Liia Hänni: Estonian Constitution not in need of ideology-driven changes

The proposed constitutional amendment is a litmus test for our democracy. If we allow Russia's aggression against Ukraine to shake the Estonian Constitution, we have already suffered a significant defeat, writes Liia Hänni.
The Riigikogu is processing a constitutional amendment, aiming to implement its results already in the local elections this October. The goal is to revoke the current right to vote in local elections of all permanent residents, limiting this right to Estonian citizens, stateless persons and citizens of European Union and NATO member states, as proposed by the coalition government. Alternatively, the Isamaa and EKRE parties advocate for restricting voting rights solely to Estonian citizens. Naturally, only Estonian citizens can participate in Riigikogu elections.
Although no political party mentioned an intention to amend the Constitution in their 2023 parliamentary election platforms, the issue reached the Riigikogu agenda last year when Isamaa and EKRE MPs introduced a constitutional amendment bill. They justified the proposal by citing the need to strip voting rights from the citizens of Russia, an aggressor state, and Belarus, which supports the aggression.
Linking voting rights to national security was a politically shrewd move, striking a sensitive chord in society. Although no convincing arguments have been presented to demonstrate how non-citizens' voting rights threaten national security, the ball was set rolling.
The leading coalition party, the Reform Party, which had promised in its election platform to revoke voting rights for Russian and Belarusian citizens via legislation, joined the constitutional amendment initiative after the chancellor of justice and other constitutional experts clarified that such a legislative change would not be permissible under the Constitution.
During the drafting of the bill, instead of revoking voting rights specifically from citizens of aggressor states, a so-called "positive approach" was adopted, listing EU and NATO member states in addition to Estonia as countries whose citizens are eligible to vote in local elections.
As a result, the focus has shifted from initially revoking voting rights for citizens of aggressor states to a broader transformation of the constitutional framework of values.
The current understanding of local governance as a right of self-organization for all permanent residents is being replaced by governance controlled by a select group of individuals over local communities. This undermines the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of local governments and, most notably, local democracy, as understood in various international standards, such as the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Against this backdrop, the coalition government's claim in the explanatory memorandum that the amendments aim to protect constitutional values and the democratic legal framework rings particularly hollow.
It is crucial to understand why Estonia has reached this juncture in its development. "A window of opportunity for constitutional amendments has opened," explained Isamaa's parliamentary faction leader, Helir-Valdor Seeder, in describing his party's activism.
This is the first time in re-independent Estonia that an attempt to amend the Constitution is overtly ideological: the aim is to enshrine a nationalist-conservative worldview in the Constitution, as understood by Isamaa.
EKRE's support for this initiative further confirms this perspective – voting rights should belong solely to citizens. References to national security have served as a pretext for garnering broad public support for amending the Constitution. "The constitutional amendment is not directed against Russian citizens; all third-country nationals will lose their voting rights," Seeder admitted candidly on Vikerraadio.
The coalition's proposal, described as a compromise between different parties, fundamentally aligns with the nationalist-conservative view. It significantly restricts the voting rights of a large portion of permanent residents, excluding the citizens of most countries around the world who are residents of Estonia. This ideologically ambiguous "neither fish nor fowl" proposal would appear bizarre in the Constitution, raising questions about future amendments if international defense alliances change. The proposal would indeed stand out as an unnatural element in the Constitution's text.
The permanence of the Constitution holds immense value, especially in challenging times. Embarking on constitutional amendments amidst a raging war in Europe is a dangerous and irresponsible endeavor. Usually, the government bears primary responsibility for ensuring national stability, mitigating internal political pressures to reshape the state.
This time, however, things are different, as the Reform Party, under the prime minister's leadership, has taken the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments. In Estonia, it seems there is no political party actively defending the existing free and democratic constitutional values. The Center Party opposes the constitutional amendment but is perceived as acting out of political self-interest rather than a clear ideological stance.
One thing is clear: the proposed constitutional amendment is a litmus test for Estonian democracy. If we allow Russia's aggression against Ukraine to undermine Estonia's Constitution, we have already suffered a significant loss. Let us not allow this to happen.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Marcus Turovski