Kristīne Jarinovska Dr. iur., Leading Researcher University of Latvia Popular Initiatives as Means of Altering the Core of the Republic of Latvia 1. Introduction The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (the Satversme) is the oldest Eastern or Central European con- stitution still in force and the sixth oldest still-functioning republican basic law in the world, having been adopted by the Constitutional Assembly of Latvia (Satversmes sapulce) on 15 February 1922. The Satversme provides for various forms of direct popular participation. Besides the ordinary right to elect the Parliament, it sets forth rights – to propose (Article 78 of the Satversme), adopt (Article 78 through Article 79, §1 of the Satversme), and repeal (articles 72 and 74 of the Satversme) ordinary law; – to propose (Article 78 of the Satversme), adopt (Article 78 and Article 79, §1 of the Satversme), and repeal (articles 72 and 74 of the Satversme) amendments to the Satversme, which includes a right to approve amendments made by Parliament to the core articles—1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 77—of the Satversme (Article 77 of the Satversme); – to propose (articles 14 and 48 of the Satversme) and decide on recalling the Parliament (Article 48 of the Satversme); – to decide on removing the President instead of recalling the Parliament, if the President proposes a recall (Article 50 of the Satversme); and – to decide on participation in the European Union, including to discontinue participation (Article 68, §3 and Article 79, §2 of the Satversme), and on terms of participation in the European Union (Article 68, §4 and Article 79, §2 of the Satversme). There are some limitations in respect of subjects of referenda and time for organising a referendum, yet they are few. Means of legislative referenda are not to be used for decision on matters related to ‘the Budget and laws concerning loans, taxes, customs duties, railroad tariffs, military conscription, declaration and commencement of war, peace treaties, declaration of a state of emergency and its termination, mobilisation and demobilisation, as well as agreements with other nations may not be submitted to national referendum’ (Article 73 of the Satversme), with the exception of certain questions of the European Union. As to confi - dence referenda, electors’ right to propose recalling Parliament ‘may not be exercised [for] one year after the convening of the Saeima [the Latvian Parliament] and one year before the end of the term of offi ce of the Saeima, during the last six months of the term of offi ce of the President, as well as earlier than six months after the previous national referendum regarding recalling of the Saeima’ (Article 14 of the Satversme). 152 JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL XX/2013 Popular Initiatives as Means of Altering the Core of the Republic of Latvia Kristīne Jarinovska The most popularly disputed form of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters. Although the wording of the Satversme seems to limit legislative referendum in respect of certain matters, recent developments show that, in practice, there are no limitations on matters decided upon by legislative referendum. To illustrate this, the author will describe three initiatives for referendum on consti- tutional amendments—fi rst, on limiting educational rights; second, on introduction of Russian as a second offi cial language and thus making changes to the core of the Republic of Latvia; and, third, on affording of citizenship to as many as 280,584 non-citizens, accounting for 13.74% of all residents of Latvia.*1 Although those initiative failed—in the fi rst case, during collection of signatures, the second as a result of a popular vote; and in the third case, after the Central Election Commission stopped further organising actions in respect of submission of a request by 10,000*2 people to—they refl ect historically and theoretically ascer- tained*3 defi ciencies of direct popular participation, which border on violation of human rights and reckless questioning of the state’s sovereignty. 2. Language of education The constitutional content of educational rights in the current Latvian legal framework was long neglected and regarded as self-evident. Although the content was altered through lower external normative acts, this was not carried out to such an extent as would signifi cantly reduce the level of protection of educational rights achieved or come into contradiction with other norms of the Satversme. An initiative to organise a referendum to limit state funding for education on the basis of language of education with effect from 1 September 2012 was the fi rst and, thus far, only constitutional development of Article 112 of the Sat- versme.