis Jurkâns	- (Party of People’s Harmony)	Nov 95
	6.	Ilga Kreituse	- (Democratic Party “Saimnieks”)	Nov 95
	7.	Andris Rubins	- (”For Latvia”)	Nov 95
	8.	Leopolds Ozoliòð	- (“For Fatherland and Freedom”)	Nov 95
	9.	Gundars Valdmanis	- (Unity Party)	Nov 95
Entered the committee
	10.	Andris Ameriks	“Saimnieks”	15/5-97
	11.	Andrejs Krastiòð	Reform Party (LNNK)	15/5-97
	12.	Dainis Turlais	“Saimnieks”	4/9-97
	13.	Edvîns Inkçns	“Latvian Way”	25/9-97
	14.	Viesturs Boka	“Saimnieks”	2/10-97
	15.	Andrejs Poþarnovs	“For Fatherland and Freedom”/LNNK	2/10-97
Left the committee
	1.	Olafs Brûvers	“Latvian Way”	Nov 95 - 28/5-97
	2.	Imants Daudiðs	“Latvian Way”	Nov 95 Ambassador ‘97
	3.	Paulis Kïaviòð	Christian Democratic Union	Nov 95- 6/11-97
	4.	Ivars Íezbers	“Saimnieks”	Nov 95 Died ‘97

Not all parliamentary groups are represented in committee. There is no one from the Farmers Union/Christian democratic union coalition which has 13 parliamentarians in Saeima. Socialists are neither represented in the committee. Political composition of parliament has changed since autumn 1995 due to some parliamentarians who have changed their party membership. Two parties have merged in one (LNNK/”For Fatherland and Freedom”), but part of their members have founded a new party. It seems that parliament has not been able to follow all these developments and adjust the composition of the committee according to the new political balance. And now there are some groups which are overrepresented - new Reform party has 2 members of committee although it has only 6 members in Saeima. Also the independent parliamentarians are overrepresented. Especially one group which calls itself “Only for fatherland” and all 3 members of this group (Andris Rubins, Leopolds Ozoliòð, Gundars Valdmanis) are also members of the committee. This group is legendary and quite often a subject of laughing in the society. Activities of this group cannot add respect for the committee to general public.

It seems, that people who were once elected to the committee were staying there no matter how their party membership was changing later. That is the only way how I can account for such a big number of independent parliamentarians in the committee. Parties could allocate their members to other committees (like Christian democrats did) or choose new people in the place of those who had to leave (like “Latvian Way” and “Saimnieks”). But independent parliamentarians had no party game to participate in and they stayed in the committee.

Party leaders. As in many other countries also in Latvia the Foreign affairs committee is a meeting place for party leaderships. Some parties like “Latvian Way” or Reform party have delegated to the committee eminent persons of the party although there is no doubt that these persons have expertise in foreign affairs. But that is not the case with other important parties - Democratic party “Saimnieks” or TB/LNNK which leaders reside in other committees.

Professional background. Interesting that four of the committee members are physicians by profession and none of them has previous parliamentarian experience. Nine members had been elected also to the 5^th Saeima. Among them there are two historians, two economists, one journalist, one architect, one English philologue. There are four former ministers in the committee, one - Janis Jurkans - was Latvia’s first minister of foreign affairs. Two “Latvian Way” representatives have long time been analysts of the foreign matters on Latvian TV. In my own estimation 8 out of 15 committee members have appropriate professional qualification - either experience in government or analytic work within the field of foreign policy. The average age of the committee members is 49 and they all have acquired higher education.

	Name	Party	Born	Education	Before election to parliament
1.	Indulis Bçrziòð	LW	57.	historian	5.Saeima
2.	Edvîns Inkçns	LW	58.	journalist	5.Saeima
3.	Andris Ameriks	DPS	61.	economist	5.Saeima
4.	Viesturs Boka	DPS	48.	physician	hospital “Linezers”
5.	Dainis Turlais	DPS	50.	officer	President’s advisor
6.	Juris Sinka	LNNK	27.	econ, polit.	5.Saeima, state minister
7.	Andrejs Poþarnovs	LNNK	62.	physician	Emergency hospital
8.	Aleksandrs Kirðteins	RP	48.	architect	5.Saeima, minister
9.	Andrejs Krastiòð	RP	51.	lawyer	5.Saeima
10.	Janîna Kuðnere	PMFL	58.	English lang.	5.Saeima
11.	Jânis Jurkâns	-	46.	English lang.	5.Saeima
12.	Ilga Kreituse	-	52.	historian	5.Saeima
13.	Andris Rubins	-	47.	physician	Medical Academy
14.	Leopolds Ozoliòð	-	37.	physician	Deputy of Jurmala council
15.	Gundars Valdmanis	-	40.	business adm.	Director of company

Abbreviations: LW - “Latvian Way”, DPS - Democratic Party “Saimnieks”, LNNK - LNNK/”For Fatherland and Freedom”, RP - Reform Party, PMFL - People’s Movement “For Latvia”.

