Opinion/Ilona Bērziņa
The collapse of Evika Siliņa’s government was ultimately triggered by The Progressives — a party that for years positioned itself as a modern, competent and values-driven political force. But once ideological slogans had to be transformed into practical governance, a very different picture increasingly emerged: lack of experience, chaotic communication, political self-righteousness and an inability to manage crises.
BNN examined how The Progressives performed in leading the defence, transport and culture sectors within Siliņa’s government.
Lack of stability in the defence sector
Defence is an area where society reacts sharply to mistakes because national security is at stake. In the case of former Defence Minister Andris Sprūds, the main criticism was not just about one specific drone or one isolated incident, but rather the overall impression that under his leadership the ministry was unable to respond convincingly enough to the new security reality.
The most visible criticism concerned drone incidents in Latvian airspace. After several cases in which unmanned aerial vehicles entered Latvia — including the infamous “friendly drone” incident — both the opposition and later even the Prime Minister accused Sprūds of failing to prepare the defence sector quickly enough for this type of threat. Sprūds was also repeatedly accused of misleading the public regarding the existence of an effective anti-drone system.
Another major criticism concerned Sprūds’ management style and the lack of stability within the ministry itself. During his tenure, two state secretaries left the ministry. At the end of 2023, long-serving State Secretary Jānis Garisons resigned, citing disagreements with the minister. Later, his successor Aivars Puriņš also stepped down.
There was also noticeable staff turnover and the departure of experienced professionals from the sector. Public discussion increasingly focused on why experienced employees were leaving the Defence Ministry and whether the institution had become “stuck in bureaucracy.” When both long-time professionals and senior officials leave a strategically important ministry, it inevitably raises questions about whether the minister is capable of maintaining a strong team.
As a result, Sprūds can be criticized not only for mistakes related to drone incidents, but also for his inability to convincingly lead the sector during a crisis, retain top-level professionals, and create a sense of security in society at a time when security is Latvia’s most important issue.
In the Transport Ministry — Rail Baltica, airBaltic and carrier crises
Even more unpopular in the public eye than Sprūds was Transport Minister Kaspars Briškens. The names Rail Baltica and airBaltic became associated with unclear costs, communication failures and delays — symbols of how good ideas do not always translate into good governance.
One of Briškens’ biggest weaknesses was communication. He was publicly criticized over both airBaltic and Rail Baltica by President Edgars Rinkēvičs and Prime Minister Siliņa herself. Once the enormous cost overruns and funding uncertainties became visible, Briškens was accused of speaking more like a defender of the project than a crisis manager.
The conclusions of the parliamentary inquiry commission into Rail Baltica also mentioned Briškens among officials who had made significant mistakes in the management of the project.
He was further criticized over the crisis involving Vivi trains. Delays, poor communication and operational chaos became symbols of a sector lacking coordination.
Meanwhile, Briškens’ successor Atis Švinka faced criticism over conflicts with passenger transport operators. Carriers accused both Švinka and the Transport Ministry of forcing the sector to operate for years under conditions where inflation, fuel and wage costs continued to rise while the government refused to revise long-term contracts. The conflict escalated to the point where the Latvian Passenger Carriers Association openly demanded Švinka’s resignation.
The transport sector became one of the clearest examples of why The Progressives were increasingly accused of a disconnect between ideas and governance. The party promotes a modern mobility vision, but in practice many people saw delays, conflicts, unclear communication, rising costs and chaos rather than a modern transport system.
In culture — lack of experience
The main criticism directed at The Progressives’ first Culture Minister Agnese Logina concerned the use of the Russian language in public media. National Alliance demanded her resignation after she publicly suggested that public media should continue offering Russian-language content even after 2026.
Logina eventually resigned for what were described as “personal reasons,” and The Progressives nominated Agnese Lāce as her replacement. However, the resignation itself became a problem. Had Logina clearly explained her reasons for leaving, the issue might have faded quickly. Instead, the lack of transparency fuelled speculation. Even the Constitution Protection Bureau had to publicly clarify that Logina had not lost her security clearance.
Lāce inherited the sector during a period of financial shortages, and the defence of cultural funding within government often appeared insufficiently strong. Within the framework of the 2026 budget, cultural sector funding was reduced by 2.9 million euros. At the same time, wages in the cultural sector have long lagged behind inflation, and additional cuts further threaten access to culture.
Lāce was also criticized for strained communication with the media sector, particularly regarding the Media Support Fund. Publishers, in an open letter, urged the government not to approve proposed changes to the fund’s operations in 2026, arguing that the reforms had been prepared without taking into account the sector’s repeated calls for gradual transition and stability. According to critics, the Culture Ministry simply ignored the media industry’s warning signals.
A governing party behaving like an internal opposition force
This has become one of the most serious criticisms directed at The Progressives’ parliamentary faction.
It was the party that pushed issues such as the Istanbul Convention, partnership legislation, progressive taxation and climate policies in parliament.
The party knows how to sharply define problems, establish value boundaries and mobilize its voters. But for a governing party, that alone is not enough. It must also know how to manage crises, seek compromises, take responsibility for ministers and avoid creating the impression that every conflict leads to government collapse.
The Progressives are a party for which ideology often appears more important than pragmatism. In broader society, however, this does not always resonate positively. Many voters increasingly feel that the party pays insufficient attention to everyday issues such as prices, roads, security, business development and the needs of Latvia’s regions.
Read also: Latvian Government collapses – Prime Minister Siliņa decides to resign
The post BNN IN FOCUS | Big ambitions, few results — how Latvia’s Progressives lost public trust appeared first on Baltic News Network.
