The passing year has once again confirmed the age-old truth that a small country's good intentions are invariably paved with unexpected external challenges. Neither reducing bureaucracy, balancing the state budget nor increasing the tax burden managed to spur Estonia's economy into growth. But the Reform Party knows full well that patience paves the way to electoral victory. Since summer, when the government replaced a prime minister heading for the global stage with one who stays closer to home, the party has confidently set its sights on winning the 2027 Riigikogu elections.

Focusing on economic growth right now would be a waste of campaign potential: growth must arrive at the right time to remain fresh in voters' memories, burying the pain caused by cuts and new taxes. In other words, timing is everything. From the Reform Party's perspective, any economic upturn before next autumn would be premature. Ideally, 2025 would pass in a modestly stagnant state, with the economic surge arriving only in 2026 – just in time for voters to hear it loud and clear.

This trajectory is possible if the public adheres to the tax "truce" proclaimed by those in power. As an old military adage goes: if you want peace, prepare for war. And what better time to discuss taxes than during a tax truce? There are plenty of uncovered expenditures to address, not to mention untapped taxation opportunities. Even if discussions began now, the debate could easily stretch to election day, making new tax decisions less of a surprise or a "great lie," unlike last time.

Using last year's low bar as a baseline, the culture of policymaking has improved this year. However, that previous benchmark was a dismal black hole. Parliament regained partial functionality, obstructionism lost its edge and MPs can once again sleep soundly in their own beds. On the downside, the end of obstructionism has almost entirely erased any semblance of a coordinated opposition. This leaves the ruling majority free to act with impunity, facing little accountability or risk of being held responsible.

Without an opposition, political conflict has become an internal affair within the governing coalition. Although opposition members still exist, the ongoing party-switching – initiated last year and continuing energetically this year – makes it hard to take them seriously.

Power unchecked by opposition risks overreach, undermining democratic norms and veering toward an Orbán-style governance. A recent example is the high-profile verbal attack on the Estonian Academy of Arts (EKA). The prime minister, foreign minister and education minister all demanded, in no uncertain terms, that the university "reassess" (read: cancel) its decision to end a minor collaboration project with an Israeli scholar. Add in comments from MPs using outright Nazi rhetoric, alongside other influential figures and journalists, and this becomes one of the most egregious instances of political interference in university autonomy since Estonia regained independence.

According to Article 38 of the Estonian Constitution, "Science and art, and their teachings, are free. Universities and research institutions are autonomous within the limits prescribed by law." The commentary on the article further clarifies: "Autonomy means these institutions must have broad self-governance rights, protecting them from external – especially state – interference."

Public universities are thus legally shielded from political micromanagement or, worse, ideological oversight. While I personally find EKA's decision unnecessary and believe it could have been communicated better, the university should not have to endure threats like the one made by Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200): "I hope the governing board of this institution takes a moment to reflect on what a state-funded educational institution is actually doing. That's also a national message." So, what is the message? That funding will be pulled if the university doesn't comply?

Such a "state message" is entirely unacceptable. One might now ask whether any politician has the courage to defend constitutional order. If this incident is allowed to pass at EKA, it could repeat itself in even more disturbing forms at other universities, in public broadcasting or in other systems vital to democracy.

If the stereotype of Estonians as an education-loving, bookish people held true, none of this would have happened. For years, half the space on bookstore shelves and most spots on bestseller lists have been dominated by self-help books promising the secrets to beauty, wealth, wisdom, inner harmony and perfection. The public reads, as do leaders.

Leaders shaped by these self-improvement books should, in theory, be infallible, steering society toward prosperity and happiness with a steady hand. That this hasn't happened suggests either bad luck or that these books are little more than scams – business gospel that exploits the gullible, full of buzzwords like "challenges," "stepping out of your comfort zone" and "career pivot."

Regrettably, believers abound, leading to the reckless waste of mental and physical resources in politics, business and personal life. It's illogical to expect, or demand, that someone who has freely chosen a profession they enjoy must constantly second-guess themselves and frantically search for something else.

It's understandable to push growing children to strive – that's why compulsory education and school systems exist. The main motivation is the promise that education and skills will ultimately lead to a comfortable life. A life within the comfort zone, encompassing home, work and a secure nation. But "motivators" teach that even the thought of a comfortable life is a mortal sin.

The "right" person, they argue, must immediately cast off the chains of comfort, plunge into unpleasantness and undertake detestable tasks to avoid being labeled a parasite by enlightened leaders. And all this without complaint – because, as Kaja Kallas' catchphrase from earlier this year suggests, complaining inevitably leads to poverty. Only poverty, nothing else.

But who started the complaining? For years, the dominant tone of public governance has been minor-key. Those in power repeatedly claim they have no choice but to make unpleasant, difficult, even ideologically incompatible decisions (while opposition leaders, like the perpetually concerned Urmas Reinsalu, despair).

Out there, outside the comfort zone, leaders feel pain, and the people who follow them share in it – or, perhaps, they don't. Maybe, after some reflection under the Christmas tree, everyone will retreat to their respective comfort zones, doing work that aligns with their calling and brings them joy. This is my wish for all leaders in the New Year: try the same. If no joy can be found, perhaps it's time for a career pivot.

Happy holidays and a prosperous New Year!

--

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