For over 30 years, the state secretary has served as a balancing force between political and bureaucratic power. Debates on whether the country is truly governed by politicians or by officials are common, and positions often depend on perspective. However, a closer look at the governance system reveals that strong politicians have the ability to lead the country and implement their policies, while wise officials value democracy and allow politicians to make decisions that shape the nation's future.

The recent signs of hastily changing the role and requirements of the state secretary, without public debate or transparency, should raise alarms and prompt many questions. Why is this happening? While there can be a discussion about whether the state secretary needs a legal education and to what extent the Government Office needs modernization, the crucial point is that such decisions should be based on arguments and transparent debate, not political selfishness driven by the prime minister's desires.

Rash, rapid and opaque changes shift the balance of power in several ways.

First, it disturbs the balance of rights, duties and responsibilities between political and bureaucratic power, as well as between the Government Office and all ministries. Second, in the context of Estonia's coalition governments, it shifts the balance from broad coalition governance toward the dominance of a single party. This is a fundamental change in Estonia's governance system.

Essentially, this is an element of state reform, the implementation of which requires long-term and substantial debate and a clear impact analysis. Such a change in state governance was not discussed before the elections, nor is it mentioned in the coalition agreement.

While the coalition agreement does include a section on state reform, there is no mention of the state secretary or the role of the Government Office, which is where this reform supposedly begins. Moreover, the starting point for such a debate must be the answer to the question: why is this being done? Mere claims that the role of the Government Office needs modernization and that the requirement for legal education is no longer necessary are not sufficient.

It's worth considering why legal education has been mandatory for state secretary candidates until now. The reason is that lawyers are specifically trained to resolve normative conflicts, clashes of duties and conflicts between rights and freedoms through the rule of law. This prerequisite has become especially crucial in times of crisis.

Why and how this need has now diminished remains unanswered. It's unlikely that strong organizational skills are the reason, as these should already be a requirement for the current lawyer serving as state secretary. In contrast, finding this capability to protect the rule of law among non-lawyers is much more challenging.

Thus, the problem being addressed at the state level is unclear. What is clear, however, is that not long ago Kristen Michal wanted to lead the largest ministry. He got his wish, and the Climate Ministry was created for this purpose. Once Michal left, the ministry was immediately split into two. For work processes, achieving goals, the officials working within the system, and most importantly, for the people and businesses served by this ministry, this has meant a significant amount of confusion in a short period.

Therefore, we should not follow the same reckless path with the state secretary and the Government Office simply because the prime minister now wants it. Considering that the prime minister should currently have only one priority – the economy – ill-considered and unclear changes to state governance should be set aside, and focus should be placed on what truly matters.

Such actions are dangerous in terms of one of the pillars of our success: the rule of law. Tampering with the foundation of the state in this manner, where the prime minister decides to change the structure of governance and the minister of justice reports, like a pioneer, that they have begun drafting the necessary law, disrupts the overall balance of power and paves the way for further questionable solutions.

The state secretary is Estonia's highest-ranking official, appointed and dismissed by the prime minister but remains an independent bridge between the government and the bureaucracy to ensure the rule of law in governance. The state secretary is certainly not a member of the prime minister's team. Members of the prime minister's team are leaders from his or her political party and, in the case of a strong prime minister, also the members of the government if they can be persuaded to implement agreed-upon goals and the coalition agreement.

The very notion of considering the state secretary as a member of the prime minister's team indicates either a lack of respect for the principles of the rule of law and democracy or a lack of confidence in the prime minister's ability to lead their own team.

The government also appoints, for example, police chiefs, the prosecutor general and several other high-ranking officials, while the president appoints judges. The act of appointment does not in any way make these officials members of the appointer's team. On the contrary, the clear independence of these appointed officials has been one of Estonia's strengths and a cornerstone of its democracy and success.

Political self-interest, where decisions are based not on the interests of the Estonian state and the principles of the rule of law but rather on personal or party interests, increases public distrust in government. The perception that those in power do as they please, prioritizing their own convenience, further erodes the already low trust in politics and politicians.

In summary, changing the educational requirements for the state secretary and altering the role of the Government Office is not the same as adjusting the structure and work plan of a department within a ministry. This is a serious decision akin to state reform, potentially leading to the creation of a prime minister's office, and if this position is filled by a person of the prime minister's convenience, it dangerously concentrates power in the hands of just two people. This reduces democracy because if this "super-manager," as the future state secretary is being portrayed, ends up managing ministers and ministries, the result will be less democracy. The system that has served Estonia well, even during times of more fragile democracy, would be dismantled.

These changes must be immediately halted, and the government needs to focus on the truly critical issues facing the country in the current economic situation, such as broadening competitiveness and making efforts to move towards fulfilling its promises. While the prime minister promised certainty and an end to the festival of proposing new taxes, general confusion and tax decisions that resemble a weather vane are only adding to uncertainty and causing the tax "festival" to pick up even more speed.

--

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