Party Analysis: The Union of Greens & Farmers (Latvia)
The Politics of Rural Pragmatism
The Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība, ZZS) is one of Latvia’s most enduring political alliances - and one of its most revealing. Founded in 2002 as a pragmatic coalition anchored by the Latvian Farmers’ Union, and supplemented over time by regional parties and centre-left remnants such as the Latvian Social Democratic Workers’ Party, ZZS has consistently positioned itself as the voice of rural Latvia against the perceived dominance of Riga-centric politics. Ideologically flexible and electorally resilient, it blends agrarian interests, economic conservatism, and cultural caution in a way that has allowed it to survive repeated political realignments.
In the 2022 Saeima election, ZZS secured 12.4 per cent of the vote and 16 seats, marking a return to national relevance after a spell in opposition. Its subsequent entry into Prime Minister Evika Siliņa’s coalition as a junior partner restored ministerial influence, particularly in portfolios tied to agriculture, welfare, and regional development. Yet by late 2025, polling had slipped to around 8 per cent - still above the parliamentary threshold, but indicative of mounting coalition tensions and growing pressure ahead of the 2026 election. ZZS remains relevant, but no longer comfortable.
Why ZZS Exists
ZZS emerged from a structural imbalance at the heart of Latvian politics after independence. While urban liberal and nationalist forces dominated national debates in Riga, large parts of the countryside - particularly in regions such as Zemgale and Latgale - felt underrepresented in policy-making that shaped land use, agriculture, forestry, and infrastructure. The Latvian Farmers’ Union, one of the country’s oldest political organisations, became the backbone of an alliance designed to defend rural interests within a fragmented party system.
From the outset, ZZS prioritised material outcomes over ideological clarity. Its core appeal lay in maximising EU agricultural subsidies, channelling development funds into rural municipalities, and resisting reforms perceived as socially disruptive or administratively burdensome for small communities. This pragmatism allowed the alliance to bridge otherwise awkward partnerships, uniting agrarians, regional powerbrokers, and socially cautious voters under a single electoral umbrella.
The alliance’s adaptability has been both its greatest strength and its defining characteristic. The departure of the Latvian Green Party in 2022 - driven by reputational concerns over ties to controversial regional figures - further sharpened ZZS’s agrarian-conservative profile. In doing so, it repositioned itself less as an environmental-centrist project and more as a bulwark against rapid social liberalisation, appealing to voters uneasy about progressive reforms emanating from urban elites.
What the Party Has Achieved
ZZS’s political record is one of consistent access to power rather than sustained dominance. It has participated in multiple governing coalitions since the early 2000s, often punching above its electoral weight by leveraging its reliability as a coalition partner. Its brief delivery of Latvia’s first Green-affiliated prime minister, Indulis Emsis, in 2004 symbolised the alliance’s early ambition, while Māris Kučinskis’s premiership between 2016 and 2019 demonstrated its capacity to lead government when circumstances aligned.
The party’s 2022 return to the Saeima with 16 seats marked a recovery from political marginalisation and enabled its inclusion in Siliņa’s 2023 coalition. Control of ministries such as Agriculture, Economics, Welfare, and Climate and Energy allowed ZZS to shape spending priorities, particularly around EU fund allocation and rural infrastructure. These portfolios reinforced its core narrative: that competent stewardship, rather than ideological experimentation, delivers tangible benefits to Latvia’s regions.
In 2025, however, ZZS also became a source of coalition friction. Its support for Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention - despite having backed ratification just two years earlier - sparked controversy and underscored its willingness to recalibrate positions in response to its base. Framed by party leaders as a defence of traditional family protections and national legal autonomy, the move unsettled coalition partners and highlighted the tensions between pragmatic governance and ideological signalling.
What Success Would Look Like
For ZZS, success is defined less by vote share than by indispensability. In the short term, this means surviving coalition instability while retaining ministerial influence through to the 2026 election. Remaining inside government allows the alliance to deliver visible benefits to rural constituencies and to present itself as a stabilising force amid partisan volatility.
Over the medium term, ZZS aims to consolidate its parliamentary presence - ideally stabilising or modestly increasing its seat count by mobilising agrarian discontent around EU policy, demographic decline, and regional inequality. Embedding its priorities on agricultural subsidies, forestry management, and cautious social reform into coalition agreements would signal continued relevance.
Longer term, the alliance aspires to remain a permanent kingmaker in Latvian politics - or, under favourable conditions, to lead a government once again. In this vision, ZZS would entrench pragmatic conservatism as a governing norm, ensuring that rural Latvia is not sidelined as urbanisation, emigration, and geopolitical pressures reshape the country.
Electoral Rules and Strategic Constraints
Latvia’s proportional representation system, using the Sainte-Laguë method across five multi-member constituencies with a 5 per cent national threshold, has generally favoured parties like ZZS with geographically concentrated support. Strong rural performances often translate efficiently into seats, particularly when urban votes fragment among liberal and nationalist competitors.
At the same time, the system enforces coalition dependence. No party has come close to an outright majority in recent elections, making alliances unavoidable. For ZZS, this creates opportunity - but also constraint. Its value lies in its willingness to govern, yet controversial social stances risk narrowing its pool of potential partners.
Polling projections suggest that an 8 - 10 per cent vote share in 2026 could yield between 10 and 15 seats - sufficient to influence government formation, but only if ZZS avoids isolation. The balance between asserting identity and maintaining coalition credibility will be decisive.
How Critics See It
Opponents portray ZZS as the embodiment of political opportunism. Progressive and centrist critics accuse the alliance of ideological inconsistency, pointing to its reversal on the Istanbul Convention as evidence of principle subordinated to power. Allegations of regional clientelism, reliance on entrenched local elites, and tolerance of controversial figures have long shadowed its reputation.
Within government, coalition partners have periodically questioned ZZS’s reliability, framing its social conservatism as an obstacle to reform and a source of instability. From this perspective, ZZS is less a defender of the “forgotten countryside” than a brake on modernisation - protecting narrow sectoral interests at the expense of coherent national strategy.
How It May Be Remembered
ZZS’s historical legacy will hinge on longevity. If it continues to shape policy across successive coalitions, historians may regard it as a stabilising force that ensured rural Latvia retained political voice during EU integration and rapid social change. In this telling, ZZS would be remembered as a pragmatic mediator between centre and periphery in a small, centralising state.
If, however, electoral shifts, generational change, or sustained coalition conflict erode its influence, the alliance may be seen as a transitional formation - well suited to the politics of post-Soviet adjustment, but increasingly out of step with an urbanising and Europeanising electorate. Either way, ZZS offers a clear window into how pragmatism, geography, and power intersect in Latvian democracy.