Saeima of the Republic of Latvia

Interviewer.

Some time before the Putsch – people usually refer to the two or three-month period before the Putsch – people not only had a premonition about what was coming, but also started to receive some information about what could be expected. Did you have this feeling?

I. Bērziņš.

People talked about it behind the scenes, they said that, of course... and it was only logical. Just as in Star Wars, where the empire had to strike back, it was clear that this empire would strike back in one way or another. I personally did not know that it was about to happen at that particular time.

I learned about the Putsch while in the so-called MPs’ house on Lubānas Street. When I turned on the TV, Swan Lake was on. It was a sure sign that something had happened. In Soviet times, such broadcasts were mainly associated with the death of yet another general secretary, but in this case the situation was much more serious. After the events of January for several months people were talking behind the scenes (as we say nowadays); in other words, people who were fighting for Latvia’s independence and also people who were against it were talking about the possibility of such violent developments. I mean that all these democratic processes – namely, perestroika [restructuring] and glasnost [openness] initiated by Gorbachev – or, to be more precise, processes initiated... or rather dictated by the general political and economic situation, these dictated processes could be violently interrupted. People talked about it. It was clear that a Putsch could be expected.

And when I learned that there really was a Putsch, the first thing I did was to send both of my young children to the countryside – Reinis was two years old and my daughter was even younger, just a couple of months old – for I knew that, well, when everything breaks loose, people might not be arrested; they might be shot on sight. And, of course, as soon as these events started to unfold, I went to the parliament, or the then Supreme Council; I spent all my time in downtown Riga: during these days from early morning till late at night, I was at the Supreme Council; in fact, I spent all three days and nights in the Old Town; we also slept in the Old Town.

Well, and then we tried to acquire as much information as possible on what was happening in the Soviet Union, primarily in Moscow and Leningrad, for at that point we understood that the events... that the development of events completely depended on what was happening over there, not as in January, when decisive activities took place in Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius. If this wheel of history that was turning in what I believe was the right direction and actually that was the right direction – if this wheel were stopped, then reversing the situation would have been very bloody; therefore, we felt that we had no choice. And it was clear that the Baltic States alone could not stop this process. We simply were there to do what had to be done; I mean we had to... here one almost has to quote Kārlis Ulmanis: We had to be where we were. We had to stay where we were, and this is what we did. I know people, for instance, Mr. Dinevičs [member of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia] and a few others who stayed in the parliament even through the nights, not just in January, when we all stayed, but also in August.

It did not make any sense to ask people to defend the Supreme Council at that time. One thing was clear – it would only cause even more bloodshed. If the central government had opted to violently oppress this freedom, this freedom movement, then, of course, they would have used tanks and machine guns, and the people who opposed them would have been simply swept off the face of the earth just as it has happened in many places throughout the world. This is why we did not take any defensive measures.

The Supreme Council... In the beginning, of course, we were kept in the dark, and we were confused; as I said before, we tried to collect bits and pieces of information from Voice of America, BBC and other radio stations to learn about developments in other places. Actually, these Western radio stations were the only available source of more or less trustworthy information. Every piece of information was very important because it clearly showed that this struggle or, to be more precise, the regime’s death throes indicated that it was not possible to reverse this movement. So we tried to obtain the smallest pieces of information, including CNN and other television stations that were operating, in order to encourage ourselves somehow.

However, I believe, at least now when I look back at these 20-year-old events, which, of course, took place long time ago, I believe, and this was the consensus, at least among most of the MPs at the Supreme Council, that the most important thing we could do was to take the decision on renewing total independence. And on this last decisive day, when we made the decision, we had serious discussions in the working group and later also in the parliament. Of course, it is only logical to discuss things in the Supreme Council, in the parliament, for this is what parliamentarians do, but at that time, it was quite dangerous to have this kind of discussion, for we could not know what the outcome of this entire situation was going to be. As I said before, in both scenarios – the Putschists either win or lose – it was important to take the decision on the total renewal of independence, it was imperative to get the Supreme Council, which was the parliament elected by all the people, not just citizens, to vote for the total renewal of independence and discontinuation of the transition period set forth in the Declaration of 4 May, which proclaimed independence and stipulated this transition period. In effect, this would force these violent powers once again to take revenge on an independent state.

Well, this is how we understood the situation. This is why I felt that all these discussions about punctuation and other technicalities seemed to be a bit... well, maybe for lawyers they made some sense, but from the perspective of a freedom fighter and politician, they seemed somewhat trivial. And it turned out that I had the honour and duty to... simply because I went outside and saw the armoured personnel carriers in the Dome Square. So I went back inside, mounted the rostrum and said: “My name is Indulis Bērziņš. I represent the Jelgava voting district. And since in the direct vicinity from the parliament, in the Dome Square, there are armoured personnel carriers and soldiers, it seems that we are running out of time; therefore, I move that we vote on this document, this vital document, in all three readings, to adopt it and have it ready so the people who are nearby (this was the exact wording) will know that it has been adopted. And the more people know about this document, the greater are the chances that the whole world is going to learn about it.” I thought it was important, and this is how the document was adopted: some of us, the majority, voted in accordance with the standard procedure; they were in their seats, they had registered for voting and they simply had to push the voting machine buttons, while some of us, including me, since I was still returning to my seat from the rostrum, voted by raising our hands. This was a normal practice at the Supreme Council.

At that point, the historical implications were the least of my concerns. Later on, I did have some regrets because I was blamed for not voting for independence, although I was the one who... well, I’m not bragging, but it was I who to a certain extent, or even considerably, accelerated the second voting for independence.

Interviewer.

Had the Putsch been successful, would you have accepted an opportunity to emigrate?

I. Bērziņš.

If the Putsch had been successful, I don’t think we would have been offered such an opportunity. Of course, we may speculate about the best-case scenario, according to which, for example, all the freedom fighters are offered the option to flee so that there’s no need to kill them. However, I believe there were people among the Putschists, and here I’m not talking about the top leaders who were sitting at the table with trembling hands, but generally speaking, there were people among them, also here in Latvia, who would have used the opportunity simply to eliminate their opponents. Therefore, I’m not sure if such an offer to flee would have been made.

Anyway, there was no way for me to retreat; I wouldn’t be able to simply coexist with the regime as I had done until, say, the mid 1980’s. There was no way back for me! Of course I had...

Interviewer.

[Indistinctly]... the face of the regime.

I. Bērziņš.

Yes. I believe there were two options: the best-case scenario, or fleeing, as you mentioned, and the worst-case scenario, where I would be forbidden to flee. I personally... At that time it seemed to me that the only option would be to stay here against my will. The only question was whether the punishment was going to be quick and painless, or if I would face a long and torturous imprisonment.

Interviewer.

Would you agree that the Declaration of Independence, i.e., the proclaiming of absolute independence, at the moment when you adopted it was a deeply symbolic act performed from almost hopeless position but resulted in the creation of a new state... renewal of an independent state?

I. Bērziņš.

Yes, in a way I would agree. It was the right thing to do. As I said before, it was the right thing to do in the given situation; anyway, the situation could develop in two opposite directions. We wanted Latvia to be an independent state; in our decision making we were guided by this ultimate goal. If the Putsch had been successful, it would have been the right decision. If the Putsch failed, it would still have been the best decision.