The Latvian National Independence Movement (Latvian: Latvijas Nacionālās Neatkarības Kustība, LNNK) was a political organization in Latvia from 1988 till mid-1990s.
It formed in 1988, as the radical wing of Latvian nationalist movement. Unlike the mainstream Latvian Popular Front which originally supported more autonomy for Latvia within Soviet Union, LNNK insisted on independence from Soviet Union from its beginning. The leaders of LNNK included Eduards Berklavs, Aleksandrs Kiršteins, Andrejs Krastiņš, Einars Repše and Juris Dobelis.
After Latvia gaining independence, LNNK became a political party and renamed itself National Conservative Party. It won 15 seats out of 100 in 1993 parliamentary election and was an influential opposition party. In 1993 its candidate for Prime Minister was Joachim Siegerist, who lost by only one vote and ended up second. LNNK won the municipal election in Latvian capital, Riga in 1994 but its popularity quickly faded after that. It lost half of its seats in the parliament in 1995 parliamentary election and eventually merged with Tēvzemei un Brīvībai (Fatherland and Freedom), another right-wing party with similar origins in the Latvian independence movement.
Since entering into a coalition with For Fatherland and Freedom, the party increasingly sought to propagate a particularly 'Latvian' vision for Latvia as highlighted by a series of controversial adverts encouraging the consumption of Latvian goods, and warning of the dangers of non-Latvians
An organization with similar aims and almost identical name - Estonian National Independence Party - existed in Estonia.
Famous quotes containing the words national, independence and/or movement:
“In the past, it seemed to make sense for a sportswriter on sabbatical from the playpen to attend the quadrennial hawgkilling when Presidential candidates are chosen, to observe and report upon politicians at play. After all, national conventions are games of a sort, and sports offers few spectacles richer in low comedy.”
—Walter Wellesley (Red)
“Traditionally in American society, men have been trained for both competition and teamwork through sports, while women have been reared to merge their welfare with that of the family, with fewer opportunities for either independence or other team identifications, and fewer challenges to direct competition. In effect, women have been circumscribed within that unit where the benefit of one is most easily believed to be the benefit of all.”
—Mary Catherine Bateson (b. 1939)
“Later
Some movement is reversed and the urgent masks
Speed toward a totally unexpected end
Like clocks out of control.”
—John Ashbery (b. 1927)