Independent statehood
Politics
After achieving independence, the Baltic countries faced the need of political and socioeconomic restructuring. Radically parliamentarian constitutions were adopted in all three; the legislatures clearly predominated over the executive. In Estonia a single-chamber parliament (Riigikogu) was elected under a system of proportional representation. The prime minister was also chief of state. The Latvian and Lithuanian parliaments—the Saeima and the Seimas, respectively—each elected a president for their republic. Political parties and groups proliferated, and several dominant parties emerged. In Estonia and Latvia, Social Democrats, farmers’ unions, nationalists, and liberals formed significant political blocs. In Lithuania a conservative Christian Democratic Party dominated. The communist parties, outlawed in Latvia and Lithuania throughout the period of independence and in Estonia after an abortive coup on December 1, 1924, were insignificant.
All three countries developed authoritarian systems. In Lithuania an army coup d’état on December 16–17, 1926, against the ruling populist–social democratic government installed a nationalist regime headed by Antanas Smetona. By late 1929 Smetona, who had the support of the army and the home guard, had eliminated all political parties except his own Nationalist Union and cast himself as the leader of the nation. His regime maintained power until the Soviet occupation of 1940. New constitutions were promulgated in 1928 and 1938. The latter provided for a single-chamber parliament elected for five years and a strong head of state elected for seven years by an electoral college. Until 1938 Smetona based his position solely on the Nationalist Union. The complex situation in foreign affairs, however, contributed to the appointment in 1938 of a broadly based coalition government representing the major political tendencies in the country.
The multiplicity of parties in Estonia and Latvia prevented the formation of stable coalitions. Elections and changes of cabinet were frequent. The average life span of governments in Estonia between 1919 and 1933 was 8 months and 20 days. The political problems were exacerbated by the financial difficulties and unemployment brought by the world economic crisis of the 1930s. Calls for constitutional reform and stable government increased. Right-wing authoritarian groups grew in strength.
In Estonia the “Vaps” (Vabadussõjalaste Liit; “League of Freedom Fighters”), originally a group of war veterans, emerged as a mass anticommunist and antiparliamentary movement. In October 1933 a referendum on constitutional reform initiated by the Vaps was approved by 72.7 percent. The acting president, Konstantin Päts, was expected to prepare an election for president. Instead, on March 12, 1934, Päts declared a state of emergency, dissolved the Vaps, and arrested its leaders. Soon after, parliament was dissolved, and Päts ruled by decree. Päts viewed his role as that of a regent for a parliamentary system and sought to restructure his regime along conservative democratic lines. In 1936 he legalized the regime by referendum. Constitutional reform preceded the election of a new parliament. The lower chamber was dominated (63 out of 80 seats) by the Patriotic League, which Päts had founded in 1935. On April 23, 1938, he was elected first president of the republic.
A similar development occurred in Latvia. The country had become increasingly polarized between the far right and far left. Attempts at constitutional reform failed. On May 15, 1934, the prime minister, Kārlis Ulmanis, declared a state of emergency. He formed a government of national unity from representatives of most of the important political parties and governed by decree. Unlike Päts, Ulmanis did not bother to hold a referendum to legalize his position. On April 11, 1936, he combined the offices of president and prime minister.
In all three countries the new authoritarian regimes drew their principal support from the well-to-do peasants and from the armed forces and home guards. Opposition remained limited. Peasant strikes and workers’ demonstrations occasionally occurred, particularly in Lithuania, but they never posed serious danger to the regimes. The rural populations and business interests favoured the authoritarian regimes. Foreign trade showed a steady increase, and there was a rise of prosperity. Political repression remained mild, consisting for the most part of temporary imprisonment of opponents, especially those from the extreme left. All three regimes based their reason for existence on the need to preserve national unity and to strengthen the position of the indigenous nationalities in their homelands. All three successfully diminished the power of the far right as well as of the far left. Attempts were made to reorganize society on the basis of representative bodies of professions, patterned on the fascist model in Italy. The state-run sector of the economy was enlarged in Latvia and Lithuania.