State secretary: We should avoid the by-now normalized crisis model of governance

Outgoing State Secretary Taimar Peterkop tells ERR in an interview that the government should move away from the crisis-driven governance model that has become the norm, where decisions are made hastily and with limited information. According to him, the recent sabotage of the EstLink 2 electricity cable highlighted a significant issue — crisis preparedness is marked by competition between institutions and fragmented responses from agencies acting independently.
You announced this summer that you would be leaving your position before the end of your term. What will you do now that your work as state secretary is coming to an end?
I don't know yet. I've received several offers from both the private and public sectors. I've made some choices and decisions for myself, but the final outcome doesn't depend solely on me. I have a couple of options in progress and we'll see how they turn out.
You've said several times that you will not enter politics. Is that still the case now?
Yes, I'm not going into politics. I don't have the personal qualities needed to be an effective and good politician.
Recently, several high-ranking state officials and senior defense personnel have taken jobs in private sector defense companies. Is that also a possibility for you?
I think the trend of moving from the public sector to the private sector is a positive one. Leaders should change and rotate. It's equally important for people from the private sector to move into public service. Just this year, a top executive from the private sector started working in the public sector and that's very welcome. And the fact that people move within their own fields is inevitable — defense professionals go into defense, energy experts go into energy. Overall, this trend is more of a positive development.
As for my future plans, I'm still not commenting on them.
Keit Kasemets will be the next state secretary, made possible by a recent legislative amendment that removed the requirement for the state secretary to have a higher degree in law, which Kasemets does not have. How do you respond to the criticism that the prime minister is politicizing the position through this process?
The appointment of the state secretary is the prime minister's sole decision and the prime minister has already commented on it. I won't add anything further. Also, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on my successor. I would rather simply wish him strength in this demanding role.
But is this the politicization of the state secretary position?
I don't wish to comment on this process. To do so, we would first need to thoroughly define the terms — what exactly is meant by politicization and so on. I believe the prime minister has shared his explanations and views on the matter and I have nothing to add.
But tell me, what would the possible politicization of the position mean for Estonian society and democracy? Would it result in every future prime minister bringing in their own candidate for state secretary?
I think there's no need to jump to conclusions. It's better to assess the future state secretary based on their performance in office, rather than making judgments at this stage.
What are the main duties of the state secretary?
The most important task is to support the government and ensure that its work functions smoothly. That is the key responsibility. Then, the state secretary leads the Government Office. The Government Office's role, among other things, is to support the prime minister and ensure the functioning of the entire government — from planning and conducting sessions and meetings to communication.
In addition, the Government Office has several other responsibilities: coordinating national security, coordinating European Union policy, strategic communication, managing state symbols, selecting top executives and so on. The state secretary leads this institution that deals with all these topics.
There are also specific projects assigned from time to time, such as organizing Estonia's EU presidency — which my predecessor did very well — celebrating the Republic of Estonia's centenary, removing the Narva tank [monument] or compiling assessments on ministers if needed, among other tasks.
If one didn't know what position you were describing, they might assume that the prime minister is the one handling these tasks.
The prime minister's work is certainly much broader, as it involves leading the entire country. The state secretary supports the prime minister, but the range of issues the state secretary deals with is relatively narrow. In my opinion, being the prime minister is the hardest job in Estonia. I've seen three prime ministers in action. The sheer number of issues they have to deal with and the burden of responsibility they carry — those things are immense. So, the two roles aren't comparable at all.
Can the role of the state secretary then be compared to that of a deputy prime minister or some sort of assistant prime minister?
Again, it depends on what we mean by these terms. I wouldn't use such titles, as they are misleading. The state secretary's task is to support and lead the institution. The decisions are made by politicians.
Has the nature of the state secretary's role and the Government Office itself changed over the years or are there any changes in the air?
