[Newsletter N.16] A Warning to Europe: What Andris Kulbergs's Victory in Latvia Reveals About Populism

In the 3 October parliamentary election, Kulbergs's United List (AS) won 35.3% of the vote and 41 of the 100 seats in parliament - a post-independence record for a single party or alliance. Turnout was a record-low 51.8%. Latvia's president has asked the prime minister to begin forming a new government.

After just four months as prime minister, Kulbergs had no long-term record in government to offer. Voters saw pace, demands for accountability and a leader focused on results. Their verdict was less a reward for achievements than a bet that he could put Latvia right.

Writing him off as a slick campaign creation would be lazy. Before entering politics, Kulbergs restructured a car dealership during the financial crisis. By his account, staffing fell from 378 to 120 and an €8 million loss became a €400,000 profit. These weren't PowerPoint promises: people lost their jobs. In office, he applies the same crisis-management formula: problem, person responsible, deadline, result. The method has force, but also a price. An airBaltic restructuring he supports could affect 500 - 700 jobs across the Baltics.

Kulbergs also turned his management style into a campaign pitch: 79% of government priorities completed. The arithmetic was accurate - 48 of 61 measures it had set itself - but that does not mean 79% of Latvia's problems were solved. One number, one message: we deliver. The machinery behind the new-looking offer, however, is old.

Founded in 2022, United List combines three older parties: the Latvian Greens, the Latvian Association of Regions and the Liepāja Party. All have established municipal networks and business ties. Their parliamentary representation has almost tripled since 2022. Those networks have not disappeared; they have acquired a powerful new figurehead. Kulbergs once needed United List. Now it needs him more.

The alliance's manifesto puts it bluntly: "Then came the solution -  Andris Kulbergs." Not a better system. A single man. Such personalisation can develop into a cult of personality, with the leader placed above party, institutions, even country - his will dressed up as the national interest. Yet behind him are the alliance's old political and business power brokers. Will he resist them when their interests clash with the country's? Or will his mandate give them greater power to pursue their own?

An August investigation by De facto, on Latvian public television, illustrated how these interests overlap. United List's office and Liepāja Party leader Uldis Sesks helped organise an official ministerial visit to western Latvia. The itinerary included businesses linked to alliance figures; party candidates in campaign T-shirts accompanied Kulbergs at a market. The anti-corruption agency opened an inquiry - not proof of wrongdoing. But the line between official duty and campaigning was blurred. Public office must not become a party campaign tool.

Where does populism enter the picture? Not in those business ties, but in Kulbergs's political story. Competence does not rule out populist rhetoric. On one side are the "doers", supposedly acting for ordinary people; on the other, those who merely talk and obstruct. Once a leader presents his own policies as the people's will, critics become obstacles rather than voices to be answered.

Consider his claim that a single government–NGO council meeting cost €18,000 for "sitting around". The figure came from dividing an annual contract's value by the number of meetings, ignoring other work covered by the contract. It produced a misleading tale of NGO waste. Kulbergs praised the Employers' Confederation of Latvia, where he once served on the council, as a model - although it too receives public and EU funding for advocacy. One group's funding becomes waste; another's is perfectly respectable.

He has also proposed a non-binding referendum on the Istanbul Convention, which addresses violence against women and domestic violence, to establish "what Latvian society wants". But majority opinion alone cannot settle international obligations or human-rights protections. Politicians must still make and defend those decisions.

His next test is coalition-building. Kulbergs says there will be "no room for major compromises". If he means ending the trade in government jobs, good. But if challenges from coalition partners, NGOs or journalists become unacceptable obstacles, that is another matter.

Elsewhere in Europe, the consequences of weakening checks on power are plain. Poland's Law and Justice reshaped the courts and public media; the legacy remains. Viktor Orbán lost Hungary's 2026 election after 16 years, but the system he built did not vanish overnight. In Slovakia, decisions by Robert Fico's government on public media and NGOs have sparked disputes over their independence. Kulbergs is not Latvia's Orbán or Fico yet; the evidence does not justify that comparison. Europe shows what separates a strong country from a country with a strong leader: strong institutions outlast even powerful politicians. Weaken them, and the consequences of a leader's rule may outlast the leader himself.

Latvia is no crystal ball for Europe's elections. It is a warning about a political logic that can travel. France votes for a president and Poland for a parliament in 2027. Promises to "get things done" may resonate there too. The question is what candidates will do when courts, the press or watchdogs say no.

Latvia faces that test now. Kulbergs may deliver reforms others have failed to make. But a country is not a company, and its prime minister does not own it. Election victories and completed tasks can be counted. His political legacy will be measured by whether he leaves Latvia itself stronger.

Toms Ostrovskis TVNET GRUPA Editor-in-Chief

Link : Europe Votes for Change - But What Comes Next?