Which decision do you consider the most important and influential for Estonian society during your presidency?

I believe that if you make decisions, they should all be important. A president doesn't deal with minor decisions, although some decisions may seem small and insignificant.

But the decisions that invariably cause controversy are those involving vetoes of legislation. Those are important decisions, sending a law back for reconsideration.

Looking back today, is there any decision or action where you feel you could have acted differently as president?

There may be several, but again, time comes into play here. Right now, it's difficult to say what I should have done differently. I've always believed that what you should regret isn't what you could have done differently, but what you've left undone. Those are the things that weigh more heavily on your conscience. If you ask me what those things are, I can't say.

What do you consider the greatest achievement of your presidency?

Again, we come back to the same point. We need a little time. We can see from previous presidents that it's only now that people are beginning to assess Lennart Meri's presidency more or less objectively.

And I expect that time will come for me as well. I believe in history and the value of history. I hope there will be journalists and historians capable of critically evaluating sources who won't judge a president solely on the headlines of the day, but will also be able to delve into the substance of the work.

I'd now like to explore some of the more significant issues or those that have attracted the most attention. To begin with, you've said yourself that you've declined to promulgate more laws than your predecessors. How do you assess your record in this area? Does that mean you've been particularly vocal in defending the Constitution?

I think all presidents defend the Constitution. The question is always what kinds of laws come before them. Laws differ from one period to another and ultimately it all comes down to the Constitution or, in fact, to the Riigikogu and the quality of its work.

Sometimes laws are drafted in great haste and certain things are simply overlooked. Sometimes the political desire to achieve something is so strong that the Constitution is forgotten. And that's what has led to all the decisions I've had to make.

But I don't consider it something to boast about, saying, look how many laws I've rejected. Rather, it's a cause for concern. And I've always emphasized that parliament, the Riigikogu, could do its job better and examine things more thoroughly. When a law is returned to the Riigikogu, it shouldn't look only at the specific provision I've drawn attention to as president, but at the law as a whole, to see whether it's really the best it can be. It's a second opportunity to review the legislation.

But very often that hasn't happened. The mistake is corrected and the law still turns out to be less than ideal. Because a president cannot reject a law simply because he doesn't like it or because it's very poorly drafted. There are limits and those limits are set by the Constitution.

With that in mind, let's look at the motor vehicle tax. How do you assess it in hindsight? You sent the law back, emphasizing its impact on a particularly vulnerable group in society. Ultimately, the law was adopted anyway. How do you view it today? Is it now a complete and satisfactory law or were the interests of some groups in society ultimately left unrepresented?

It's exactly as you say. People don't like laws that impose financial or other restrictions on them. But it's necessary to explain why a law is needed and that explanation probably wasn't as good as it could have been. Although the finance minister at the time even said to me, "Let the president come to me and I'll explain it to him."

But I convey what the people are saying and if people don't understand something, I say so. What was particularly interesting about this law was that I ultimately signed it, but it later emerged that the implementing regulations were unconstitutional, so the chancellor of justice had to draw attention to that.

So there are two aspects here: the law itself and how it's implemented. Both need to be thought through.

Another issue is the Churches and Congregations Act. You repeatedly declined to promulgate it and it eventually reached the Supreme Court. Was this the most fundamental confrontation with the Riigikogu during your presidency?

With very complicated laws like these, which stir up strong emotions, it's extremely difficult for a president to make a decision. The easy thing would be to let the law through and think politically, well, what are they up to here? But we already have laws today that allow us to arrest criminal elements and expel them from the country, as has been done. In principle, I wasn't opposed to preventing these people from operating here. Quite the opposite: they must not be allowed to operate here.

And the second element, which people probably don't fully understand, is that the legal and secular world is one thing, but the canonical world is another. Churches don't have borders in that world. Whether we're talking about Orthodox, Lutheran or Catholic churches, the ecclesiastical world operates in a different sphere. We can amend the law on churches and change their statutes, but those ties will remain. That has to be taken into account. They won't disappear.

That's why I repeatedly asked for the law to be reconsidered. And as you saw, when it reached the Supreme Court, quite a few judges there also expressed dissenting opinions. Now we've reached the European Court of Human Rights, which is actually something I warned about from the outset. I said, think through what the next steps will be and how this law is going to be implemented. I don't know how long the proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights will take, but they'll probably take quite some time.

So these are the things I've constantly tried to emphasize: think a couple of steps ahead. Don't rush to adopt legislation based on emotion!

Turning to your foreign policy during the final year of your presidency, it seems to me that this is perhaps the area that has attracted the most criticism. Looking back, how do you assess the claims that some of your messages were unclear to both the government and ordinary citizens? Would you do anything differently today?

I don't think so. Perhaps I should actually have spoken out a little more on the subject. I recently read that President Karis wasn't interested in foreign policy, which is an outright lie. I've visited more than 100 countries. Foreign policy can be conducted in very different ways and today, in a sense, if I can use that expression, people are barking up the wrong tree.

