With more than half of MEPs returning to their offices, it is tempting to assume that recent European Parliament (EP) elections in Latvia weren’t worth a deeper look into the process and its outcome. EPP has clear mandate from Latvia and even the new MEPs are too typical for standard composition of any national delegation – a stubborn populist (I. Grigule), popular jornalist (A. Mamikins) and a mild hard-liner (A. Pabriks). Nevertheless, there are at least two and a half facts that weren’t expected even by mature experts.

First fact – „Vienotiba” won. Its victory was so overwhelming that it stunned everyone. Just one week before elections so called social democrats from „Saskana” led by small margin (15.2% vs 14.6%, according to Latvijas Fakti). But at the end „Vienotiba” got 46.1% of all votes, leaving „Saskana” third (13%). It turned out that „Vienotiba” won in all voting districts, including Riga and Latgale, which are considered as strongholds for „Saskana” because of large Russian-speaking communities living there. There are several explanations, of which, I believe, there are two that are most credible.

One is the assumption that of those 30% of voters who actually participated, only those that either care about European issues and policies or have clear political favourites took part. To understand what such statement implies, one has to understand the local specifics. „Let’s go to Europe” or „as Brussels will decide” are such widely used phrases in Latvia that it is very rare when anyone actually notices how fit they are to describe the political behaviour and the choices of local population in the context of EP elections. Despite huge investments, fundamental shifts in governance and widespread „Funded by EU” signs on numerous infrastructure projects all over the country, despite Riga being the culture capital of Europe in 2014, the mental gap is clearly there. To add to this, a substantial part of population is living in the information space dominated by agenda set in Russia. And recent events in and around Ukraine gave advantage to those who prefer more security in stronger Europe. To put it straight – „Vienotiba” is the most vocal pro-Europe party in Latvia and is the top choice among Latvians.

The other is the so called „Dombrovskis factor”. It is not a secret that such a small nation as Latvia usually has responsive agenda on European stage. When first rumours appeared about V. Dombrovkis being one of the EPP candidates to challenge M. Schulz, it was immediately picked up by „Vienotiba” friendly media (i.e., almost all major media channels in Latvia). Compliments from leaders of EPP-led countries such as Germany and UK, suddently made him the next local European-scale political superstar after ex-President V. Vike-Freiberga. For many people to support V. Dombrovskis’ political career in Brussels became a matter of honour.

Second fact – „Saskana” (PES-affiliated party) suffered humiliating defeat. It lost to both principal political adversaries – the center-right „Vienotiba” and in some issues far-right „National Alliance” (14.2%). „Saskana” were courageous enough to part their ways with ex-MEP A. Rubiks’ „Socialist Party” and ex-MEP A. Mirskis’ „Alternative” before elections (~5.2% of all votes combined). And clearly lost some of the votes to more energetic MEP T. Zdanoka’s „Union of Latvia’s Russians” (pre-election polls – 1.2% and result – 6.4%). As put by one of „Saskana” leaders N. Usakovs, they failed to convince their voter to participate. Considering the fact that majority of „Saskana”’s supporters are from Russian-speaking community, not the least important reason for their weak result was the events in Ukraine. As they had to present an equally appealing stand on the issue for both large communities – a deeply contradicting stand in principle, they looked uncertain and slightly lost. Active Russia sympathizers chose T. Zdanoka, who is dreaming of USSR 2.0. And those who were typical supporters of „Saskana” in local politics, most likely chose neutrality in its foreign affairs and ignored the elections at all. Interesting and quite illustrative fact – despite quite visible M. Schulz vs J.-C. Juncker debate, contrary to „Vienotiba”, who clearly supported Juncker, „Saskana” wasn’t able to present M. Schulz as their candidate for the high office.

Finally, the half-surprising fact – low turnout. In general – nothing special for one of the most euro-skeptic nations of the Union. However, even if low turnout of voters was expected, no one thought it would be so low – around 30%, the lowest recorded turnout in recent history. It is rather sad that good weather, assigned voting place and other such silly reasons for not voting overweighted citizens’ right to choose their future. Considering the result of the elections, Latvian way of protest is disdain. National elections in October will show how serious it is.