A state is comprised of its territory, people and power. Territory means borders. The people primarily refer to its citizens. Power is the capacity of citizens to make and enforce laws and decisions that affect both the people living within its borders and the territory itself. What makes a state democratic is the dependence of power on the will of its citizens. If any of these elements erode, so does the state.

The local elections voting rights of Russian and Belarusian citizens permanently residing in Estonia is a fundamentally important issue and touches directly upon one of the pillars of the state. This remains true regardless of Russia's attack on Ukraine. Russia has always been a hostile neighbor to Estonia and there is no indication this will change in the future.

The large number of Russian citizens in Estonia is the result of decades of inaction. The fact that we are dealing with the issue of voting rights for Russian citizens in Estonia now is merely a smaller symptom of a much larger problem.

It is difficult to conceive of any compelling argument as to why Russian citizens should have voting rights in local elections. Especially more than 30 years after Estonia regained independence. More than 30 years after they had the opportunity to obtain Estonian citizenship but ultimately chose not to.

The argument that it would be unfair to take away something that has existed for so long, or that we must refrain from such actions because it would anger Russia, does not address the core of this issue. If we allow our decisions – or indecision – to be dictated by fear of Russia, then our hostile neighbor has already partially achieved its goals.

If the right to vote in local elections is approached narrowly and technically, there would be no need to amend the Constitution. It would suffice to amend the Local Government Council Election Act, as the voting rights of permanent foreign residents are defined within that law.

The primary argument for amending the Constitution is that it would lend greater legitimacy to the decision. It would also prevent any future claims that changing this right through a regular legislative amendment contradicts the Constitution at some general level.

The legitimacy and strength of this decision are further reinforced by the process itself. The current approach involves a fast-track constitutional amendment, meaning that four times as many Riigikogu members must support the change as oppose it. Moreover, passing such an amendment requires a two-thirds majority of the Riigikogu. Therefore, the government alone cannot make this decision if the opposition is directly against it.

The process was initiated by the government, but the start does not look promising. There is no certainty as to whether or when the Riigikogu will reach a decision on the matter. Achieving a cross-party agreement between the coalition and opposition takes time, and currently, no such agreement exists. We have boarded a train without knowing if or when it will reach its destination.

The Social Democrats do not actually support revoking the voting rights of Russian and Belarusian citizens. They favor their own proposal of creating a separate electoral roll for foreign residents, requiring Russian and Belarusian citizens to register and confirm their loyalty to the Estonian state.

Nevertheless, the Social Democrats agreed to join other governing coalition parties in initiating the process to revoke voting rights, while still keeping their initial proposal on the government's agenda – namely, creating special electoral rolls for foreign residents. Under the government's current proposal, voting rights would still be retained by stateless residents, of whom there are tens of thousands in Estonia. This aspect does not sit well with the opposition.

In summary, the government is moving forward with a proposal that is not the top preference of all coalition parties and faces opposition resistance. This does not bode well for the process. Even if it makes initial progress, there remains a constant risk that the effort could become bogged down later – by which point it may be too late to consider alternative solutions.

In such a scenario, the Social Democrats' original idea of creating separate electoral rolls and implementing loyalty checks for foreign residents might come to fruition. This approach would not require a constitutional amendment and could be carried out without the opposition's cooperation. By that point, other coalition parties, led by the Reform Party, would have no choice but to proceed to avoid deep political embarrassment.

One of the state's three pillars is, in other words, in disarray. But where does the second, and democratically most important, pillar – the citizenry – stand? Unlike political power, there is strong consensus among the citizenry.

A survey conducted this spring by the Institute for Societal Studies and Norstat showed that 72 percent of Estonian citizens support the idea that citizens of third countries – whether Russian or otherwise – should not have the right to vote in local elections. This level of support surpasses even that for Estonia's accession to the European Union. Among Social Democratic voters, 62 percent favor revoking voting rights. Only voters from the Center Party largely oppose this idea.

Fundamental questions such as the relationship between citizenship and state power should, in a democratic country, be decided by the citizens themselves.

A clear majority of the Riigikogu wishes to strip Russian citizens of voting rights. Similarly, a substantial majority of Estonian citizens support the revocation of these rights. If this issue were to be carefully put to a public referendum, the likelihood of it failing would be practically zero. Thus, no politician or party that genuinely wants to enact this change should fear such a referendum, as it would not lead to extraordinary elections.

Amending the Constitution via a referendum would grant this decision the highest possible strength and democratic legitimacy. To initiate a referendum, a three-fifths majority in the Riigikogu is required. The earliest the referendum could take place would be three months after such a decision is made. This decision could occur during the third reading of the draft legislation, as would a decision for an expedited amendment. However, reaching the third reading would only be possible in the spring, leaving limited time for everything that needs to be done.

If the government truly aims to ensure that Russian and Belarusian citizens cannot vote in the next local elections, the most certain, effective and democratically legitimate solution would be to put this issue to a public referendum.

The question remains whether we are genuinely focused on making these decisions or merely stirring up dust, ultimately shooting ourselves in the foot.

--

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