CONSTITUTIONALISM IN LATVIA, ESTONIA AND LITHUANIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Spread the love

Post Views: 511

This article is written by Saveri Sourabh Sharma of NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

INTRODUCTION

Modern democracies are based on the idea of constitutionalism, which holds that restricting political authority via a written constitution is essential. Over the last several decades, the Baltic States, which are made up of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, have seen substantial political changes, and their constitutional frameworks have been crucial in forming their democratic institutions.

The Baltic States entered a new phase with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. After more than fifty years of Soviet domination, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania gained their independence. The creation of constitutional frameworks to serve as a legal foundation for the new political and social order went hand in hand with the process of creating a new state. The promotion of the rule of law, democracy, and human rights were among the main aims of the new constitutions while they were being written in the context of the democratic transition.

This comparative study examines how the constitutions of the Baltic States have changed since they gained their independence from the Soviet Union and how these changes have affected the political systems in each country. The essay also looks at the constitutional provisions’ parallels and divergences, the judiciary’s function, and the defence of basic freedoms and rights.^[1]

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CONSTITUTIONALISM IN LATVIA, ESTONIA, AND LITHUANIA

The Baltic nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have long practised constitutionalism. The parliamentarism issue and the search for other systems of administration quickly supplanted the first constitutional romanticism of the interwar period in Europe. The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia was approved in 1922 and was in force until it was suspended by Krlis Ulmanis’s authoritarian regime in 1934.^[2] The Latvian constitutional system is still in effect, and the Constitution, which describes the actions of Latvian patriots and politicians that pose dangers to Latvia’s statehood, will always be linked to Latvia’s statehood.

In a declaration on the restoration of the nation’s independence in 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia declared the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia of 1922. Georgian, Lithuanian, and Estonian constitutional legislators saw the restoration of the earlier constitutions as a political rationale, upon which the maintenance of the constitutions was based.^[3]

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are three countries that display a range of inventive constitutional solutions with the Baltic States’ sui generis constitutional solutions standing out in this respect. These solutions relate to the framework and practical implementation of the system of separation of powers. The presidents of the Baltic States have a range of duties and powers, ranging from ceremonial to robust semi-presidential administrations.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS OF LATVIA, ESTONIA, AND LITHUANIA

When it comes to the structure of the separation of powers and other constitutional issues, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are three nations with unique and innovative constitutional solutions. Despite having a lot in common, these nations’ constitutions differ significantly from one another. These nations’ historical experiences have had an impact on their constitutions.

Both parallels and contrasts may be seen in the constitutions of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. For instance, the freedom to strike and yearly paid vacations are guaranteed by the constitutions of all three nations. Lithuania has a semi-presidential form of administration, whereas the constitutions of Estonia and Latvia have parliamentary systems. The president of Latvia participates more actively in the legislative process than the president of Estonia, who just has a ceremonial function. Both ceremonial and executive authority are vested in Lithuania’s president.^[4]

Constitutional Framework of Latvia –

The present-day constitution of Latvia was first approved in 1922 and then revised in 1991 when the nation gained independence from the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers are given executive authority under the Latvian Constitution, which provides a parliamentary form of government. 100 individuals are elected to the Saeima, the Latvian parliament, for terms of four years.
The Saeima elects the President of Latvia, who is the head of state, to a four-year term.
The freedom of expression, assembly, and religion are only a few of the individual rights and liberties that the Latvian Constitution provides. ^[5]

Constitutional Framework of Estonia –

After Estonia gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, the country’s present constitution was ratified.
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers are given executive authority under Estonia’s parliamentary form of government, which is established under the country’s constitution.
The Riigikogu, or parliament, of Estonia is made up of 101 elected representatives who serve terms of four years. The President of Estonia is chosen by the Riigikogu to serve a five-year term as head of state.
The right to a fair trial, the right to an education, as well as the freedom of opinion, conscience, and religion, are all guaranteed under the Estonian Constitution.^[6]

