Analytics, Latvia, Legislation

The idea of the preamble – to emphasize the continuance of the State of Latvia and to explain why an independent Latvia was established – is not bad at all, said Endzins. Nevertheless, he is skeptical that the preamble is definitely necessary.

The continuance of the State of Latvia is emphasized in the May 4 Declaration and in the Constitutional Law of August 21, 1991, explained Endzins. Likewise, the Constitution clearly states what matters can be decided at national referendums.

The idea of the preamble may have been a reaction to the referendum on making Russian an official state language in Latvia, said Endzins. Some people obviously fear that the Latvian nation cannot decide important matters – but the referendum clearly showed that this is not so, said Endzins.

The preamble will not be a panacea for all Latvia's problems, said Endzins.

As reported, the Constitutional Rights Commission concluded last September that Latvia, just like many other European countries do, should have a constitutional nucleus that Saeima could not amend.

The nucleus should cover the Constitutional existence of the country, its character and democratic system.

The commission also concluded that Latvia's Constitution belongs to that constitutional group whose "untouchable" nucleus is not mentioned specifically in any article of the Constitution, but is understood in and of itself. Therefore the best option is a fuller preamble that includes statements on the meaning and goals of the founding of the Latvian Republic, and perhaps the vision of future development.