You are probably Estonia's longest‑serving secretary general, having held the position at the Social Affairs Ministry and the Economic Affairs Ministry for more than twenty years. You have seen many ministers from different parties and perhaps even independents. Tell me, during that time did any ministerial candidate ever signal to you personally, or to the prime minister at the time, that they were willing to take the job only if the secretary general did not continue?

How could I possibly know exactly what some incoming minister might have wanted. But of course I have had several situations where a new minister arrived with a preconceived notion, perhaps even a conviction, that they could replace the secretary general by using that paragraph, because secretary generals serve fixed terms. Since I was in office for twenty‑one years, that period included several terms and I also changed ministries.

Section 55, subsection 2 of the Government of the Republic Act says that the end of the government's mandate or the end of a minister's mandate for any other reason is not grounds for dismissing a secretary general. Yet now the stated reason for dismissal is incompatibility with the next minister, who has not even taken the oath of office. That does not look very good for the current secretary generals.

Life in Estonia can still surprise you, and I would never have expected that this provision could be used preemptively. Originally, secretary generals could be dismissed within a year of working together; later the period was shortened to six months. In my view, it has always been a sensible provision.

Its creators had a clear analysis showing the purpose: first, it preserves continuity and knowledge, and it gives people the chance to work together or at least get information about all the processes happening in the ministry. In addition, this provision has long helped prevent the politicization of secretary generals and, through them, the entire civil service. Otherwise, when a new minister arrives, everything would be cleared out and more politically aligned candidates would usually be brought in.

I look at this with concern. I do not know the specific details. Those who follow the news probably know more, but based on all the claims, it does seem that preparations are being made to bring in a new permanent secretary immediately for the new minister, and I would be very worried about that.

Remind us how this provision came about. It was around the beginning of the century when the rule was set that a minister cannot dismiss a secretary general before six months of working together, and the idea was to ensure that the organization's work would not suffer.

Originally the period was one year. At some point it was analyzed and concluded that a full year was not necessary, that it could be shorter. By agreement, it is always possible to leave earlier. I have also told my new ministers that if we have worked together for some time, we do not need to struggle through six months — as far as I am concerned, a decision can be made earlier, although I never needed that myself.

Now, in connection with the shell procurement scandal, a question has emerged: what and where are the minister's areas of responsibility and decision‑making, where are the secretary general's and other senior officials' responsibilities, and when do subordinate agencies or their leaders bear responsibility?

The Government of the Republic Act says that a ministry secretary general leads the work of the ministry's structural units, coordinates the activities of state agencies within the ministry's area of governance, and organizes the ministry's administration — meaning leads, coordinates, organizes. I see nothing there about decision‑making.

When does a secretary general decide, for example, on distributing money or determining which project receives how much and with whom contracts are signed? How do you explain the secretary general's role?

That was a very thorough question. A secretary general can decide and lead their institution — the ministry. They can guide the work of a subordinate agency only to the extent that they have personal authority, but there are very few levers. Subordinate agencies can come, seek approval, coordinate, and try to share responsibility — sharing responsibility is very popular — but each agency should ultimately be responsible for itself.

Agency heads in Estonia are top executives just like secretary generals, and every leader must take responsibility for their own actions. A secretary general cannot bear political responsibility because they are not a politician. A secretary general is responsible for whatever they sign.

What decisions can they make?

For example, when the state budget is approved by the Riigikogu, the government gives ministries their budget allocations. The minister approves the allocation by directive up to a certain limit, and from there onward come sub‑allocations, with contracts signed either by the secretary general or the head of a subordinate agency. That is what they must take responsibility for.

A secretary general can, of course, take responsibility for their civil service — meaning ministry officials — not political responsibility, but the responsibility that comes with being a top executive if you have not managed to choose the right team, control things, or organize matters properly. You cannot do everything personally, just like a minister cannot.

A minister takes political responsibility, while a secretary general takes responsibility for their civil service. Or an agency head may say that yes, we did not intend this, we did our best, but things went badly and I take responsibility.

A ministry has many fields and decisions can be enormous in number. Must you read through all documents and financial decisions yourself, weigh them, and try to understand exactly how beneficial or harmful a particular relationship might be?