Constitutional Framework of Lithuania –

After Lithuania gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, the country’s present constitution was enacted.
The President and the Prime Minister both have a portion of the executive authority under Lithuania’s semi-presidential form of government.
The President of Lithuania is chosen by the people to serve a five-year term as head of state. 141 individuals are elected to the Seimas, the Lithuanian legislature, for terms of four years.
The freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and the right to practise one’s religion are all guaranteed under the Lithuanian Constitution.^[7]

The constitutions of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been influenced by their historical experiences. During five decades of Soviet rule in these countries, the State continuity doctrine undermined the legality and legitimacy of their constitutions. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, these countries regained their independence and adopted new constitutions. The constitutions of these countries have been amended over time to reflect changes in their political and social environments.^[8]

Overall, each of these Baltic states has a unique constitutional framework that reflects its history, culture, and political values. These constitutions provide a strong foundation for democratic governance and the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

Table of Contents

KEY FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF LATVIA, ESTONIA, AND LITHUANIA

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the three Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania reclaimed their independence. Each of the three nations has a constitution that sets down the major governing bodies and governs the rights, liberties, and responsibilities of the populace.Some fundamental aspects of the constitutions of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are similar, while others are different.

The Latvian Constitution, commonly known as Satversme, is the sixth-oldest still-in-force republican fundamental legislation in the world and the oldest Eastern or Central European constitution. On 15 February 1922, the Latvian people, as they were represented in the Constitutional Assembly of Latvia, accepted it. It went into effect on 7 November 1922.

The Weimar Constitution of Germany and the Federal Constitution of Switzerland both had a significant impact on the constitution. The chapter on basic human rights was only included by a constitutional amendment in 1998. Although the original language had two sections, the second portion, which governed citizens’ rights, freedoms, and duties, narrowly failed to pass. The Saeima (parliament), the State President, the Cabinet of Ministers, the Courts, and the State Auditor are all established under this law. After recovering its independence, Latvia reinstituted its post-war constitution.^[9]

Both Latvia and Estonia are parliamentary republics. The parliament, the president, and the local government system are all prominently included in the Estonian constitution.^[10]

In June 1992, Estonians approved a new constitution by a popular vote. Congress and the Popular Front, both of which were involved in the founding of the Constitutional Assembly, reached an agreement on it. Supporters of a more powerful president and those who preferred a parliamentary system engaged in the major conflict.

A new constitution was also enacted by Lithuania in 1992. The functions of the president, parliament, and other governmental institutions are strongly emphasised in Lithuania’s constitution.

The constitutions of all three Baltic States create a system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative departments of government, with the judiciary being crucial in interpreting and upholding the law. They both adhere to the idea that everyone should be treated equally before the law and be given the same rights and protections.

Despite sharing many characteristics, such as being influenced by historical events, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania’s constitutions have a great deal in common. Although the constitutions of the Baltic States each have their own distinctive elements, they all share a dedication to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. The concept of separation of powers, the framework, as well as practical expression in political life, are examples of sui generis constitutional solutions found in these states’ constitutions.These parallels are a result of the Baltic States’ shared struggles to overcome Soviet rule’s legacies and build autonomous, democratic societies.^[11]

ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONALISM IN THE BALTIC STATES

As the body charged with applying and interpreting the law in line with the ideals and principles embodied in the constitutions of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the judiciary is vital to maintaining constitutionalism in the Baltic States.

The judiciary is in charge of ensuring that the constitution is upheld, safeguarding human rights, and fostering national harmony. All three of the Baltic States’ governments must abide by the independent, impartial judgements of the court. This indicates that the court has the authority to examine the legality of legislation and executive acts and to overturn them if they are inconsistent with the values and ideals contained in the constitution.^[12]

Upholding the Constitution’s limitations is the judiciary’s constitutional duty. The judiciary establishes limitations on the justification and judgement that courts must use, and it makes sure that the other arms of government do not transgress these restrictions. The ascendancy of courts in a constitution may represent a form of judicial supremacy that remarkably resembles the unchecked rule of men, which the rule of law upheld. The rule of law requires that courts have authority over all other branches of government, including the legislature.^[13]

In addition, the court is crucial in defending people’s liberties and rights, especially when such rights have been abused by the government or other people. The court in the Baltic States is renowned for its steadfast dedication to protecting human rights, and it has played a significant role in ensuring that the governments of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania uphold the rights of all people, particularly minorities and vulnerable groups.

