English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
French
German
Greek
Italian
Japanese
Portuguese
Spanish
What is the biggest change of mind you have had since leaving office in 2007?
Ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Empire and the downfall of communist regimes in Europe and the Caucasus, I was truly convinced that the world had been rid of a major evil influence and that things would keep getting better and better. When the crisis hit in 2008, I could hardly believe what was happening, and finally realized that capitalism as a system was also in serious crisis and in need of major overhaul of entrenched modes of thinking and doing.
You managed to help transform Latvia into a more robust nation. How do you take your work in Latvia and apply it to social good? In other words, how do you place big, yet attainable bets to make the impact Concordia seeks to have?
In order to effect major changes, they have to be preceded by major shifts in thinking. The Latvian “Singing revolution” had largely accomplished that by the end of the nineteen eighties. So the first step is to change awareness and to formulate new goals. Only then is it possible to translate these into general strategies, which, in our case, was done after recovering our national sovereignty. Serious work in communication with the electorate is then required to keep everybody on board and to keep moving toward achieving one’s priorities. Unwavering political will is necessary to keep going, even against serious obstacles.
What choices should we be making at the Concordia Summit to make sure the next big idea manages to reach scale, after all, we will be looking at ‘Scaling Proven Solutions Through Collaboration’?
Effective collaboration, with lasting results, can only occur if all partners are on the same wave-length and have the same commitment toward common goals and values. Goals need to be clearly formulated in the first place, but they also need to be constantly rephrased and reformulated in fresh terms, otherwise they begin to sound worn out and tired.
When looking at social impact, how do you negotiate risk and reward, in light of your work in Latvia, how do you maximize bang for your buck?
One has to look for fulcrum points in the existing system and then apply leverage to obtain real results, even if at first the steps taken appear small. The oldest excuse for doing nothing is to say: “Sure, we would like to change, but we need to change the whole world at once, and since this is obviously impossible to do, we will continue to weep and wail, but will not take the first small step that could make a difference”.
When is it appropriate for a government to intervene in the private sector to better a global community? What is the role of government when bringing an idea to scale?
These are the fundamental questions that party politics is all about. More government to take care of every need of every citizen? Less government and a general dog-eat-dog Darwinian survival of the fittest? These are the horns of the dilemma or, if you like, the Charybdis and Scylla between which nation-states and international communities have to navigate.
What is the role of international organizations should be playing in working with governments and the private sector to make real impact?
The sad thing is that there are too many failed or floundering states in the world, whose governments are incapable of protecting their national borders and the lives of their citizens. International organizations can be of use only if their members do not have hidden agendas that encourage both weak governments and armed conflicts. The hidden agendas may be ideological (or more precisely – based on fanaticism), but even more frequently they will be simply matters of profit and geopolitical influence. The best help is that which enables people to help themselves, be this at the governmental or the nongovernmental level.