In the New Year’s speeches by the President of Latvia, Egils Levits, and the Prime Minister, Krišjānis Kariņš (JV), the people felt distant from society and detached from the actions of the politicians themselves, political scientist Filips Rajevskis expressed his opinion.
As the specialist noted, everything was good when evaluating the speeches of both officials as separate speeches, however, people perceived these speeches through a longer evaluation of the officials’ activities. According to the expert, the address of the President of the State to the people was far from the public, but the Prime Minister was a little closer to reality.
Rajevsky noted that Kariņš had included several topics in his New Year’s address and had not focused on just one issue. In Rajevsky’s opinion, both the form of the speech and what he spoke were important. The Prime Minister tried to express his words encouragingly and in the style of Western politicians.
“What the prime minister said was nice, but the problem is that it is very difficult to put what is said together with reality. We see the government in action and in action. It is completely different from what we could hear the prime minister talk about “There is a feeling that politicians live and act according to some of their principles, but the Prime Minister calls on the society to act differently – to be smart and sensible, with a fighting spirit and so on,” said the political scientist.
In her opinion, if you look at the government and its decisions, the situation is very different from the settings in the Prime Minister’s speech. According to Rajevski, there is a cognitive dissonance between what the Prime Minister is saying and what the government is seeing.
Speaking about the President’s address, the public relations specialist pointed out that the first thing that “caught my eye” was giving a speech while the first person in the country was sitting in a club chair. Rajevski noted that the Queen of Great Britain is doing the same, often choosing a more comfortable place to speak, unlike the leaders of other countries.
According to the political scientist, the speech of the President sitting by the fireplace was an attempt to make the speech more informal, it was an attempt to give a different mood to the speech through the forum.
Rajevski thinks that although the President tried to touch on topics related to the future in his speech, one of the biggest problems was the past mentioned by Levita, such as restrictions and Covid-19. According to the political scientist, the New Year’s address may have given the impression that the same thing awaits us next year. Rajevksis said that at least in this respect, the president failed to motivate or optimize society.
The political scientist admitted that both the Prime Minister and the President had good intentions, however, in the speeches he could feel the distance from the society, moreover, both speeches were separated from the action. A politician can be one in rhetoric, but a public relations specialist said by his actions to demonstrate something completely different.
“People are looking at these speeches in a broader context. The war has been our prime minister for three years, and the president has been in power since 2019. If we look further, we can see the problems. If the speeches were taken out of context, “speeches are perceived from the overall assessment of human performance,” Rajevsky said.
–
