Ministers who are creating deputy secretary general positions claim that the salary budget will remain unchanged and that the state's expenses will not increase because of these new roles. It's interesting to consider whether they truly fail to understand that, even if direct salary costs do not rise, every new position inherently incurs costs. The loftier the position, the greater the expense.

It is also possible that they do understand but are deliberately misleading the public. In any case, these additional costs consist of two main components. First, a deputy secretary general is a top executive in their field who requires a dedicated team to shape policies in their specific area. Additionally, their toolkit is full of resources that often lead to more bureaucracy and regulations, which always mean extra costs.

These costs result in wasted time and financial burdens for those impacted by the policies being shaped, whether they are public sector frontline workers, entrepreneurs or ordinary citizens. All taxpayers ultimately bear the cost. A deputy secretary general does not simply sit in a vacant office previously occupied by a department head, without a team or tasks. As soon as they begin their work, expenses follow.

From a leadership perspective, the argument that there will be fewer department heads is surprising. If this is the case, is the state truly creating a top executive position without providing them with a team and responsibilities, assigning them instead to operational leadership tasks that are unfit for a senior policymaker?

Bureaucracy breeds bureaucracy, as every position instinctively seeks to justify its own existence. This is human nature, and therefore it is unrealistic to expect the public sector to downsize on its own; political decisions are needed for that.

The only way to reduce bureaucracy is to eliminate the positions that inherently generate it, such as those in the central administrative apparatus, including deputy secretary generals. Adding such roles inevitably leads to increased bureaucracy.

Of course, it must be possible to create new deputy secretary general positions for certain policies or topics that require a sharper focus. However, under the current demographic and economic conditions, such steps should be preceded by the elimination of at least two deputy secretary general roles in the same field or ministry. Another option could involve a complete restructuring of certain offices or agencies.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: suppose a position of deputy secretary general for statistics is created, tasked with shaping Estonia's data policy, utilizing the world's best technologies to collect, analyze and make data accessible to researchers, entrepreneurs and policymakers. This could be a valuable decision, provided that the existing Statistics Estonia office, with its hundreds of employees, is dissolved.

Estonia's economy is in an extremely precarious situation, and no matter how loudly it is proclaimed that things will soon improve, the forecasts remain bleak. Creating new high-ranking positions at the expense of rising state costs in this environment is irresponsible. The message sent to people who will face ten new taxes or tax increases next year, whose confidence in the future is already disturbingly low, demonstrates a complete lack of empathy from the country's leaders.

This move shows that the government fails to grasp the root of the problem: overspending. Over the past five years, wages have grown by 40 percent, state revenues by 50 percent and state expenditures by 60 percent. Untangling this knot requires bold decisions, including not only adding state priorities but also removing them, reducing public services and modernizing state functions in certain areas.

Admittedly, based on my long experience, I must conclude that this is one of the greatest weaknesses of today's politicians. There are always those who can set priorities, but when asked what will no longer be a priority, the typical response is that it is up to the head of the institution to decide. Thus, it often depends on the moral compass of individual public sector leaders to determine what will be sacrificed to implement new priorities, as political courage and competence in this area are rarely encountered.

The lack of political courage and management capacity brings us to the point where there is effectively no long-term vision for Estonia's development. The creation of new deputy secretary general positions is proof of this. The greatest danger of this trend is that it will ultimately lead to a situation where the country is no longer governed by democratically elected politicians but by a class of officials resembling a bureaucratic union. This is both a developmental dead end and a long-term threat.

If we think about it, the goal of governing Estonia should be to raise the net worth of all households to somewhere between that of Denmark and Finland within one generation, thereby creating a wealthier life for everyone. Decisions aligned with such a goal would be entirely different. They would take into account the global rightward shift and immense technological opportunities.

The creation of deputy secretary general positions is a sign that while parliamentary parties may speak of long-term plans, cuts and reducing bureaucracy at party congresses and in their programs, the real decisions are completely contradictory. Instead of self-determination, freedom and flexibility, we are seeing centralized policymaking accompanied by extensive bureaucracy.

Just as next year's state expenditures will rise by over half a billion euros, so too will bureaucracy and regulation grow alongside the creation of high-ranking positions. Meanwhile, there is still no sign of a long-term vision for Estonia that would genuinely propel the country into the ranks of the wealthy and improve the lives of future generations.

--

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