Security should be invisible

As an exception, the majority of this blog post will be in Latvian: it deals with the local issue of police being too visible during all kinds of protest demonstrations - there are often more policemen than protesters. In my opinion, this is something to be embarrassed about and needs to change.

-----

Pirma kāda laika rakstīju, ka Latvija ir pāraugusi pārejas sabiedrības stadiju. Bet ir viena joma, kur joprojām esam līdzīgi autoritāram režīmam: proti, drošības nodrošināšana publisku pasākumu ietvaros. Tā ir bezjēdzīgi pārspīlēta, biedējoša un izšķērdīga attiecībā uz policijas resursiem. Policistu skaits gandrīz atbilst protestētāju skaitam. Divu nedēļu laikā- vairāki gadījumi. Pa ceļam uz Saeimu paskrēju garām totāli miermīlīgam minipiketam pie Norvēģijas vēstniecības, maksimums 5 dalībnieki. Trīs policisti. Protests par vēlēšanu rezultātu viltošanu pie Krievijas vēstniecības - 6 piketētāji, 6 policisti. Protests pie Satversmes tiesas pret ACTA- tas pats. Un, protams, 16.marts, kur tradicionāli tiek pieslēgti vai visi Rīgas policisti, kur tad viņi stundām nīkst bez jēgas.

Nekur valstīs ar ilgākām demokrātijas tradīcijām ko tādu neesmu redzējusi. Miermīlīgos piketos policisti nav redzami (tas nenozīmē, ka viņu nav - vienkārši klātbūtne nav uzbāzīga). Ne tik miermīlīgos pasākumos - policistu skaits arī nav pārspīlēts, viņi iejaucas un kļūst publiski redzami tikai tad, kad pēc tā ir nepieciešamība.

Šī prakse Latvijā ir jābeidz. Tā ir apkaunojoša - gan mums visiem kā sabiedrībai, gan arī policijai kā institūcijai 21.gadsimta Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstī. Pati esmu piedalījusies miermīlīgos pasākumos, kur ir labi ja 20 dalībnieku un vesela policistu kolonna, vismaz tik pat, ja ne vairāk - pilnīgi bez jebkādas jēgas. Pietiktu ar 2-3 labi apmācītiem policistiem (nu jābūt taču policijā programmām, kā apmācīt darbiniekus atpazīt noskaņas protestētāju pūlī - vai ir/nav vardarbības risks un cik liels, kā vislabāk rīkoties saspīlētā situācijā!), kas gadījumā, ja rastos kādas problēmas, varētu ātri atsaukt papildspēkus.

Pārspīlēti lielais policistu skaits ir nevis profesionalitātes, bet, tieši otrādi, neprofesionalitātes apliecinājums. Tas nozīmē, ka:

- atbildīgās amatpersonas nav spējušas izvērtēt, vai/cik lielā mērā pasākumam ir drošības riski;

- atbildīgās amatpersonas drošību mēra pēc mērvienības " policists uz kvadrātmetru", nevis pēc reālajām vajadzībām - maz seko līdzi tam, kas reāli var notikt un notiek pasākuma laikā;

- ir pamatīgas problēmas ar policijas darba organizēšanu - ja jau teju visi Rīgas policisti var vairākas stundas nīkt 16.martā, tad jautājums ir par to, ko viņi dara ikdienā?

Lūk, tieši tādēļ kategoriski nevaru piekrist iekšlietu ministra ierosinājumu mainīt likumu, aizliedzot konfrontējošus pasākumus. Konfrontējoši pasākumi (piemēram, vienlaicīgi - par un pret pikets) ir normāla parādība jebkurā demokrātiskā valstī. Tas ir valsts pienākums nodrošināt cilvēkiem tiesības uz pulcēšanās brīvību. Jo efektīvāk ir organizēta policija, jo lētāk tas izmaksā. Jo demokrātiskāka sabiedrība, jo mazāk represijas jāizmanto, lai nodrošinātu sabiedrisko mieru un jo mazāk uzkrītoša ir policijas klātbūtne.

Ministra ierosinājuma skaidrojums, ka  kārtības nodrošināšanā iesaistīti lieli policijas spēki un tas dārgi maksā, nekam neder. Tā nav protestētāju vaina, ja iekšlietu struktūras uzskata, ka ar dažiem iespējamiem provokatoriem vislabāk var cīnīties nosedzot Brīvības pieminekļa laukumu ar policistiem tā, lai fiziski neviens provokators nevarētu tur kāju spert. Tad ir jautājums, vai tiešām policijas vadība ne reizi nav bijusi skatīties, kā tas tiek darīts citās valstīs? Vai tiešām nav bijušas kādas apmācības policistiem ne tikai par to, ko darīt ar saniknotu pūli (kas Latvijā tomēr ir liels retums), bet kā miermīlīgi un neuzkrītoši vadīt situāciju, ja parādās kādas agresijas pazīmes? Un vai tiešām šim nolūkam ir vajadzīga simtu, tūkstošu policistu fiziska klātbūtne?

