Ir magazine op-ed: each Saeima deputy should speak the oath individually
In an opinion piece in Ir magazine, Lauma Paegļkalna argues against a proposal that members of Latvia's new Saeima recite their solemn pledge together. She says personal responsibility can be assumed only when each person speaks the words.
An opinion piece by Lauma Paegļkalna, published in Ir magazine on 13 November, addresses the solemn pledge taken by members of Latvia's parliament, the Saeima. It was prompted by a proposal made at the start of the new Saeima's first sitting: that deputies read the pledge together to save time and start work sooner. The author disagrees.
An oath as a personal commitment
Paegļkalna notes that the oath tradition is very old. As one of the earliest known written examples, she cites the ruler of the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, Eannatum, who made the ruler of neighbouring Umma swear to respect agreed borders. She argues that an oath publicly fixes a commitment and sets out accountability for breaking it. In her view it adds personal responsibility to legal rules, and where the state cannot check on officials, only the given word operates.
In Latvia the text of the pledge for Saeima deputies and for the President is contained in the Constitution (Satversme), while the judges' oath is set by law. The author stresses that an official cannot pick which parts of the pledge to say. The deputy's pledge begins with the word “I”, and this responsibility cannot be assumed by a party, a parliamentary group or the majority. If a hundred voices spoke the same text at once, she says, each deputy's personal responsibility would be heard less clearly.
State continuity in the pledge
Paegļkalna proposes discussing whether the deputy's pledge should also name the continuity of the Latvian state and the illegality of the occupation and annexation. At present it specifically mentions sovereignty, democracy and the Latvian language. She links the question to Russia's aggression against Ukraine, arguing that recognising Ukraine's territorial integrity rests on the same principle as the restoration of Latvia's independence.
She also cautions against turning the pledge into a long list of political positions. Any change, she says, would require careful legal assessment and open public debate.
