Kristen Michal is arguably the most technocratic prime minister to ever steer Estonia. Although there was a clear societal demand for such a leadership style when he took office — someone was needed to clean up the tax confusion caused by Kaja Kallas — in the longer term, there may be a growing expectation for a much more colorful, dynamic and visionary form of leadership. Can Michal shift gears and deliver that?

Broadly speaking, political leadership styles can be divided into two categories: technocratic and visionary. The first assumes that the person at the helm knows how to govern and manage the state. They possess strong managerial skills and can keep things running smoothly. However, technocrats often lack vision; there is little sparkle, inspiration or charisma.

In contrast, visionary leadership tends to work the other way around: while the technical aspects of governance might sometimes falter, this leadership is infused with passion and momentum. Risks are taken, there is an effort to see the bigger picture and thinking outside the box is encouraged when necessary. At best, visionary leaders are charismatic — but even if they are not, they at least inspire and rarely leave people indifferent.

Looking at previous leaders of the Reform Party — Siim Kallas, Andrus Ansip and Kaja Kallas — even if not all of them can be described as exemplary visionary leaders, they all certainly leaned more toward visionary leadership than technocracy. In this regard, Michal is something of an exception even within the Reform Party context — never before has the party had a leader so purely technocratic.

Let's take a closer look at these three party chairs in comparison with Michal.

First, Siim Kallas, whose 1995 "Manifesto of the Citizens' State" laid the ideological foundation for the Reform Party. If anyone in the party's history could be classified as a visionary and inspiring leader, it was Siim Kallas.

Andrus Ansip may not have been a major innovator of the party's worldview, but he introduced several new elements that sustained the Reform Party's success and dominance for years. Put simply, Ansip made a pact with Estonia, promising to shield the country from Russian influence, to maintain a market-liberal economic course ensuring prosperity and thereby provide a degree of general welfare and social security. This pact worked and the Reform Party governed uninterrupted for quite a long time.

With his direct style and slightly authoritarian approach, Ansip managed to win over a significant number of loyal supporters — while also attracting just as many angry opponents. The same can be said of Kaja Kallas, who likewise provoked strong emotions and left few indifferent. Of the three, Kallas was perhaps the least of an ideological innovator, but her uncompromising stance against Vladimir Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine certainly managed to inspire people. Where else would her 32,000 votes in the last election have come from?

What does Michal have to counter this? Surveys conducted so far on prime ministerial performance speak volumes. How inspiring and charismatic can a leader truly be when the prime minister's approval ratings remain largely stuck at the same low point where they landed during Kaja Kallas' worst moments?

Moreover, the situation has changed substantively. The pact with Estonia forged during Ansip's time has developed serious cracks. Many people no longer believe that governments led by the Reform Party are the best shield against Russia or that they can successfully foster economic growth and increase prosperity. What is Michal's response to these doubts? Where are his updates to the party's ideology and message?

The geopolitical climate and a dynamic world may at some point demand more than simply excellent management of affairs. Vision, a broader outlook, a willingness to take risks and the courage to think outside the box will be needed. Will Michal be able to shift gears at the crucial moment, shedding the gray technocrat's cloak for the much brighter suit of a visionary and inspiring leader?

Some might recall the early days of Andrus Ansip's premiership in 2005-2006, when he, too, initially seemed quite technocratic. Everything changed overnight with the Bronze Night events. Therefore, let's wait for a serious crisis or ordeal — then we'll see what Kristen Michal is really made of.

Outstanding visionary leaders are forged through crises. Some politicians rise to the occasion and go on to inspire the masses; others remain gray technocrats to the end.

--

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