Es neredzu citu risinājumu kā tikai politiskā līmenī. Attiecībā uz iekšlietu sistēmu būtu jāmainās politiskajam pieprasījumam un vadības darba vērtēšanas kritērijiem. Neder vairs tas, pie kā bijām pieraduši pie iepriekšējiem ministriem - īpaši Godmaņa un Mūrnieces.  No drošības struktūrām būtu jāsāk prasīt ne tikai fiziski nodrošināt sabiedrisko kārtību, bet to darīt arī profesionāli - drošības pasākumus organizējot pēc iespējas efektīvi (tā, lai policistiem neliktu bez vajadzības nīkt pie pieminekļa laikā, kad viņi varētu darīt ko sabiedrībai derīgāku) un pēc iespējas neuzkrītoši, neradot sabiedrībai un pilsētas viesiem iespaidu, ka pikets, sapulce vai piemiņas pasākums ir kaut kas a priori aizdomīgs un bīstams. 

Half a year ago I though that there is no more agonizing choice than who to vote for in elections. Until today. It has turned out that there IS a choice even more terrible: which tablet to choose? :D

trust issues

I've just returned from a radio discussion on whether Latvia should discourage popular initiatives and referenda. After all, we've had 5 in 5 years (not counting 3 elections).  I think that this democratic activity has been good for Latvia. 

Look at what the Swiss have just done - they've rejected 6 weeks of paid vacations via referendum. I'm almost sure that Latvia as a society - after having extensively debated the matter - would have done the same. It would be so disappointing if we lost the tradition of  making the decisions directly, not always through our parliamentary representatives.  

  Eventually it  seems that it all comes down to trust. Do we trust ourselves? Do we trust other citizens? If not, how else are we supposed to build that trust if not through common action, sometimes heated and emotionally unpleasant, but civil and respectful  discussions? That's what is good about referenda. Even the last one on two state languages. It put our society through a tremendous stress-test, but we come out stronger and more aware as a result.  We should believe in ourselves, in our society.

I do understand that it takes time. Even a game is no more possible, if the trust has been lost. But in case of Latvia the mutual trust was not there in the first place - so we cannot get it worse, we can only move forwards. And frequent referenda (with constitutional safeguards attached) is not a bad way to build the foundations for stronger, more inclusive, more participative democracy.

Star Wars

Finally managed to watch the three original Star Wars films. I definitely see how you can build a religious cult around the idea of The Force ... ;)

Ah, yes. And it was nice to learn that Yoda's English is no better than mine ... :D

Look what I found ...

The note says 'be happy'. In Latvian, but spelled with a slight Russian accent... :) 

On Russia

I'm listening daily to Echo Moskvi - which is the best more or less credible radio source on whatever is happening in Russia. It seems that there is a lot of disillusionment about 2012 presidential elections - not because Putin was reelected (that was to be expected), but that people are not in the streets protesting (as they did in December, after parliamentary elections) and that the votes of so many could had been bought so easily (there was massive vote buying during these elections). Julia Latinina, the top political commentator, even mentioned yesterday, that to her mind the universal suffrage is The Problem - that only people who pay in taxes more than receive as subsidies from the state should be allowed to vote. See her analysis in Russian here

That's a false solution. Looking at what is happening in Russia, I can't help but notice some parallels with what was going on in Latvia after 2006 elections.  We had political parties that where obviously corrupt reelected again and seemingly supported by majority of people. Till one day the government did something so stupid and outrageous (tried to get rid of the head of agency that successfully fought against high level corruption), that we had some massive protest demonstrations that even brought down a government. Since then we've had 3 elections (including parliamentary elections and extraordinary parliamentary elections initiated by a referendum) and 5 referenda in just 5 years - and the changes are now massive.  " Old"  political parties have been thrown out of parliament or marginalised, the citizens are now much more politically aware and do not tend to vote for a political party just because it offers something populist.   But that doesn't mean that each time somebody called people to the streets, that people come.

I am, of course, aware that we in Latvia, had it much better. We had independent justice system to lean on, well-functioning anti-corruption bureau, SOME free media and, most importantly, the possibilities for new political parties to enter politics and replace the existing ones. Still I believe that wouldn't have mattered so much, if not for similar underlying changes in society that are also happening right now in Russia. There is an ongoing generation change - people who've lived in relatively prosperous circumstances, who've been abroad, who have much wider circle of acquaintance through Internet, who're more and more relying on Internet for daily news updates, - are different to the rest. The encouraging thing is that they are more and more  becoming  the opinion leaders also for the rest of society.

