We cannot quite say that political parties in Estonia shine in terms of their inner democracy. Rather, members are seldom involved in decision-making, while many do not know how to be involved. The Political Parties Act includes no in-house democracy requirements, and members themselves can at times value effectiveness over the legitimacy of decisions.

But [EKRE leader] Martin Helme's announcement that the party will kick out a rival chairman candidate just six days before in-house elections and put to vote changes to statutes, according to which the board will be assembled by the chairman and not members, came as a surprise even in this context.

Some have waxed ironic, rhetorically asking the leavers why it took them so long to recognize authoritarian tendencies in the party. However, I understand those who may have harbored hopes to the contrary. Firstly, when Martin Helme ran for chairman four years ago, he promised that in-house decision-making would become wider than a backroom of just two men. He said in the same speech that Estonia could ideally resemble a Baltic Switzerland, admitting in an interview to Toomas Sildam a little later that he especially likes Switzerland's decentralized model of governance, as opposed to the Russian Federation's power vertical.

Secondly, to read EKRE's recent statutes, they go further than many other Estonian parties' relevant rules. In addition to the possibility of electing a new board annually, the party's council and local organizations have extensive powers. But it has to be said that the stories of those who have left EKRE in the past rather suggest much of this democracy is seeming, while it has now become clear that chairman elections are also largely symbolic, not just because almost everyone backs the incumbent, but also because potential competitors are simply kicked to the curb.

Thirdly, looking around in the world, we see that parties considered far-right can have very different organizational models. While they do not compare to left-populist forces where member involvement is the alpha and omega, more than a few parties on the right have built remarkable organizations which favor members' contribution and ideas. Of course, there are also examples to the contrary – the Dutch Freedom Party, which only has two members: Geert Wilders and another NGO also founded by Geert Wilders.

Why did Martin Helme decide in favor of such drastic steps? After all, the possibility of him losing the election was modest at best. Even if EKRE had gotten a new chair, Helme could have spent a year criticizing them only to return a year later. But I suppose only a hardened democrat would think along these lines.

Perhaps Helme was counting on the so-called rally 'round the flag effect. Major crises, such as an enemy attack, help unite people behind their leaders even if they are not otherwise too impressed with the latter. Something to that effect happened a few years ago when the Kallas administration's modest rating recovered after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or when Jüri Ratas' EKREIKE coalition saw its rating grow when the coronavirus crisis hit.

We can hear a fair bit of grumbling coming from inside EKRE and among its backers. The party's rating isn't what it used to be and election results are falling short of expectations. Whereas dissatisfaction has not just infected the party's moderate wing, with far more radical members, who find EKRE's Ukraine stance to be too soft and pro-West, also leaving. EKRE will likely also lose ground among people who do not care about its ideology and have backed it solely to protest the so-called ruling elite.

None of this directly suggests that the [Helme] family is doing a bad job. Rather, it is part of parties' natural development. EKRE took off as a movement – many joined on the spur of emotion, glad that someone was finally taking their problems seriously, that there is a new and fresh power in town promising change. However, this sentiment can last a few years at best, instead of decades, which is why such movements tend to lose momentum and are left with what they have built in terms of an organization in the meantime. Let us look if only at Eesti 200.

What Helme can perhaps be criticized for is fanning expectations. Constantly promising to become the prime minister's party one fine day might never materialize unless EKRE is willing to take a turn for the mainstream. And the example of the Center Party during the days of Edgar Savisaar tells us that authoritarian leadership is a one-way ticket to isolation rather than to Stenbock House in Estonia. I also struggle to think of a single example from the rest of the world where a political party becoming more authoritarian and radical has helped it land the prime minister's seat. Instead, Geert Wilders, whose party is finally forming a government but who will still not be prime minister, has worked on making his party look more moderate in recent years.

Splits are not exactly unheard-of in parties like EKRE. Different ideas and merger goals have led to departures and waves of eviction both in the Dutch and Austrian freedom parties, the French National Rally, Spanish Vox and many others. Breakaway groups have often founded new parties, some of them successful. But these too tend to have a certain lifespan, with the question of what have they built by the time the novelty wears off remaining as relevant as ever.

--

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