I don't think the essence of the state secretary's role has changed. What has changed are the times. We are living in a period of constant crises. A few years ago, there was an English term, permacrisis, meaning we are in a state of continuous crisis. Now the term polycrisis is used, meaning multiple crises are happening at once. We are indeed living in an age of crises. That is perhaps what has changed. The external environment has made the nature of the work more focused on crisis management.
We can recall earlier times when the focus was more on fine-tuning and the work was more routine. The core task of the state secretary — ensuring that the government functions smoothly — has not changed much. However, the role can vary depending on the dynamics of the government and the politicians sitting around the table. My role, too, has varied under different governments.
That said, the coalition agreement does mention plans to reform the Government Office. It's something that is in the air, but I can't comment on what exactly that will entail.
How much has the composition of the Government Office changed over the years?
The core composition has remained the same — 155 people. There are about 160-plus positions in total, but some employees are on parental leave and some have rotated out. So, in essence, it has stayed the same. However, some tasks have been transferred elsewhere and many new responsibilities have been added. We've also had to make some cuts along the way.
The organization itself has changed somewhat, particularly with the addition of tasks related to crisis preparedness.

You indeed served as state secretary under three prime ministers — Jüri Ratas, Kaja Kallas and Kristen Michal. How would you compare these prime ministers?
As I've said before, being the prime minister is the hardest job in Estonia. The burden of responsibility they carry, combined with the constant public scrutiny and demands, makes it an incredibly difficult role.
What all three of the prime ministers I've worked with — and I believe this applies to all prime ministers — have in common is a genuine desire to make life in Estonia better. Having seen them up close in difficult situations, I can confirm that each of them acted with the best intentions and knowledge to improve things for Estonia.
Of course, leadership styles differ from person to person. Perhaps one similarity between Jüri Ratas and Kaja Kallas was their tendency to personally take responsibility and handle matters themselves. Kaja referred to it as the "monkey landing on her shoulder," meaning that in the end, the work always finds its way to the person in charge. Responsibility often ended up falling on the prime minister.
How exactly did that manifest in Kaja Kallas' case?
If there was an issue at hand, she always had the courage and determination to say, "I'll take care of this myself." Take, for example, the case of the Narva tank. Kaja said, "Let's get it done," assigned tasks, assembled the government, made the necessary decisions and then the agencies carried it out.
Does that mean Kristen Michal doesn't operate in that way?
Kristen is more the type who gets the team working and delegates tasks. He ensures that all ministers do their part. That's the difference I see — it's primarily a difference in leadership style.
So, Kristen Michal would have had Interior Minister Lauri Läänemets take a more active role in handling the removal of the Narva tank?
Maybe, it's possible — I don't know. It always depends on the specific people involved and the dynamics of the coalition. But if we compare the removal of the Narva tank to the relocation of the Bronze Soldier, in the latter case the task was assigned to the minister of defense. With the Narva tank, it was the Government Office that acted as the central coordinating body. It was a logistical operation carried out with the support of the Defense Forces, while the police handled the security operation, but we were the ones who stitched the big picture together.
How much did you observe, under different prime ministers and governments, the prioritization of party interests over the interests of the state and Estonian society?
It's not that black and white. Our democratic governance system is built in such a way that parties represent certain worldviews and ideas. They campaign on those ideas, win votes, enter the government and then aim to implement them while making compromises. Some ideas are more populist and aimed at gathering votes, but then comes the reality of things that need to be done. The art is in stitching all of that together, so to speak.
The way these interests are represented, weighed and compromises are found is, in fact, the most effective way of governing — an inclusive democracy.
How well do we do it? Here in Estonia, we may feel dissatisfied, but if we compare ourselves to the rest of the world, I believe we're doing quite well in terms of involving people and maintaining democratic governance. Especially considering the global trends, where autocracy is on the rise and democracy is in retreat. Of course, there is always room for improvement.
In recent years, the governance model of crisis management — making quick decisions — has become the norm. If at all possible, that should be avoided. We should take things calmly, discuss matters thoroughly, involve all stakeholders, weigh all interests and communicate why we took certain considerations into account and why we didn't others. Wherever possible, we should slow down the pace and avoid assuming that the crisis management style — making fast decisions with limited information — is the new normal and that things should always be done that way.