*4 Whilst the initiative ended on 9 June 2011 with an insuffi cient number of signatures (120,433 out of the 153,232 necessary)*5, it raised multiple questions as to how the resolution of confl icts of consti- tutional norms would have been handled if the initiative had resulted in amendment of the Satversme and as to determination of the margin of appreciation of the Central Election Commission for consenting to the initiative and starting to collect signatures for organising a referendum. The initiative proposed that primary and secondary education in the state language be ensured within the space of a year.*6 The initiators planned by this means to put an end to bilingual education or at least to scale it down to a minimum*7, thus leaving it to privately owned education institutions and their determina- tion of tuition fees.*8 1 Centrālās statistikas pārvaldes datu bāzes, ISG09. Pastāvīgo iedzīvotāju valstiskā piederība 2012. gada sākumā [‘Database of the Central Statistical Bureau, ISG09: Residents by nationality at the beginning of 2012’]. Available at http://data.csb. gov.lv/ (most recently accessed on 14.10.2012) (in Latvian). 2 Article 23 (1) of the law ‘On popular referendum, law initiative, and initiative of citizens of the European Union’. Par tautas nobalsošanu, likumu ierosināšanu un Eiropas pilsoņu iniciatīvu. – Latvijas Vēstnesis, 20 April 1994, No. 47 (178) (in Latvian). 3 M. Suksi. Bringing in the people. A Comparison of Constitutional Forms and Practices of the Referendum. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993, pp. 40–125, with the most notorious examples being given on pp. 93–103. 4 Article 112 of the Satversme provides that ‘[e]veryone has the right to education. The State shall ensure that everyone may acquire primary and secondary education without charge. Primary education shall be compulsory’. 5 Par parakstu vākšanas likuma “Grozījumi Latvijas Republikas Satversmē” ierosināšanai rezultātu: Centrālās vēlēšanu komisijas 2011. gada 21. jūlija lēmums Nr. 34 [‘On the results of collection of signatures for initiating the law “Amendments to the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”: Decision of the Central Election Commission of 21 July 2011, No. 34’]. Available at http://web.cvk.lv/pub/public/30044.html (most recently accessed on 14.10.2012) (in Latvian). 6 The draft amendment to Article 112 of the Satversme provided: ‘Everyone has the right to education. The state shall ensure that everyone may acquire primary and secondary education without charge in the state language. Primary education shall be compulsory.’ The draft of the amendment to the Satversme provided also this transition provision: ‘From 1 September 2012, all education institutions of the state and local governments ensure education, starting with the fi rst year of primary education, in the state language’. See Grozījumi Latvijas Republikas Satversmē: likumprojekts Centrālajai vēlēšanu komisijai parakstu vākšanai [‘Amendments to the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, draft submitted to the Central Election Com- mission for collection of signatures’]. Available at http://web.cvk.lv/pub/public/29883.html (most recently accessed on 9.12.2011) (author’s translation from Latvian). 7 Saruna ar Raivi Dzintaru [‘Interview with Raivis Dzintars’]. – Latvijas Avīze, 11 May 2011 (in Latvian). 8 On state subsidies to private education, see ‘On the compliance of Section 59 (second paragraph, second sentence in the part on participation in fi nancing private education institutions if the programs are implemented in the offi cial language) of the Education Law with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution) and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (as being read in conjunction with Article 2 of the First Pro- tocol)’ (judgement of the Constitutional Court of Latvia of 14 September 2005 in case 2005-02-0106). – Latvijas Vēstnesis, JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL XX/2013 153 Popular Initiatives as Means of Altering the Core of the Republic of Latvia Kristīne Jarinovska According to the Constitutional Court of Latvia, the intent of initiators to organise a referendum can- not entail repeal of ‘the principle of wholeness of the Satversme’ that ‘prohibits interpretation of separate norms of the Satversme as isolated from the other Satversme norms, because the Satversme as a docu- ment, which is a cohesive whole, infl uences the contents and sense of the norm’*9. This means that at least the basic human rights and general principles of law listed in the Satversme—such as the right of minorities to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity*10, the rights of a child*11, and the right to equality and non-discrimination*12, not to mention the principles of proportionality*13, legal certainty, and legitimate expectations*14—have to be honoured in the interpretation of all proposed amend- ments. Additionally, the state is obliged to maintain, if not increase, the level of protection of basic human rights.*15 Therefore, even if the above-mentioned referendum had been organised and the Satversme had been amended, the result would not have been compliant with the initial intent of its initiators, on account of the necessity to ensure basic human rights and the level of protection of those rights achieved.