The legislative, executive, and judicial departments of government are each given a specific function under the democratic form of government. In Lithuania, the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government, and the Judiciary exercise state authority; the Constitution establishes the limits of that power.^[14]

To supervise the implementation of constitutional principles in their separate legal systems, the Baltic States created constitutional courts. These courts are in charge of interpreting the constitution, examining whether legislation and government acts are constitutional, and settling constitutional conflicts between the three levels of government. The legal system and the defence of individual rights and liberties are significantly impacted by the judgements made by constitutional courts, which have binding authority.

There has been a tendency towards the judicialization of politics in post-Soviet nations, especially the Baltic States, when higher courts become engaged in “pure politics”5. As courts are more often asked to settle political conflicts and make sure that the other parts of government obey the Constitution, this tendency has given the judiciary a bigger role in defending constitutionalism. Overall, the Baltic States’ judiciaries are crucial to maintaining constitutionalism since they support the rule of law and safeguard human rights.^[15]

CHALLENGES TO CONSTITUTIONALISM IN THE BALTIC STATES

The Baltic States have had to deal with a number of constitutional challenges, including the need for political and socio economic restructuring after gaining independence, issues with human rights brought on by the legacy of the Soviet Union, and a variety of inventive constitutional solutions for the framework and separation of powers.

The governments of the Baltic States continue to face difficult-to-solve human rights issues brought on by the Soviet legacy because they prioritise the needs of numerically small countries that met a tragic end under the Soviet regime over the rights of people connected to that regime.

Despite the fact that constitutionalism has been established and maintained in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, there are still a number of issues that pose a danger to its viability. While some of these difficulties are unique to each nation, others affect all three of the Baltic States.^[16]

Below are some of the challenges to constitutionalism in each country:

Lithuania:

Corruption:

In Lithuania, corruption still poses a serious problem, especially when it comes to the judicial system and law enforcement. This might jeopardise the rule of law and diminish confidence in the legal system.

Media freedom:

The ownership of media outlets by persons with strong links to political parties or corporate interests raises worries about media freedom in Lithuania.

Human rights:

Human rights violations against those who identify as LGBT+, refugees and members of other marginalised groups have been cited as reasons for concern in Lithuania.^[17]

Estonia:

Cybersecurity:

Estonia is a highly technologically advanced nation, making it susceptible to cyber-attacks. Threats to cybersecurity may significantly hinder the efficient operation of its constitutional system.

Russian-speaking minority:

There have been worries regarding the integration of Estonia’s sizable Russian-speaking minority and the defence of their civil rights.

Digital divide:

The digital gap between urban and rural regions, which may result in uneven access to digital services and information, is a problem notwithstanding Estonia’s high level of digitalization.

Latvia:

Corruption:

Corruption remains a significant challenge in Latvia, particularly in relation to the judiciary and law enforcement. This can undermine the rule of law and erode public trust in the justice system.

Political polarization:

Political polarisation may make it hard to agree on important constitutional problems and can result in the judicial system and other institutions tasked with maintaining constitutionalism being politicised.

Minority rights:

There have been worries regarding the integration of Latvia’s sizable Russian-speaking minority and the defence of its civil rights.

Corruption, political polarisation, minority rights, cybersecurity, media freedom, human rights, and the digital divide are some of the difficulties facing constitutionalism in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. To meet these problems, one must be dedicated to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. One also has to take practical steps to advance social fairness, accountability, and transparency.^[18]

CONCLUSION

This comparative study of constitutionalism in the Baltic States – Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania – highlights the importance of understanding the unique historical, cultural, and political contexts that have shaped the development of democratic institutions in the region.

Despite sharing certain common obstacles, such as the legacy of Soviet rule and the need to create democratic institutions from scratch, each nation has adopted a different constitutionalist strategy in light of its particular situation.

