RIGA – President Edgars Rinkēvičs has appointed Andris Kulbergs, leader of the AS party, to lead the formation of a new Latvian government, initiating a period of high-stakes coalition negotiations.
The appointment places Kulbergs at the center of a complex parliamentary puzzle as he attempts to secure a stable majority in the Saeima. The outcome depends on his ability to reconcile divergent party priorities regarding human rights, national security, and administrative restructuring within Latvia’s parliamentary democracy.
Potential Coalition Frameworks
The current political landscape suggests two primary pathways for the formation of the cabinet, each with distinct implications for policy stability and Latvia’s coalition tradition:
- Broad Coalition: A partnership comprising AS, NA, ZZS, and JV, which on paper could deliver a numerically stable majority but would span a wide ideological spectrum on social policy and economic priorities.
- Alternative Alignment: A minority government or a coalition in which the Progressives replace NA, potentially easing tensions on human-rights issues while heightening questions about day-to-day legislative support in the Saeima.
Political analyst Ikstens suggests that the success of these negotiations remains uncertain. “It is currently difficult to judge whether Kulbergs will be able to form a government. This depends on several factors, including how he and AS as a whole will negotiate and how the coalition formation will proceed,” Ikstens stated.
He noted that negotiations could proceed “very quietly,” only for the process to fail later due to fundamental disagreements over specific positions, leading to a scenario where “nothing worked out.” Such a breakdown could force President Rinkēvičs to return to other parties or leaders to identify an alternative candidate for prime minister, extending the period of caretaker governance.
Policy Friction and the Istanbul Convention
For a coalition to materialize, Kulbergs must align the parties on three core pillars that will shape the next government’s agenda: security, elections, and the national budget. While these priorities provide a functional foundation, ideological disputes-specifically regarding human rights-present a significant obstacle.
The negotiations are expected to be complicated by the position of the JV party. The Istanbul Convention, a Council of Europe treaty aimed at preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, has historically been a point of contention among conservative factions in Latvia, where debates have focused on how treaty language on gender is interpreted in national law.
“This is a good start. If, for example, during the negotiations AS successfully navigates the traps set by JV regarding human rights, which is obviously a hint at the Istanbul Convention, then coalition formation is quite possible,” Ikstens said. Any compromise on this file would signal how far the incoming cabinet is prepared to go in aligning Latvia’s domestic human-rights framework with European standards, and could define relations with both coalition partners and segments of the electorate.
Administrative Restructuring of the Cabinet
A secondary point of contention involves the structural composition of the government itself. Discussions are ongoing regarding whether to maintain the current 15 ministerial portfolios or return to a 14-member cabinet by eliminating the Ministry of Climate and Energy (KEM), which was created to consolidate responsibility for energy security and the green transition.
Ikstens argued that removing the KEM at this stage would be counterproductive due to the lack of time and the resources required for such a reorganization, particularly as Latvia navigates EU climate obligations and energy-market volatility.
“It is very possible that one simply needs to grit their teeth and work until the elections as is, and then think about whether reorganization is needed,” Ikstens said, though he acknowledged that cutting one ministerial position would offer some fiscal savings. The debate underscores a broader question: whether short-term budget relief should outweigh continuity in managing long-horizon climate and energy policy.
Viability of a Minority Government
The prospect of a minority government has been raised, particularly as the LPV has expressed a willingness to support such a structure from the Saeima benches without taking full responsibility for cabinet decisions. However, this path is viewed as a high-risk strategy for both policy delivery and investor-facing stability.
Ikstens described the move toward a minority government as something that “would not be a far-sighted step,” citing the intense coordination required between the government, the Saeima, and various parliamentary factions to maintain functionality on each major vote, from the annual budget to EU-related legislation.
The analysis highlighted a historical shift in Latvian governance:
- Pre-EU Accession: Minority governments were a more common occurrence in Latvia, reflecting a fragmented party system and lower external pressure for long-term policy predictability.
- Post-EU Accession: The requirement for stability and coordination within the framework of the EU treaties has made such structures less viable, as Brussels-linked reforms and fiscal rules demand consistent majorities.
In a minority scenario, the JV would likely move into a traditional opposition role, refusing to assist the government in resolving immediate crises. While this would be an advantageous position for the JV in sharpening its profile ahead of future elections, it would leave the governing parties vulnerable to legislative gridlock and recurrent confidence tests.
President Rinkēvičs has formally entrusted the formation process to Andris Kulbergs, who must now finalize the distribution of ministerial portfolios and secure a parliamentary vote of confidence. The coming weeks will determine not only whether he can assemble a working coalition, but also what policy compromises will define Latvia’s next governing program.