Organization

Committee has one chairman, one deputy chairman and a secretary who are elected by all members of the committee. At the beginning of tenure there always exists an agreement between party groups regarding the chairmanship of committees. Faction council or more precisely - governing coalition partners - negotiate the distribution of positions. Foreign affairs committee got a chairman Indulis Bçrziòð who was member of “Latvian Way”, the deputy chairman was from LNNK, but the secretary - from “For Fatherland and Freedom”.

When Bçrziòð left the position of chairman in autumn 1997 the committee had considerable problems choosing replacement for him. The main parties could not agree on one candidate. Three committee meetings were devoted to elections. At last an independent candidate Andris Rubins got majority of votes. Rubins was elected to Saeima as member of People’s movement for Latvia. Already in March 1996 he left the faction and became an independent parliamentarian. Since than Rubins has tried to organize different parliamentary groups. His last creation is “Only for fatherland”. In the period of Rubin’s chairmanship there have been several occasions when committee has asked parliament to carry out a vote of non-confidence for Minister of Foreign affairs Valdis Birkavs. The attempts were not successful. An analysis of parliamentary deliberations show that although Rubins was the chairman of the committee, most of the committee’s reports were presented by deputy chairman Juris Sinka.

Andris Rubins was chairman until April 1998 when the rest of the committee recognized that Rubins had not the appropriate expertise and skills to be the leader of Foreign affairs committee. As the most likely successor has been named Juris Sinka (TB/LNNK). He was also the initiator of the non-confidence vote for Rubins. In his press briefing after leaving the post of the chairman Rubins said, that he was happy to do that because the committee was not working properly. He also announced the founding of his new party.

Functions and procedures

As mentioned the function of the committee is not to control the work of foreign affairs ministry. Committee meets approximately once a week and the issues covered are following:

· discussing bills which have been allocated for committee consideration, together with jurist working on final versions of the bills, gathering all proposals to the bill in concern;

· considering international conventions and bilateral treaties parliament has to ratify;

· examining new appointments of ambassadors and issuing recommendations (which president is not obliged to follow);

· asking government officials, members of diplomatic service to inform about their actions and achievements.

Committee decisions need a simple majority of those who are present. That is why opposition could quite often achieve a decision it favoured. Of course, later in parliament it did not gather necessary support.

Issues

I have gathered information about the period from January 1997 till march 1998. Although it is not the whole period of committees tenure, certain trends can be noticed. In that period committee has been mostly concerned with international and bilateral treaties. There have been a couple of bills allocated for several committees and two bills in field of foreign policy - amendments to the diplomatic and consular service bill. Almost all of these bills have been initiated by government, i.e. the ministry of Foreign affairs. None of these bills or treaties has aroused particular interest of parliamentarians - they all have been accepted by parliament with considerable majority and without any discussions.

Committee has tried under chairmanship of Andris Rubins to expand its influence - it has initiated meeting with President of Latvia to discuss matters it is interested in. First and foremost it includes more weight for parliament in deciding ambassador appointments. Later in this paper I will examine this issue more properly. Committee also wants to organize general discussion in parliament about country’s foreign policy.

Political aspect

There is a wide consensus among Latvian parties regarding the issue of Latvia’s independence. Based on that, parties form their programmatic views in foreign policy. Focus in Latvian society in recent years has changed from issues of sovereignty to social problems. Therefore parties are not very explicit in stating their foreign policy goals. However, all parties, whose representatives reside in Foreign Affairs Committee, have in their programmes included some points which are virtually the same all over the political spectrum. Parties want to promote Latvia’s integration in EU, they regard NATO as the guarantor of state’s security, they want to maintain good relations with Russia. Programmatically there is no difference between the mainstream parties. Only the accents can be different. There are parties which put relations with Russia in the first place, others stress need to enter European Union. It would be impossible to include in programme a point which supposed to enter CIS. Such an organization could not be registered, it would be banned. That is why party programme is not a big help when we want to predict party’s position in one or another foreign policy issue. However, the previous statements and practice allow to judge parties’ foreign policy orientations in connection with main issues.