To my mind there are several lessons:

1) Once the most active and educated part of citizenry has woken up politically, it is close  to impossible to put it to sleep.  This never means that they will be prepared to take part in any protest activity there is, but that does mean that  politicians, public officials will have less and less scope for outrageous behaviour that was tolerated previously. When people have felt their power, they are not willing to settle with their silence taken for granted anymore. Eventually these new expectations will reach the decision makers themselves and even the most corrupt ones will change in a positive way (make no mistake - they still will be corrupt, but will be forced to be less blatant and more ingenious about this; to my mind that is a progress, because it signals that corruption has become socially unacceptable - and, if so, it gets easier to fight against it by introducing systemic changes and to replace corrupt officials)

2) Once a large part of citizenry (any - if those are the most progressive part of the society - by large I mean 2-5%) has become politically aware and are not willing to tolerate outrageous behaviour by public officials, their attitudes spread slowly but surely (in case of Latvia - it took approximately 3-4 years) to the majority of society. The changes come when it gets less and less socially acceptable to vote for a specific party, a candidate. Not that their competition should be perceives as ideal, but as " lesser of evils". When the most " evil"  parties/candidates are out of politics, then and only then it will be possible to seriously expect the politics/elections of ideas. That's what the last 3 rounds of parliamentary elections have shown in Latvia.

3) Every opportunity to improve your democratic institutions (courts, media, ways of mobilising people, conditions of political competition, guarantees of basic rights) should be used and encouraged. If it's not possible within the system, Internet can be used for online petitioning, activities etc. You never know which will be deciding factor which will set on the snowball effect, when changes start being inevitable. To my mind, for Latvia The Moment was introduction into constitution the possibility to call for new parliamentary elections via referendum. The political class was never quite the same afterwards. For other societies it might be something else. But don't hope or plan for one decisive breakthrough - the nonrevolutionary changes are always incremental. But even incremental changes add up to much. And sometimes it takes less time than you expected. If I remember myself thinking about politics in the beginning of 2007, I'd never have believed that by the beginning of 2012 so much would have changed.

Best lesson of yesterday

A picture found on google+

I'm not even so much fascinated by this short-film, as by the neverending human ability to find itself, the best traits of humanity, even in self-made or natural objects. There seems to be a deep need within us for empathy towards everything, for endowing even the inanimate objects with deeper meaning. If we are so inclined to humanize objects, that means that that it would also be in our nature to stop dehumanizing real human beings.

"Kara"  by Quantic Dream

They must be having some sort of a death wish...   That's what happens every spring on the rivers of Latvia.

Dance

Baby, dance

Like the world is ending

Dance

Baby, dance

Like the world is ending

Dance

Baby, dance

'Cause the world is ending

(Awolnation; "Knights Of Shame")

I'm sitting at the conference on the government integrity organised by Delna (local Transparency International branch). What I'm hearing here, just adds to my impression, that we as a society have done well. Despite being very critical about ourselves, there has been a tremendous progress regarding independence of the courts, fight against corruption, state building. Latvia in 2012 is  a well functioning democracy. Yet we could do even better- there is still some way to go institution-wise, but it seems we're geting there. Democratic values - it takes more time, but I'm optimistic about our prospects.

"But although the content of public writing and performance was spectacularly metamorphosed by the fall of Hitler, Mussolini and the followers, the tone stayed much the same." 
Thomas Judt writing abut the post-WW2 intellectuals (Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945")


Is it just me or would this observation refer also to post-soviet Europe? The same people who were involved in soviet propaganda one day just changed the subject matter - instead of raving about communism, they started to rave about democracy. Or nationalism. But the tone, the manner of speaking didn't change - lots of pathos, exalted means of expression, "you are either with us or you're an enemy" way of thinking. In my opinion, that did a lot of harm to our democratic beginnings. Democracy is not just about publicly proclaiming " correct"  values, it's even more about being calm and  tolerant towards differing views, attempts to find compromises. As the recent referendum on a very sensitive subject (one state language or two state languages) has demonstrated clearly in case of Latvia - we're still not there. In times of stress, there are still too many whose natural impulse would be to turn to propaganda.

For some reason whenever I see somebody doing anything against the crowd for a principled reason, I get goose bumps. Irrespective whether I agree with the message or not.

I esteem oh so highly the sheer bravery it takes a person to stand up and say to the majority, opinion leaders, the strong: you're having it wrong. When somebody knows that The Crowd is not behind him/her, that it might even turn against him, but he's still doing what he considers to be the Right Thing.

I get mad, I get absolutely raving mad when such people are being shouted down, spit at, ridiculed.   In my mind - crimes against bravery, against idealism - are the second worst crimes one can commit, just after the violence.