Latvia is the only country in East Europe in which, during the changes of political regime, a new constitution was not admitted. Taking into account the regular actualization of this issue in the politics of Latvia and the dominating orientations in the political culture of the society, the author of the article believes that a discussion about the changes in the countries’ basic act should be continued. While having discussions about the reforms in the Constitution, just the issue of presidential constitution has been in the centre of the researchers’ attention. In most of the suggestions for a reform, we can find a wish for changing the order of electing the president (not of the parliament, but of the nation). Also several East Europe countries have taken exactly this path while reforming their constitutions. The goal of the article is to explore the authority of the president in different East Europe countries (11 EU countries have been included in this research), perform a comparative analysis of this authority, and, through the prism of this research, to evaluate the possibility of constitutional changes in Latvia. The author of this article has made an attempt to answer the question of whether a president who has been elected by the people has to “automatically” increase the amount of power, as it is often considered by the experts in constitutional rights and also by political scientists in Latvia. It is concluded that in Latvia, the president has been endowed with a significantly greater power than many heads of the countries who have been elected by direct elections, for example, in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. The conducted analysis also allows to conclude that the order of presidential elections disallows (at least in East Europe) to make conclusions about the extent of his power or political power. Thereby, an assumption is made that a president who has been elected by the people does not have to ”automatically” increase the level of his power.