The criticism has been made, including during government press conferences, that ministers often refer to their party instead of their ministry when discussing their work. Can this sort of point-scoring hinder effective governance? Could it potentially slow down or disrupt the synergy of the government as a unified team?
Well, it's inevitable. Political parties need attention — they live off it, they get votes based on it, so they have to promote themselves. Yes, good leadership practice would be to acknowledge and thank those who have done the most work. Perhaps it's true that ministry officials, who have done a lot of the heavy lifting, often don't get any praise. On the contrary — they're frequently criticized just for being there.
Are officials demonized in Estonia?
Yes, absolutely. It's a convenient, opportunistic way to always have someone to blame or criticize.
Have they sometimes deserved the criticism?
Talking about the [whole of] civil service is similar to how people talk about journalists — saying that journalists are good or bad. We can't generalize like that. You always need to look at the specific person, publication or case and then evaluate or criticize accordingly. It's the same with officials. Of course, people have different levels of capability — some are more efficient, some less so. There may be individuals who are at a point in their lives where they're frustrated and no longer have the energy to contribute fully. But you can't make sweeping generalizations based on those few cases.
In my experience, the majority of officials I've worked with are very dedicated people who are committed to serving Estonia. If we look at senior executives in the public sector, for example, we conduct surveys to assess their dedication and the main motivator for them is the desire to do something meaningful for Estonia. That's the primary reason people take on senior leadership roles in the government.
Sure, there are isolated cases where things don't go well and those should be addressed individually. But making broad statements like, "All ministry officials are useless, let's lay them off," is not a quality discussion.

There have been expressions like "civil servants' circle of protection" or claims that the civil service is slowing down processes initiated by a minister, with suggestions that it would take years to achieve any progress. What's your take on that?
Undoubtedly, there are certain interest groups that may not always cooperate. But that's where leadership comes into play. We've had similar initiatives launched from this office that haven't received uniform support across the board. Sometimes officials from one ministry work against officials from another ministry.
However, if we're talking about civil servants working against a minister — especially the one who is supposed to lead them — then, yes, that kind of situation shouldn't happen.
But has it happened?
It certainly has happened. A minister leads the ministry and the officials in the ministry work for the minister.
How widespread is this problem?
I think it's primarily a leadership issue and it's relatively limited in scope. It largely depends on the minister's quality as a leader.
So this problem isn't widespread?
No, it's not a widespread issue. Officials expect leadership from a minister. I'll quote a good friend's father: People don't follow a person; they follow ideas. If you have good ideas and people see that they can contribute and realize their potential, they welcome such a leader — they're waiting for that kind of leadership.
The problem arises when a minister is an ineffective leader and fails to motivate officials to work. That's when resistance starts to build. And if a minister shows up and starts threatening people — for example, I've heard one minister say they would "cut their officials down at the knees" — if you use that kind of rhetoric, you can't expect people to follow you or collaborate with you. That's how conflicts arise.
Was this during the time EKRE was in government when you heard those words?
Yes.
How effectively is the Estonian state functioning at the moment?
If we look at OECD rankings and comparisons with other countries, we can confidently say that Estonia is a well-managed state. However, on a subjective level, there's always room for dissatisfaction. Given the challenging times and numerous issues we're facing, the level of dissatisfaction is higher than what we've actually earned.
How much do you, at the top level, take into account public sentiment and the reception of various decisions?
We absolutely take it into account. We regularly measure public sentiment and publish those results. The government receives an overview every two weeks on what's happening in society and in the media space, based on our national sentiment surveys. Of course, it matters. As stated in our National Security Principles, security starts with a cohesive society.
That said, you probably can't base all decisions solely on that, right?