It seems that main disputable foreign policy issues have been settled in the first years of Latvian independence. A compromise had to be reached inside Latvia when the state was preparing to sign treaty with Russia. Since 1995 no issue has aroused particular discussions except for border agreement with Russia. These three years were too short to finish negotiations but that was enough to reach fragile compromise inside Latvian political arena.

It is apparent that Latvian parties build their opinion about foreign policy directions around one central issue - Russia. I can differentiate three solutions which parties offer to their voters.

1. Nationalistic position (isolationism): we have to preserve our nation, therefore there can be no compromises with Russia, Russia should pay us for 50 years of occupation. If Europe does not respect our special position due to the tragic history, we do not need such Europe. TB/LNNK, Reform party.

2. Centrist position (integration): Europe is our saviour, EU and NATO as soon as possible. Careful relations with Russia, compromises are possible. “Latvian Way”, partly “Saimnieks”, Christian Democrats/Farmers Union.

3. Pro-Russian position(reunion): good relations with Russia regardless the costs, NATO is not the best solution. Socialists, Party of People’s Harmony.

It is impossible to locate People’s movement for Latvia position because it has changed several times depending on the circumstances. Same problem exists for independent parliamentarians. They are not bound by any programme and can produce their own judgement of a situation. Quite often independents have initiated decisions opposed to the government position.

According to my division of party positions the committee is characterized by balance between nationalistic and centrist position, the same which exists in government. Independent parliamentarians usually stand in opposition. In March 1998 there were changes in governing coalition - “Saimnieks” was replaced by Reform party. That alters the balance in Foreign affairs committee. Now there are only 6 members which represent parties in power (instead of 7 before the changes). That increases the possibility of taking decisions not corresponding the official line of government policy. But it also makes possible more control of government’s foreign policy by committee. Opposition’s proposals now have more chances not to stay just in committee but to get on the agenda of parliamentary discussion.

Case study: appointment of ambassadors

Usually the tenure of ambassadors in one country is four years. That means that those ambassadors who were appointed during the 5^th Saeima now had to be replaced. Law of Diplomatic and Consular Service (passed in September 1995 replacing a law which was adopted in 1991) provides for reviewing these appointments by Committee of Foreign Affairs although no parliamentary voting is necessary. Candidates are recommended by Minister of Foreign affairs. President alone is in charge for ambassador appointments. He may or may not take into account committee’s recommendations. Till now all ambassadors recommended by minister have been accepted and no objections from committee have been taken into account although there have been several cases of disagreement.

One of the reasons why committee has disagreed with minister’s proposals is its political composition. More than a half of committee members do not represent governing coalition. That makes it possible for opposition to promote its opinion. Though it is not correct to refer to parties which are outside governmental coalition as opposition in its strict sense. It is more appropriate to regard the decision making in committee as multiparty coalition model where there is not so sharp distinction between government and opposition parties. We cannot speak of united opposition neither in parliament as a whole nor in the committee. Each decision is made by party groups. Besides, there are five committee members which do not belong to any fraction. That all makes committee decisions unpredictable. It is certain that minister of foreign affairs can count only on his party’s -“Latvian Way”- votes of support (2 representatives in committee).

There have been several occasions when committee decision opposes official position, including several attempts to initiate a non-confidence vote in parliament. But minister has always stayed calm because there is another distribution of party strength in the parliament. Governmental coalition has always stood up for its minister. The committee decision does not mean that parliament also votes that way. At least this is true for motions of non-confidence. Another situation is with legislative proposals. A committee is regarded as competent in the area and parliament usually takes into account committees opinion. Committee proposals are the ones which are most frequently adopted.

Deliberation on appointment of ambassadors in committee is the only case when decision is not provided further to the parliament’s consideration but is directly sent to the President of the state. That makes the situation exceptional. It cannot be compared with usual procedure of legislation. And consequences of such situation are ambivalent. On the one hand, sending of recommendation directly to the president shows the potential influence of the committee on presidential decision. On the other hand, practice shows that committee’s influence is insignificant. President prefers minister’s proposal in case of discord between both advisors.

Another aspect of this issue is the role of the parliament. Now Saeima does not have any direct influence on appointment of ambassadors. It can only dismiss the minister if it is not satisfied with his/her policy. It is not likely that such an issue as appointment of ambassadors could serve as a reason for dismissal of the minister. Such serious action which can destabilise the whole government needs more significant cause. We can perhaps say that Saeima has influence on the process of appointments through the committee. It could be true if the committee reflected the political composition of the whole parliament. But it is not the case today - some parties are not represented in the committee, some are overrepresented and there is a big number of independent parliamentarians there. Committee does not reflect the proportion between the governing coalition and opposition which exists in the parliament.

