Op-ed: Outgoing Saeima leaves disputed legacy on lawmakers' compensation and citizenship

In a commentary in the Latvian daily Latvijas Avīze, journalist Anita Daukšte assesses the work of the 14th Saeima, Latvia's parliament, shortly before the 15th Saeima convenes. In her view, the outgoing term has not shown that it can decide matters guided by selflessness and fairness. This is the author's opinion, not the editorial board's. The piece also cites specific facts from the parliament's final weeks. After the election, about two thirds of the deputies will be replaced.

Deputies' compensation

The Saeima is considering an urgent bill to remove the provision on deputies' expense compensation from its Rules of Procedure. The compensation would instead be governed by the Remuneration Law. The amendments change neither the amounts nor the conditions for granting the compensation.

Daukšte notes that the question of housing and transport compensation for deputies not elected from Riga has been debated for a long time. Some decisions have been made, but not fully, and a final solution is again left to the next Saeima. She calls such payments privileges. In her view, pay should reflect the scope of duties and results of work, not how far a deputy lives from the capital.

Payments for those not re-elected

Deputies who were not re-elected will receive compensation equal to three monthly salaries. By the author's rough estimate, this will cost the state almost one million euros. For an ordinary deputy it is about 13,000 euros before tax, and more than 20,000 euros for a deputy who held a post. Saeima staff who lose their jobs when the term ends are due compensation of one monthly salary. The author asks why deputies receive more.

Citizenship for special merits

In its final month, the Saeima granted Latvian citizenship for special merits to Indian scientist Divya Kanan Vishvanata. It relied on a recommendation from Ivars Kalviņš, president of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Daukšte writes that her scientific publications have since proved mediocre, and that her education and doctorate may not be what was claimed. The author stresses that the deputies, not Kalviņš, made the decision, so responsibility lies with them. She also recalls citizenship granted to a Brazilian blogger, Felipe, which she considers a strange decision.