No, not all decisions can be based on that. Clearly, for example, the tax increase decisions were very painful. But those decisions had to be made and it was about choosing the least bad option. The alternative would have been to let the country's finances deteriorate and find ourselves in a situation similar to what Greece faced about ten years ago.

Peeter Raudsepp, head of the Institute of Economic Research, who often takes quite a beating from this office, says that tax hikes won't actually help and that they will prevent Estonia from climbing out of the economic downturn. What's your response to that?
I'm not an economic expert.
Now you can share your opinion — after all, you're a departing state secretary. Essentially, you're a free person.
I'll be able to express a completely free opinion once I'm fully out of office — right now, I'm still in my position. But I've already answered this. Those decisions needed to be made. We're dealing with a very complex security situation on one hand and a very difficult economic situation on the other. You have to find some kind of middle ground in between.
I sincerely believe that this government found the right balance. After all, the Defense Forces are asking for even more and internal security is asking for more as well. Even Donald Trump is asking for more.
It will remain the norm for years to come. Talk of this so-called broad defense tax being a temporary measure might not be entirely accurate, right?
We must indeed be prepared for this confrontation to last a long time. However, once that regime — Vladimir Putin's regime — eventually collapses, the need for these measures will also disappear.
Will it really disappear? You can't let your guard down, even if some Western European countries or certain politicians there are already longing for that moment. But isn't that a naive dream?
Yes, I agree. No one in Estonia believes that Russia will somehow turn into a good neighbor. I agree that these obligations will remain with us for a long time.
The reality is that you never know when our eastern neighbor's aggressive side might resurface, even after a regime change.
Yes. The problem isn't just one person or a few individuals. The entire elite is deeply ingrained in that mindset and we have to accept that it's not going to disappear anytime soon.
But what about the budget cuts? They've been criticized, especially from the perspective that there's been a lot of talk, but the cuts haven't been effectively implemented. And then it raised eyebrows when the government suddenly found €100 million for the construction of a gas plant in Narva, as if the money had been pulled out from under the couch. What does that tell us?
It tells us that we're often shooting from the hip without delving into the details. Everyone who read the state budget explanatory memorandum — yes, it's long, hundreds of pages — saw that the €100 million for Eesti Energia was mentioned right in the introduction. Everyone who read it knew it was there. Those who didn't read it had no idea.
But the fact that funds from previous budgets have remained unused and have been carried over to the next budget has happened before. Would you consider that an inefficient use of budgetary funds? It seems like a resource that's available but isn't being used to solve critical issues.
The reasons for that vary depending on the specific cases. Generally, yes, if certain funds can't be used within the current year, they're simply carried over to the next year. For example, sometimes procurement processes drag on or something gets contested. A few years ago, Kaja Kallas' government made an investment to improve our cybersecurity. The companies providing those services were suddenly flooded with money, but they weren't able to deliver that much service all at once. As a result, the use of those funds was delayed. They couldn't complete the work in just a few months — it took over a year to finish all the projects.
These kinds of examples need to be taken into account. Typically, construction projects tend to get delayed and sometimes costs increase. That's why funds are carried over. But there are also moments when, yes, we simply don't plan well enough.
How would you comment on Aivar Sõerd's ongoing criticism of the performance-based budgeting system?
Once again, I'll stick to my area of expertise. When it comes to budget matters, Aivar Sõerd and many others are far more knowledgeable than I am. They've already said everything there is to say and I have nothing to add.
This interview definitely has a tone of closure, but you haven't quite been freed from your position yet — that comes across in your answers. If I were to ask you now what your worldview is, would you answer that question?
Yes, absolutely. I'm a liberal from my toes to my bald head. Not in the sense that I'm necessarily a supporter of the Reform Party, but I genuinely believe in individual freedoms. I raise my children with the idea that they must take responsibility for themselves. From the very first grade, I don't pack my child's school bag — they pack it themselves. They constantly get remarks from teachers for not having the right things with them. That's how you learn.