That's because the main responsibility, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine, lies with the prime minister and the foreign minister. They're the ones who carry that responsibility because they attend NATO meetings and European Council meetings. The president only attends the UN and that's once a year. That's where he delivers his national address and gives interviews. I've also given interviews that have gone completely unnoticed in Estonia. One year, I gave six interviews, including to CNN and the BBC, and none of them received any coverage here.

To understand what the president does in foreign policy, it would be worthwhile for politicians and journalists alike to accompany him on visits. Very few have done so. As I said, I've made more than 100 visits. You could count on the fingers of one hand the occasions when a journalist or a member of the Riigikogu has accompanied me. Those who have done so understand that foreign policy can be conducted in very different ways.

And then there's soft diplomacy, which I've considered very important. It doesn't generate headlines, but its impact lasts considerably longer.

Or take the so-called Kazakhstan incident. When I ask what actually happened there, I don't get an answer because nothing happened. Quite the opposite. I went there with a specific objective: to help curb sanctions circumvention by securing a cooperation agreement for our Tax and Customs Board. They thanked me for that, as they did several other companies.

The fact that the president chooses where to say one thing or another is the president's choice. And there have been many instances where I've decided for myself what to say, whom to speak to and for how long. But the foreign policy framework has remained the same.

If some people have problems with reading comprehension or literacy, I can't help them. I can only recommend that they educate themselves a little and I hope they do. Even starting with something as simple as understanding that a sentence continues after a comma. That makes it easier to understand the meaning.

In light of that, have you developed any proposals or ideas about how this area should be changed or what should be done differently to prevent similar misunderstandings in the future?

Yes, certainly, and we've tried to address this and talk about it. Estonia's president doesn't participate in shaping foreign policy. To put it rather bluntly, the president is given instructions and told to carry them out! That's unlike other countries in our region where presidents participate in the process. And as a former scientist, I find it very difficult to convey other people's messages when I haven't been involved in the process myself or don't believe in what I'm saying.

The simplest example is Rail Baltica. Everywhere I go, I'm told that I have to say it will be completed by 2030. I said I couldn't say that because I know it won't be completed by 2030! And today we're in a situation where it won't be completed. But there's this pressure to demonstrate internationally how important it is! Why do we have to lie? Or convince ourselves that things are working?!

That's a simple example people might understand. Perhaps there's no point going into the finer nuances of foreign policy.

The other issue is that the president doesn't participate in NATO summits or European Council meetings. He could attend one of them and perhaps NATO would be the right choice. That would also create an opportunity for discussion. If the president attended NATO meetings, it would be possible to communicate better with the government and pass on the information he receives there. That's how it works in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and elsewhere.

That's why it's very difficult to compare the Estonian president with other presidents, because their functions are completely different.

If we were to compare the Estonian president with someone, it could be German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He's served as foreign minister twice, but he doesn't exactly stand out in foreign policy today. You can't say he doesn't understand foreign policy, because his role is different. Germany has a chancellor.

Or take Italy. I doubt anyone on the street here even knows who the Italian president is. But he's a very important and well-loved president in Italy. It's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni who handles these matters there.

So people need to learn what the roles of the president, prime minister and foreign minister are in Estonia. And once that's clear, I think perceptions will change considerably.

But it's certainly worth discussing whether attending NATO summits could be one of the president's responsibilities. Then it would also make sense to give the National Defense Council a more substantial role, so there would be something to discuss and talk about.

Because at the moment, we exchange information and often it's information we both already know. We simply get together to issue a press release saying that discussions were held. Well, of course I'm exaggerating, that's understandable.

Finally, I heard an interesting statistic: over these five years, you've spent a month on airplanes...

...and another month in airports.

Is there anything else from your time in office that stands out in your memory, perhaps something enjoyable or another statistic you'd like to highlight from this period that's now coming to an end?

Well, I only heard that statistic myself yesterday. I'm not familiar enough with the data to pick out any other statistics. But just the fact that I've spent two months of my life on airplanes and in airports...

I've never been particularly good at using those moments to get work done. I need longer stretches of time and an environment where I can concentrate. I don't want to say those two months were wasted, but they certainly weren't used as effectively as they could have been.

But I'm sure there are more statistics to be found if someone wants to look for them.

What I tend to remember most, though, are the happy moments. The occasions when I've presented state decorations have always been moving, seeing the emotions people experience. It's so wonderful to watch, all that surprise. It's genuine.

I received my first state decoration in 2007, I think. And that was a very special occasion, knowing that your work had been recognized.

And I think every president would like to award even more decorations. At one point, one president awarded nearly a thousand. But we don't want to devalue the decorations either, so it's better to keep the number limited.

Then again, every president decides how many to award. Those are the kinds of positive moments I remember. And you can find statistics there too, on how many decorations have been awarded.

--

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