Would you agree that a government change carried out in this manner is not an exception in re-independent Estonia, and that the accompanying loose ends are also familiar from previous instances?

There is indeed nothing new about this. Estonia has always had relatively unstable coalition governments. What stands out this time is that the public has not been given much explanation as to why the government change was necessary in the first place. This is a sign of lazy politics. The expulsion of the Social Democrats should have been preceded by more groundwork and explanatory efforts, so to speak.

What exactly do you mean by laziness in this context?

The shift happened extremely quickly, and I'm not sure whether ordinary people even picked up on what the Reform Party and Eesti 200 attempted to communicate. People may not have fully grasped that we now have a right-wing government.

At the same time, the shift was effectively prepared. On March 5, Prime Minister Kristen Michal (Reform) seized on a news piece in ERR about bureaucratic overreach and declared that he had had enough. That same evening, Postimees and Eesti Ekspress published in-depth articles on the government crisis just ten minutes apart, written by some of Estonia's top journalists. Doesn't this indicate that the groundwork had, in fact, been laid?

Our political parties are professional enough not to carry out a government change or any other significant political move without first preparing the media landscape for it. That was certainly the case here as well.

How significant was it, if at all, that the leader of the Social Democrats, Lauri Läänemets, was far away in Africa attending a friend's wedding, while those orchestrating his party's removal were in a better position?

I wouldn't overemphasize Läänemets' absence. He simply responded later. But for me, this is not a particularly significant detail.

We now have two parties in the government that hold very similar positions, almost like two peas in a pod. Will this make it easier for the government in terms of message clarity?

I think so. Although this government started off rather clumsily in terms of its messaging. The real question is whether it's possible to turn the phalanx around. We are being told that the previous government operated the way it did because of the Social Democrats. Now, everything should change, and this change will be closely scrutinized in the coming weeks.

So, are we looking at a major communication battle ahead, where the ruling parties will try to pin all the blame and failures on the Social Democrats?

Broadly speaking, yes. But another key factor is the current party ratings. The question is whether the Reform Party can demonstrate that they are professional leaders and capable governors. Their goal is to convince voters that Isamaa's high popularity is not a given or a settled matter. (Reform have a rating of just 11 percent in recent polls, compared to opposition Isamaa's 30 percent — ed.).

Pushing this narrative will be the Reform Party's big challenge.

For decades, the Reform Party has built its core image around being head and shoulders above everyone else in economic matters, with strong competence in finance and economic management. But now, that image has been shattered.

Yes, I also believe that this image has definitely been broken. Lately, they have been talking more about security rather than economic matters.

And in that sense, I am not very optimistic that this government change will significantly alter their image. It primarily depends on whether the Reform Party can bring new and fresh leaders with business and economic expertise into the government cabinet. If that doesn't happen, then the hope that this government change could make a difference seems doubtful to me.

So, does that mean Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi and Climate Minister Yoko Alender (both Reform) should be replaced? One is seen by the public as an old-school figure, while the other's short tenure as minister has been a complete dead end?

I think so, yes. That's the minimum that should be done. It's basically the ABC of what needs to happen if the Reform Party wants to gain anything from this. But we'll see.

Is this new attempt as head of government Kristen Michal's last chance to get himself and the Reform Party back in the saddle?

I can't say for sure. Kristen Michal is still a relatively young politician (he will turn 50 in July — ed.). He will certainly have more opportunities in the future.

But I think this is not just a question of the prime minister; it's a question for the entire Reform Party. The number of mandates they secured in the last election (37 — ed.) now needs to regain legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

At this point, quite a few voters feel that they cast their vote for the Reform Party but ended up getting something entirely different in return. That is now the main concern for the Reform Party, and resolving it will be a difficult task.

--

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