I'm deeply imbued with the belief that a person must take responsibility for their own life. You could also say I'm a Lutheran in that sense — through my own work and actions, I achieve my salvation. No one else will come and do things for me. I can't describe it any other way, but in the end, it all comes down to the song lyrics: "It all depends on us, whether good or bad."

What do you consider your greatest achievement as state secretary?
I can't really single out one specific thing. I think surviving the era of crises has been the biggest achievement. I personally believe that Estonia has managed well. We handled COVID-19 under two different prime ministers and were able to support them effectively. If the prime minister was the commander, the Government Office served as their command center.
We started preparing for the war in Ukraine six months before it escalated. We began drafting action plans and were ready because we saw what was coming. As a result, Estonia was able to make quick decisions both internationally and domestically. I'd like to remind you that on January 20, 2022, the government decided to allocate €380 million to both military defense and comprehensive national defense. We were ready. That preparedness for crises is something I definitely consider important.
The Government Office has also proven itself in a good light. I'm very glad to work with the kind of people we have here. We've handled all those crises I mentioned, as well as broader challenges facing the state. We're a very small organization — just 155 people — handling a wide range of issues. But when necessary, we've pulled ourselves together and tackled difficult topics. We've coordinated the green transition, which is now becoming something of a curse word, we've organized Edgar Savisaar's funeral and we've removed the tank from Narva.
There's always something to do — sometimes very specific tasks, sometimes larger-scale projects. And it's been truly exciting to do these things with the team here.
Where did you end up with the government's work plan? The government has been in office for six months, but there's still no agreed-upon work plan.
From our side, it's been ready for quite a while — it's just waiting for a decision. Maybe the government will finalize it this week.
The Government Office was the main body coordinating the government's measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking back, how do you evaluate the restrictions and decisions that were imposed on the Estonian people and society at the time? In hindsight, was everything justified?
It was a challenging time. The virus itself was one thing, but our usual governance also stalled. During the first wave, the government and the Health Board couldn't work in sync. When there's a conflict between the government and an agency, it certainly doesn't help the situation.
But in the bigger picture, I think we managed well. In hindsight, we could have been more flexible in some areas. Vaccination — I think we failed there. We could have done better. If we had achieved a higher vaccination rate, we could have reopened society more quickly.
Should the vaccination process have been faster and should more people have been vaccinated?
Vaccination should have been more targeted from the start, so that we wouldn't have faced the resistance we saw later. Initially, we didn't have enough vaccines and then at a certain point, people simply didn't want to get vaccinated anymore. If we had handled that better, we could have reopened society more quickly.
That said, compared to other countries, our restrictions were relatively mild. We remained quite open. I had to travel to other countries for work during the pandemic and our restrictions were fairly modest and reasonable in comparison. Over 70 cases related to the restrictions reached the courts and the government won every single one of them. That shows that, in hindsight, the courts also deemed those restrictions lawful.

The most recent crisis you probably had to deal with was the oil tanker incident in the Gulf of Finland. How would you reflect on that now, while it's still fresh? Was the government truly prepared to handle it, ready to respond and did it react appropriately, as it's been presented to the public?
Yes, absolutely. I have no doubt that we had, and still have, the readiness to act. Since the ship was in Finland's exclusive economic zone, it was Finland's responsibility to lead the operation under international law and intergovernmental understanding. But having seen similar situations before, I'm confident that the relevant institutions in Estonia were ready to respond and remain ready.
That said, there's always something to learn from every crisis and improvements must be made. One recurring issue we need to address is the silo mentality. In Estonia, we still tend to operate in silos. For example, the Ministry of the Interior sees that they should have all the ships and special units and they handle everything within their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defense looks at the same issue through the framework of military defense — with their ships and their special units.
This highlights a fundamental problem in our crisis preparedness. We still build and maintain silos. We need to focus more on cross-agency joint planning and joint preparedness. That's precisely what the long-debated Preparedness Act aims to promote — a culture of cross-institutional cooperation. It should no longer be the case that civil planning and military planning happen in separate corners.