Every person on this planet has twenty‑four hours in a day, and periods vary in complexity. If you do not trust your team and let absolutely everything pass through your desk, you cannot manage leadership. You must build a system of trust and control. If problems arise — which they do — the situation and the scale of the damage determine who is responsible, but the head of the agency cannot escape responsibility. I am not speaking here in the context of the Defense Ministry, because I simply do not know the current circumstances. This is purely a theoretical discussion.

I am asking about the relationship between a secretary general and a minister. A minister arrives with their wishes and intentions. Is the secretary general's job to start carrying them out, or to quietly explain with their staff what should not or cannot be done, which can be interpreted as working against the minister? This kind of myth about civil servants is quite common.

Estonia is a highly developed country and our political system has functioned stably for several decades, so civil servants clearly accept politicians' right to set direction and make decisions. But if you are an expert in your field — I am speaking here about a secretary general, who cannot be an expert in every area of a ministry — and politicians come with proposals, it is your duty to explain the impact of those proposals: what they mean financially, what the connections are, the advantages and risks.

In Estonia, simple solutions are no longer common, even though when in opposition, a quick fix to a complex problem may seem like a great idea. If it were that simple, it would have been done long ago. Choices are complicated, and political choice also involves deciding what risk you take or which direction you lean toward. It is easy to make decisions when you know little, but when you know the details, deciding becomes harder.

How strong an expert does a secretary general need to be? How do you view the idea that the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defense will not be a former senior military officer, but someone who has worked for one of the sector's largest Estonian companies, whose job has been to defend that company's interests? Is that normal?

It carries a lot of risks. If I had to make those decisions, I would think very carefully about whether it is sensible. Even if risks are avoided or do not actually exist — you must believe in people's honesty — it is very difficult to manage a situation where trust is lacking. It is better to avoid such situations.

How do you ensure independence and impartiality so that a secretary general still has expertise in the field, which often comes from the private sector?

Estonia is so small, and the private and public sectors are deeply intertwined. People move from the private sector to the public sector and back. You must always look at where someone comes from, at what moment, and what issues are on the table. There is no black‑and‑white rule about what is allowed or not; it must always be assessed.

Some secretary generals in Estonia are well known and often appear in the media as experts, while others keep a low profile. What is your view? How much should a secretary general speak publicly, explain issues, or influence public opinion?

It is partly a matter of taste. I have joked that a secretary general should not be too visible, because when things go well, it is polite for the minister as a politician or government representative to comment. But when there are failures or problems, a secretary general cannot remain indifferent — then the deputy secretary general and the secretary general must step forward. It must be balanced.

At the same time, there is truth in the idea that the public should know secretary generals, and you must choose the right moments to step forward and defend issues yourself.

Do you have past experience where, because of scandals, difficult situations, or problems, cameras and microphones were directed at you?

Yes, of course. Many times.

So you simply agree and take responsibility when a minister asks you to?

You must go and explain. A secretary general has a team, and responsibility can be shared with team members, because a top executive cannot take every issue on alone. The secretary general's duty is to find the strongest possible team, the best experts, and then use them in every area.

How did you find those top teams and experts during your time?

A: I worked deeply with targeted searches. I researched backgrounds and invited people. In the public sector, you cannot outbid private‑sector experts with money; motivation must come from mission, opportunities, and shaping Estonia's future. I have many successful cases where I managed to do that, and I am still proud of it.

And these people were all fully committed to their work and focused only on finding the best solutions for the Estonian state?

I never had a case where a company owner or someone directly involved in a specific issue came to lead that field. Expertise was usually sought with more distant connections. Of course, it did not always work out — not in the sense you are asking, but because the functioning of state bureaucracy can be frustrating for someone coming from the private sector. The beauty of democracy is that everything must be coordinated and consensus must be reached, and not everyone can handle that.

A top civil servant's job is not easy — the media criticizes, lobbyists pressure or entice, and finding the best and correct path is not always simple.

You must create that motivation yourself. Words of thanks and acknowledgment that something is going well are rare, because every action has downsides that tend to be amplified.

Who should become the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defense?

That is not for me to say. I very much hope that what happened today, or is about to happen, will not become a precedent in Estonia. Usually, when one such scheme is carried out, future governments may start liking it. I hope a neutral and dignified person with top‑level leadership experience will take the position, and that Estonia will overcome the current crisis, because the issue is exceptionally existential and must be resolved.

In recent years, after leaving the secretary general's post, you have been asked to help in several positions. Would you accept the job again?

There are things in life you must leave behind. I believe I have already made my contribution in that field.

--

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