Titavs: Kulbergs not giving enough weight to shared interests in coalition talks

Political commentator Dans Titavs has criticised Andris Kulbergs's approach to government formation talks following the 3 October Saeima (Latvian parliament) elections. Speaking on the TV24 programme “Ziņu TOP”, Titavs said Kulbergs, who is leading the negotiations, does not sufficiently consider the shared interests of his own party and of potential coalition partners.

Talks without a broader team

Titavs drew attention to the fact that negotiations are taking place between Kulbergs alone and individual representatives of other parties, rather than between wider political teams. In his view, this raises questions about whether Kulbergs speaks only for himself or for the whole party, and whether his agreements will have the party's backing. Titavs stressed that it has never been the case that one person leads such negotiations.

Programme host Anita Daukšte suggested that Kulbergs reads Article 55 of the Satversme (Latvia's constitution) very literally. It states that the Cabinet of Ministers is formed by the Prime Minister and the ministers he invites. The constitution does not separately mention party leaders, although government formation must take into account party interests and mutual relations. Daukšte noted that if Kulbergs does not invite other leaders of the “United List”, including Edvards Smiltēns, Edgars Tavars and representatives of the Liepāja party, he is effectively deciding what role they will have.

“Misunderstanding of the process”

Titavs was more inclined to think the problem was not a deliberate sidelining of others but a lack of understanding of the political process. He suggested Kulbergs believes he has won the election and now personally controls 41 votes. The commentator called this a misconception: each deputy has their own views, so the votes are not one person's property.

If Kulbergs fails to get his parliamentary group in order and secure its united support, his position could quickly weaken, Titavs warned. He argued that the participation of party leaders and group heads is not a matter of courtesy but shows that a team with a shared political position is at the table. At the moment, he said, he does not see such unity.