European Parliament Election Day will dawn just over a month from now. The decisive phase of the elections will soon be upon us. The parties have presented their candidates, we know who they are, as well as that there were no great surprises. We also know, at least in broad strokes, the programs of major parties for these elections and the level of political competition between them.

Entry polls from the Institute for Societal Studies/Norstat and Kantar Emor, which more or less factored in parties' final lists of candidates, landed a few weeks ago. At least to the extent of what we knew a month ago.

The results confirm that it is very likely that five out of Estonia's seven European Parliament seats will go to incumbent MEPs Marina Kaljurand (SDE), Urmas Paet (Reform Party), Riho Terras (Isamaa), Jaak Madison (EKRE) and Jana Toom (Center Party). Therefore, the struggle is over the remaining two places, with SDE, Reform, Isamaa and EKRE all in with a chance.

On one hand, then, it may seem like not much is at stake, since the entire election will boil down to how four parties will distribute two seats between them. But that is only half the truth, if that.

While gaining a seat would constitute a major victory for Isamaa or EKRE, it would be less surprising if neither ended up landing one. It would also be less than surprising were the Social Democrats also to fail and have to give up one of their seats as a result. It could be said, half-jokingly, that rather than the Social Democrats vying for two seats, it is a case of Marina Kaljurand getting enough votes to almost be enough for two.

Landing one of the seats up for grabs is far more important for the Reform Party. The party currently has two European Parliament seats, while its chances of repeating this feat slimmed considerably when Prime Minister Kaja Kallas made it known that the party does not support the candidacy of Andrus Ansip. Sure enough, the latter soon decided to give up his bid.

Losing a place would hurt the already waning popularity of the ruling party even more. It would remind voters of the party's relatively uneven levels of support in society and give Reform's competitors a weapon to be used against them. Additionally, it would be a red flag internally to let members know things are going wrong. Therefore, a lot is at stake over at the Reform Party.

The outline of the struggle for one of the seats up for grabs is starting to take shape. While Marina Kaljurand might also succeed in pulling away one of Reform's seats in its weakened state, the Reform-Isamaa axis will likely be the main one to watch. The latter is the chief alternative to the former in domestic politics, while the latter in turn is what has often ruled the day at European elections, because the European Union and Parliament make for distant and alien topics for most voters.

Two levels can be detected on the Reform-Isamaa axis.

On one hand, general campaign messages, and on the other, each party's program and positions. Isamaa have tried to capitalize on the importance of domestic politics and Reform's currently weak standing with the electorate. They have told their potential voters in no uncertain terms that these elections are an opportunity to judge Reform's government. An entirely logical strategy, considering that a lot of voters already see it that way.

Reform's main campaign message concentrates on Estonian and European security, which they claim to represent. This is also a shrewd approach, as their recent focus on national security and foreign policy served the party well only a short time ago.

It is to be hoped the party can resist the temptation to play the so-called Russia card against its political opponents as such attempts ultimately undermine the political fabric of Estonian society.

These two core messages look in two completely different directions. Security cannot be the key to these elections as Reform and Isamaa see practically eye to eye here. But there are also major differences between the two, the main of which could perhaps be summed up by using the phrase "encroaching federalization" where the EU is concerned.

The EU as an organizations has strong inertia for expanding its influence. Bureaucracies are sprawling affairs by nature, and those in charge are always hungry. This is where Isamaa and Reform sport very different positions.

While the Reform Party feels it's necessary to emphasize that certain policy fields, such as immigration and tax matters, need to remain in the jurisdiction of member states, their program does not perceive growing EU influence as a problem. This is also reflected in certain foreign policy matters where Reform tends to side with those wishing to switch to a majority-based decision-making system.

Isamaa, on the other hand, emphasize that the principle of unanimous decision-making needs to be retained. And, more broadly, that the EU should not move toward federalization where it would have more say and influence over its members.

We have seen Reform back the expansion of the EU's powers and Isamaa call for strict limits also at previous European elections.

The next month will determine the fate of the seats up for grabs. The focus of campaigns will continue to change and adjust in that time. It would be very welcome to see specific EU-level matters addressed, in addition to general emphasis at these elections. More than a few such things could really matter to voters and help turn European Parliament elections into something other than a purely Estonian affair.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!