One of the current focal points in the Riigikogu is the proposed restriction of voting rights in local elections. From the perspective of political science, this is an incredibly fascinating topic, as it touches on fundamental questions such as who constitutes a political community or what the limits of local government authority are. It is certainly not a matter where there are unequivocally right or wrong choices; rather, it reflects different schools of thought based on varying arguments.

For readers who may be wondering why only citizens can vote in Riigikogu elections, while all long-term permanent residents of a municipality can vote in local government elections, the explanation is fairly simple. The Riigikogu exercises the sovereign power of the state's people – that is, the citizenry – over its territory. In contrast, local governments deal with quite practical issues affecting all residents, who therefore should have a say in decisions such as where to build a playground or which routes buses should take.

Not all countries in the world follow this principle. For example, in Chile, all permanent residents, regardless of citizenship, are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. In Latvia, however, only Latvian or European Union citizens can vote at the local level.

What problem is being solved in Estonia with this constitutional amendment? The explanatory memorandum for the bill is notably vague on this point. It mentions something about protecting the democratic legal order and responding to the changed security architecture. What I have yet to hear a convincing explanation for is this: how does stripping local residents of the most peaceful and legally regulated opportunity to participate in democratic processes improve Estonia's security?

If the reason behind this proposal were that, for instance, people with Russian citizenship make anti-democratic or anti-Estonian choices at the polls compared to Estonian citizens of other ethnic backgrounds, the problem and solution would align. However, in Estonia, political attitudes do not correlate strictly with citizenship. The most recent integration monitoring even shows that the proportion of well-integrated individuals and Estonian patriots among Russian citizens is slightly higher than among Estonian citizens of other ethnicities.

Moreover, as Jüri Raidla, among others, has pointed out, the decision in the restored Republic of Estonia's constitution to grant voting rights at the local level to all long-term residents was based on two key considerations. First, local governments do not make state-level constitutional decisions. Second, the aim was to address any disagreements or dissatisfaction at the representative table rather than on the streets. This seems like a security-oriented argument to me.

Or is this draft law merely an example of pure political opportunism? While it is rarely the sole or primary justification, initiatives to change the composition of the electorate are often driven by parties that expect to gain politically from them.

Based on my research focus, I am quite familiar with the topic of expanding voting rights to citizens living abroad, so-called external voters. In this area, numerous studies have shown that external voters tend to support parties that granted them voting rights.

For example, Spain's right-wing People's Party (Partido Popular), which expanded voting rights to external voters in the 1990s, also benefited from this move. Similarly, Italy's left-wing Democratic Party (Partito Democratico) has long enjoyed significant support among Italians living abroad.

Perhaps the most striking example is Hungary's Fidesz party, which extended voting rights alongside citizenship to ethnic Hungarians living in neighboring countries. Unsurprisingly, over 90 percent of this group's votes went to Viktor Orbán's party.

It is not surprising, then, that Estonia's Reform Party spearheaded the introduction of e-voting in 2005, while parties like the People's Union or the Center Party, which had fewer digitally savvy supporters, opposed it.

Examples of restricting voting rights and the potential political gains from such moves are far rarer since limiting political rights is uncommon in democratic countries. One example, however, might be found in the United States, where the Republican Party has supported reforms that make voter registration more difficult. These changes have disproportionately excluded Democratic voters from the ballot box.

There are also plenty of examples where attempts to reshape the electorate backfired on the initiating party. One of the best-known examples comes from the United Kingdom, where the Conservative Party led electoral reforms in 1867. These reforms expanded voting rights from property-owning men to nearly all male household heads. However, the Conservatives ended up losing the subsequent election.

In the United States, Democrats were ousted from the White House after President Lyndon Johnson expanded voting rights to African Americans. In France, the right-wing UMP (later the Republicans) extended voting rights to their external voters, but those voters largely cast their ballots for the left.

In Germany, the red-yellow-green coalition expanded voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds, only for many first-time voters to support the far-right AfD in recent local elections.

Estonia, too, has its share of cautionary tales. Older generations recall how the presidential election system was once designed to prevent Arnold Rüütel from becoming head of state. Yet, a decade later, he became president despite those efforts.

If the currently proposed restriction on voting rights goes through, Isamaa might gain slightly by positioning itself as the champion of this topic, and the Center Party even more so, as it can rally voters dissatisfied with the amendment. But I honestly fail to understand the motivations of other parties. And it cannot be ruled out that even if the desired partisan goals are achieved in the next election, voters may realign in the opposite direction over time.

As a political scientist, I do, of course, appreciate that the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee has tackled the issue of voting rights so thoroughly. The debates held in the committee, which anyone can review, have been substantive and enlightening on constitutional matters. However, I still fail to understand what problem our esteemed representatives hope to solve with this legislative amendment.

--

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