For me, this crisis once again underscored that this mindset still needs work.
Which crisis tested Estonia, the Government Office and the government the most?
Covid, without a doubt. It was just so prolonged. People were exhausted — many worked seven days a week, with little to no sleep and they were worn out. The constant uncertainty and stress took a toll. And it lasted for years in the end. We had to adapt to that reality. I think that has been the most difficult crisis so far.
Is it still justified that a large portion of government agency employees continue to work from home, is it affecting the quality of their work? Would it be necessary to return to office work?
There's no single answer to this. In our office, those dealing with security matters, for example, can't work from home — they need to be in a secure environment, so they must be physically present at all times. Another thing to note is that the government has generally been physically present during meetings, so we've been there as well. For me personally, the Covid period wasn't spent working from home — I was here for most of the time.
More broadly speaking, the right balance needs to be found depending on the nature of the work and the organization. Even before Covid was on the horizon, when I was leading the Information System Authority (RIA), we already had a hybrid work model in place. If you had top-level IT specialists, you allowed them flexible working hours.
The most important thing is that a person is productive. You need to ensure that employees are well-motivated. If someone is best motivated working from home and can achieve results, create value and meet their need for achievement, then it doesn't matter where they work. You can't apply a one-size-fits-all approach, forcing everyone to sit in the office just to clock hours. It's more about finding a reasonable balance.
People are managed not by making sure they sit in a chair but through results — by meeting their need for achievement. That's the most important motivator. And if that's in place, it really doesn't matter where the work is done.

I'll return to the topic of the changing role of the Government Office and the appointment of Keit Kasemets. There are critics, opponents and even ordinary people expressing concerns that this shift in the role of the Government Office could mean more power being taken away from ministries and centralized in the Government Office where more decisions will be made. Essentially, there's a fear that the state secretary could become a politicized deputy prime minister.
The signals reaching the public suggest that something isn't quite right. There's a perception that the prime minister has changed the law to pave the way for his ally. Even if everything is legally in order, it doesn't leave a good impression. And as we know, governance must not only be correct but also appear correct.
You've avoided commenting on this before, but what would you say to the public or to people who have these concerns and doubts?
I think society should take a calmer approach. Our institutions are strong enough that a fundamental shift, where we would end up with something resembling a prime minister's office model, cannot be brought about by just one personnel decision. That would require a much more substantial overhaul of the entire political governance system we currently have where ministers lead ministries and are responsible for their respective areas.
I would suggest everyone take a step back and judge based on actions, not the words or speculation being stirred up.
To conclude, I'd say that we're far too quick to stir up hysteria. We all need to recognize that, in the complex situation we're in, there's already a lot of anxiety. The economic situation is tough, but even the Institute of Economic Research says things are improving. In terms of security, yes, challenging times will remain for the foreseeable future.
There's already plenty of tension, so we shouldn't be adding fuel to the fire ourselves. When I observe the public debate, my call to everyone would be to take things a bit more calmly across all topics.
This so-called hysteria is part of a free and democratic society.
Hysteria is not.
You call it hysteria, but the people expressing it might not call it that.
But in my opinion, it has gone too far. If I look at certain topics — like the decision by the Estonian Academy of Arts (EKA) to end cooperation with an Israeli professor or the debate about what ERR's New Year's Eve program featured, even though I didn't personally see that broadcast — these aren't issues that warrant such an uproar. We're stirring up conflicts over minor matters.
We shouldn't be doing that. On the contrary, we should consciously preserve our energy for important issues, have debates on those and handle smaller matters with balance. We can calmly point out, "Was this the most reasonable decision?" But to say that "our children will be ruined because public broadcasting aired something" or "EKA employs Nazis because they ended cooperation with an Israeli professor," that's crossing the line.
In this kind of situation, we need to think more about the health of our society. It's everyone's job to maintain that internal cohesion, because when tough times come, we'll otherwise be too fractured to handle them.

--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Marcus Turovski