For instance, Latvia has placed a strong emphasis on safeguarding minority rights, while Estonia has prioritised technical advancement and e-government, and Lithuania has put a strong emphasis on bolstering the rule of law and battling corruption.

Despite these disparities, since winning their independence, all three nations have made great strides towards constructing democratic institutions and maintaining the rule of law. However, as this research has shown, there are still issues that could have an influence on the region’s chances for constitutional government in the future.

It is crucial for governments to continue to be dedicated to safeguarding democratic institutions, fending against outside influences, and solving persistent economic and social issues in order to preserve the viability of constitutionalism in the Baltic States. The Baltic States can only survive as democratic nations with solid constitutional frameworks by maintaining a focus on these crucial areas.

^[1] Taube, C. (2001) Constitutionalism in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: A study in Comparative Constitutional Law. Iustus Forlag.

^[2] Pleps, J. (2016) “The continuity of the Constitutions: The examples of the Baltic States and Georgia,” Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics, 6(2), pp. 29–44. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/wrlae-2018-0003.

^[3] Vardys, V.S. (1979) “Democracy in the Baltic States, 1918–1934: The stage and the actors,” Journal of Baltic Studies, 10(4), pp. 320–336. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01629777900000331.

^[4] Đorđević, M. (2021) “The presidents of the Baltic states: Comparative overview,” strani pravni zivot, (4), pp. 621–630. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5937/spz65-35047.

^[5] Krūma, K. and Statkus, S. (2019) “The constitution of Latvia – a bridge between traditions and modernity,” National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law, pp. 951–995. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-273-6_20.

^[6] Ernits, M. et al. (2019) “The constitution of estonia: The unexpected challenges of unlimited primacy of EU law,” National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law, pp. 887–950. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-273-6_19.

^[7] Jarukaitis, I. and Švedas, G. (2019) “The constitutional experience of Lithuania in the context of European and global governance challenges,” National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law, pp. 997–1046. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-273-6_21.

^[8] Loeber (1998) “Regaining independence – constitutional aspects: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,” Review of Central and East European Law, 24(1), pp. 1–7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/157303598124666608.

^[9] Ceske, E. (2022) The 100th Anniversary of the Constitution of Latvia, Turaida Museum Reserve. Available at: https://www.turaida-muzejs.lv/2022/02/the-100th-anniversary-of-the-constitution-of-latvia/ (Accessed: April 23, 2023).

^[10] Vardys, V.S. (1979) “Democracy in the Baltic States, 1918–1934: The stage and the actors,” Journal of Baltic Studies, 10(4), pp. 320–336. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01629777900000331.

^[11] Ulikool, T. (2009) Politics and government in Baltic States. Available at: https://www.tlu.ee/opmat/ri/rit6006/institutionaldesign/5_1slaid.pdf (Accessed: April 23, 2023).

^[12] Waldron, J. (2021) “The rule of law and the role of courts,” Global Constitutionalism, 10(1), pp. 91–105. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381720000283.

^[13] Singh, R. (2020) Role of judiciary in upholding constitutionalism, ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349028188_Role_of_Judiciary_in_upholding_Constitutionalism (Accessed: April 23, 2023).

^[14] The constitution – constitutional court of the Republic of Lithuania (no date). Available at: https://lrkt.lt/en/about-the-court/legal-information/the-constitution/192 (Accessed: April 23, 2023).

^[15] Mazmanyan, A. (2015) “Judicialization of politics: The post-Soviet way,” International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(1), pp. 200–218. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov003.

^[16] Bater, J.H. and Misiunias, R.J. (2023) Baltic states, Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states (Accessed: April 23, 2023).

^[17] Human rights in the Baltic countries: Accomplishments and challenges (2018) Tallinn University. Available at: https://www.tlu.ee/en/yti/researchconferences-and-seminars/human-rights-baltic-countries-accomplishments-and-challenges (Accessed: April 23, 2023).

^[18] Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (no date) Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/WR93/Hsw-04.htm (Accessed: April 23, 2023).