Anyway, if the governing coalition was worried about the negative influence of decisions coming from the committee of Foreign affairs it would have cared for restoring the actual proportion. Since it has done nothing to change the distribution of power I can conclude that the committee is not regarded as crucial for governmental coalition. Indeed, the main focus in the committee has been on international treaties which are quite technical and difficult to comprehend for non-specialists. And these treaties have never been a cause of decisive decisions for government stability. Another possibility for such a indifference from the side of governing coalition can be that it is confident in President’s “right” decision appointing minister’s recommended candidates.

Procedure of appointment of ambassadors must be satisfying for the parties which compose the government coalition. I suppose that there exists an agreement between the parties in which they distribute the posts. With such a mechanism successfully working they are not interested to open the issue to public discussion. However, the commission has generated a proposal to change the system of giving recommendations for appointments. It supposes parliament to issue recommendation for each candidate so that president has to take it into account.

First attempt to change the law was made in the beginning of 1997. The amendment successfully passed two readings but on the third was not accepted by the majority although the result of voting was close.

The consequences of inclusion of this amendment into the law could not be very significant because the Constitution still gives the power of appointment to the President. But it could change President’s preferences, in case of dissent of parliament he/she could choose in favour of parliament’s recommendation. Legislative body is formally the centre of governmental system in Latvia. It would not be wise of President to ignore parliament’s opinion. Opposition with this amendment can make the appointment of ambassadors more democratic, break governing coalition’s agreement, and increase the influence of the committee of foreign affairs. Because of multiparty coalition voting pattern in the parliament it is never certain if any agreement holds. Besides, voting on candidates for positions of ambassadors would more likely be individualistic voting because people very often rely on their own judgement of persons personal characteristics and skills.

The proposal was maintained not only by the opposition as the debates showed. Already in the first reading a serious discussion developed which is not usual for such an early stage of legislating. Committee members recognized that the only party opposing this proposal was “Latvian Way”. It was understandable, because all foreign affairs in Latvia was in its hands - minister of foreign affairs, chairman of the committee of foreign affairs, chairman of the committee of European affairs. All other parties were ready to change the system of appointing ambassadors to make the process more transperable and responsible. But the amendment was not quite correct in respect to constitution. That made parliamentarians to revise their position. Now they had to chose between the position which they felt was politically right and the opinion of the jurists that the amendment contradicted the constitution. Still the amendment passed the first reading and was sent to committee for corrections. For the second reading jurists had come up with a amendment which was legally correct. However, the doubts were planted and no consensus was achieved. After long debates the amendment was accepted and sent to prepare for the third reading. Third reading was short. Although the formulation of the amendment was legally correct and compatible with constitution, some representatives of “Latvian Way” still maintained that politically it was contradictory. From the debate it was clear that the voting would be individualistic because of the different opinions inside parties. Committee deputy chairman in his final speech asked his colleagues to vote for the amendment. Majority was against and the amendment was taken off the agenda. This year commission has discussed the proposal once more and is going to present it again.

My account of this failure of the commission to get its proposal through in the parliament is short: there was not enough resources in the committee to promote its opinion. First and foremost it refers to the expertise of committee members. In my estimation 8 of the 15 members had appropriate expertise, and two of these people were members of “Latvian Way” which was opposed to the changes. At first the committee presented legally incorrect proposal. That aroused the suspicion of other parliamentarians and they more relied on specialist opinion. Another resource which the committee lacked was insufficient partisan support. There are five independent parliamentarians in the committee which have no party backing. So they have no possibility to secure votes by persuading their party colleagues as other members can do.

There were also two outside factors which influenced negative decision. Parliament has too much respect for constitution. There was possibility to change constitution first and than the amendment would be correct both politically and legally. But parliamentarians usually avoid amendments to constitution fearing that such frequent changes of the basic document would devaluate it. Another factor was the debates taking place previous week when the director of the Bureau of Human rights was elected. Majority of the parliamentarians regarded these debates as unethical. They feared that discussing candidates for ambassador posts would go in the same direction.

Conclusion

Committee of the foreign affairs has a high prestige in the parliament but the analyse of its activities makes to wish more. The committee has not been able to set on agenda general debate on the foreign policy as it planned a year ago. Some recent events in country’s foreign policy show that parliament has very small influence on the executive’s policy. And committee has not made efforts to change the situation. It has failed also to promote its proposals.

Governing coalition is neither concerned with the committee work. It has not tried to alter the composition of the committee which now is unfavourable for coalition. That means that opposition has more chances to reach the parliament floor.

Appendix

Number of members in law-making committees

Number of members in organizational committees