Prohibition for a professional service soldier to become a member of a political party complies with the Constitution
On 18 October, the Constitutional Court recognised that the legal norms prohibiting a soldier from being a member of a political party comply with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 102 of the Constitution.
The case was initiated on the basis of an application submitted by a natural person on compliance of Section 10, Paragraph two and Section 15, Paragraph one, Clause 1 of the Military Service Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 102 of the Constitution. The applicant requested the Constitutional Court to assess the compliance of the contested legal norms with the right to form and join associations provided for in Article 102 of the Constitution, since the contested legal norms prohibited the person, being a professional service soldier, to become a member of a political party. The application also requested an assessment of compliance of the contested legal norms with the principle of legal equality included in the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution, since the prohibition to become a member of a political party was not imposed on other groups of persons comparable to soldiers.
When assessing the contested legal norms, the Constitutional Court concluded that the respective prohibition for a professional service soldier to become a member of a political party was aimed at ensuring that the National Armed Forces, consisting of soldiers, were politically neutral. The prohibition to become a member of a political party ensures that a soldier is not a member of a political party and therefore does not participate in the acquisition and exercise of political power, does not influence political decisions, and is not used for the purposes of a political party. The Constitutional Court recognised that the political neutrality of the National Armed Forces contributed to the effective performance of the national defence function and thus ensured the protection of democracy and public security.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the benefit that society gains from the requirement of political neutrality imposed on a soldier outweighs the adverse consequences that arise for a soldier from the prohibition to become a member of a political party established in the contested legal norms. A soldier, given the task entrusted to him or her to defend the country, must observe professionalism and neutrality and ensure the protection of the Latvian State and its democracy, regardless of political competition. The contested legal norms ensure that the society can trust soldiers and the National Armed Forces and also rely on the fact that national defence will be ensured in the interests of society as a whole, and not only in the interests of a certain part of society represented by a particular political party. Moreover, in the current geopolitical context, the need for a politically neutral National Armed Forces is of particular importance. The Constitutional Court also concluded that the legislator had not fully restricted the political rights of a soldier and a soldier could express his or her political position even if he or she was not a member of a political party. Soldiers can take part in elections to the Saeima, local governments, and the European Parliament, also in referendums and initiation of laws. Therefore, a soldier is not completely deprived of his or her political rights. Consequently, the Constitutional Court recognised that the contested legal norms complied with the right to form and join associations provided for in Article 102 of the Constitution.
When assessing whether soldiers were in equal and, according to certain criteria, comparable circumstances with the employees of the State administration and employees of the State service participating in ensuring public security and order, national guardsmen, and reserve soldiers, the Constitutional Court concluded that the groups of persons identified in the application were in different and incomparable circumstances with regard to membership in a political party and were not comparable in the aspect of the principle of legal equality. Consequently, the contested legal norms, in so far as they prohibit a soldier from being a member of a political party, also comply with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution.
Linked case: 2022-33-01