Toomas Kevvai: A minority government would make vox populi more audible

What might be changed in Estonia's governance culture that could enhance the role of the Riigikogu while reducing the divide between the opposition and coalition at that Riigikogu, and in Estonian society more broadly? One solution would be a minority government, former agriculture ministry deputy secretary general Toomas Kevvai writes.
The question I seek to answer next is who defines the owner's expectations in our country.
Specifically: if, under the Constitution, the highest power in our country is the people, how has vox populi — the voice of the people — been expressed in the past, how is it expressed now, and how might it be expressed in the future?
With Estonia's restoration of independence, we shared a common expectation of rebuilding our state, with all its signature traits, and freeing ourselves from the Soviet legacy.
Representatives elected by the people — the Riigikogu, in collaboration with the government — implemented numerous reforms that were both necessary and logical.
Examples of these include the establishment of state institutions, property reform, currency reform, privatization, independent trade, and foreign policy, among other things.
These decisions were mostly made at the Riigikogu level.
In the latter half of the 1990s, major decisions were made on accession to the EU and NATO.
The decision to join the EU brought about a massive change in our policy-making.
Yes, the people expressed a will to join the EU, but this essentially meant harmonizing the majority of our life-regulating laws with the EU legal framework.
We found ourselves in a situation where, in many areas of life, we had adopted and implemented a legal framework driven primarily by the goal of becoming an EU member state.
Our legislation developed in a direction where we adopted values that did not arise from the logical development needs of our country, but instead emerged from decades of development in the so-called old EU member states.
One small example of this is animal protection, which at the time was not a particularly pressing issue in our society, but something of a foreign concept.
As noted during the Riigikogu discussion on the Animal Protection Act at the time: We are here talking about protecting animals, yet we cannot provide a decent environment for our children to grow up in.
However, the biggest change brought about by the preparations for EU accession was the marginalization of the Riigikogu's role as a definer of goals, and in many areas of life.
At that time, for understandable reasons, the Riigikogu essentially became, to put it bluntly, a rubber stamp.
Nevertheless, the government and agencies largely implemented the will of the people as defined via the EU accession referendum.
Then in 2004, Estonia became a full EU member state.
At the time, it could perhaps be described metaphorically as having managed to catch up with and jump onto the EU train.
Alas, it must be pointed out that while we might have hoped at the time that we wouldn't just jump aboard the train but would also start actively participating in its direction, we were not very successful in doing that.
Some people may still remember one of the main postulates of our European policy: "A demanding yes" (which is better than nothing, of course).
Considering the EU decision-making process, where legislation is often under process for years at the European Council working groups and European Commission working parties, involving officials from all member states, before reaching the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, it is logical that making the necessary changes to proposals in their final stages is practically impossible.
Officials, however, need input or so-called policy guidelines to express their country's views.
If these guidelines are absent, officials must come up with them based on their professional expertise (and in fact often do so, quite well).
This brings us to the question of who currently defines our people's fundamental positions and our country's goals in terms of both European policy and domestic political decisions.
As a former senior official, I had the opportunity to take part in a training session for top civil servants, where participants were asked how they identify themselves.
Ninety-five percent identified themselves as policy-makers.
This resonates with another training session led by a Danish parliamentary trainer, whose message to officials was that if you're interested in shaping policy, then go into politics.
The question is whether we are reactive or proactive.
To be proactive, the basic principles and future goals of sectoral policies must be defined and agreed upon as broadly and competently as possible.
This would provide very clear guidelines for the executive power, i.e., the government and its agencies, to operate with purpose.
Unfortunately, I must admit that there is a significant gap in this regard, in our country.
In my admittedly somewhat idealistic worldview, the Riigikogu, with its broadest mandate from the people, should be at the head of determining the main developmental directions of our country.
Instead, we have this "Brezhnev package," a coalition agreement in which some parties represented at the Riigikogu agree on issues that should actually be substantive topics for debate in the Riigikogu chamber.
I call it the "Brezhnev package" because, via this docket, which has no legal status of its own, a large portion of the Riigikogu members, elected by the people, effectively get sidelined from substantive discussions.
On the other hand, pre-made decisions are included within it (similarly to the real Brezhnev package) which have no significant electoral mandate from the people, such as the pension reform, or the cohabitation law.
To be clear, I am not personally taking a stance here on whether I like one or another of these examples substantively.
What is important is that decisions of this magnitude deserve the broadest possible democratic consensus among the people's representatives; through the coalition agreement, they may instead become conditions imposed by one or another coalition partner.
What could be altered within our governance culture, to enhance the role of the Riigikogu, reduce the divide between the opposition and coalition within the Riigikogu, and more broadly in Estonian society?
One solution I would propose is a minority government, one which would function as a true executive power and implement the will of the Riigikogu (as the people's representatives) after thorough discussion and agreement.
This would certainly require a professional and charismatic government composition.
Speaking personally, I believe that the current head of government, Kristen Michal, could pull this off, but the demands on the cabinet of ministers would likely be higher than they have been up to now.
The Riigikogu should likely create a format for policy fundamentals, which could be one of the main tasks of the relevant committees to develop and agree on, in the main chamber.
These should be very clearly defined and goal-oriented policy documents, which are not vast in terms of the number of pages, but in terms of content.
These policy fundamentals should form the basis of the government's work program and why not the division of result categories in the state budget also.
In this way, we could replace the coalition agreement "Brezhnev package" with a policy broadly and equally agreed upon at Riigikogu level.
The Riigikogu should also be provided with sufficient expertise for this type of work, with funding sources potentially found by reducing so-called policy-making positions in ministries and institutions focused on national development.
This would obviously elevate the prestige of the legislature, as well as the justified expectations for the professional contributions of MPs, which should go beyond just posing on social media.
Let me stress in conclusion that the preceding thoughts are not in any way related to the current coalition itself, but have matured over a longer period of time.
While it is probably idealistic to think that coalition agreements could be abolished altogether in Estonia, they could instead include general goals and ones that do not preclude broad-based discussions in the Riigikogu, providing opportunities for all represented parties.
Toomas Kevvai was a deputy secretary general at the former Ministry of Agriculture for over 20 years. In this role, he was responsible for the agriculture and food safety chapter of the EU accession negotiations. Over the past five years, he has worked in the private sector.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Andrew Whyte, Kaupo Meiel