At the start of the Riigikogu's fall session, great expectations are once again directed toward this chamber. That is as it should be. The Riigikogu is Estonia's highest body.

We begin this fall with many difficulties, but as long as faith in politics itself remains, hardships come with the expectation that the nation's leaders will take the situation seriously and find solutions.

The most fundamental political decisions are made here. It depends most on you whether society continues to believe that we can manage, that the burden we must carry in the current international situation is justified — that our country is honest and capable.

As president, I have often sensed how wide the limits of parliamentary power are. Of course, great expectations often fall on me as well, and then there is the risk of disappointment when I remind people that in Estonia, it is the parliament and the government that set the country's political, including foreign policy, direction — not the president.

Sometimes it may be thought that the president is not doing his job when he reminds people of the limited powers of the office, but this is part of defending Estonia's democratic model. As a person, I have my own understandings and preferences; that is natural. Yet my role as president is to ensure that the decisions of the people's elected representatives are respected.

My criticism, too, has always been aimed at highlighting the importance of well-considered, research-based decisions that have been made understandable to the Estonian people. Such decisions command greater respect and reinforce confidence in our system of governance, both at home and abroad.

I have said on several occasions what Estonia means to me above all. It is not just land or a state, it is a wise people. And I do not believe that a wise people can accept political decisions merely because they have been adopted by a parliamentary majority.

Certainly not in today's world, where society is filled with criticism and, at times, deep mistrust. Politics must adapt to this new critical spirit, not label critics and doubters, and certainly not seek to limit freedom of speech.

One thing I can say with confidence: it is easier for people to accept burdensome laws when they do not feel out of touch with their lives — in other words, when they sense that consideration has been given to what those laws will mean in practice.

Dissatisfaction — often even bitterness — arises when decisions are justified by abstract priorities while ignoring the hardships of everyday life. And I do not mean only economic difficulties. Whether entrepreneurs or others, people generally know best themselves whether the restrictions imposed on them truly achieve the intended goals or whether they are simply additional costs and paperwork.

Let me be clear: I do not believe you, members of the Riigikogu, have shut yourselves off on Toompea. As elected representatives, you likely know Estonia's life very well. But I am speaking of the mistrust that can be stirred by individual laws, especially those imposing taxes or restrictions — no matter how important the goal may be, whether strengthening defense, addressing climate change, boosting economic growth or ensuring internal security.

The greater the goal, the more important it is to be certain that a law or tax change truly helps achieve it. Otherwise, these goals themselves may begin to seem like excuses or rhetoric and no longer be taken seriously. Because it is unclear what connection exists between taxes and restrictions on the one hand, and the stated goals on the other. This is the main consideration I have kept in mind when assessing legislation.

At the end of last year, I declined to promulgate a law intended to help meet Estonia's climate goals. Climate goals can be advanced in ways that also keep the business environment stable and predictable. There was no need here to choose between environmental protection and economic growth or business interests. As we live increasingly in urban and technological surroundings, we tend to forget that the environment is one of our greatest values.

The preservation of the environment is part of the sense of security young people need when planning their lives and starting families. If we ensure that the measures we take are designed with precision and purpose, this helps us achieve those goals far more effectively and maintain the credibility of environmental policy.

In the same way, I see the debate in society over privacy and data protection. It is a very troubling sign when editorials across nearly all newspapers reflect the view that state institutions are increasingly spying on citizens and collecting personal data without a legal basis.

The debate tends to frame the issue as whether privacy or effective crime-fighting is more important. I believe we do not in any way simplify the fight against crime if we foster the perception that the police and the state are untrustworthy.

On the contrary, trust in the police is the most important factor in ensuring internal security. And to achieve that, we must have control mechanisms for protecting personal data, so that there is certainty data is collected and retained only to the extent strictly necessary for achieving legitimate aims.

It was precisely the lack of such a control mechanism that was my criticism of the law aimed at preventing money laundering and terrorism. That law would function more effectively if levers were created to oversee the activities of the Financial Intelligence Unit.

With the Churches and Congregations Act as well, the point was to focus on the means as written in the law itself, not only the general aim. I focused on the question of which parts of that law truly help protect Estonia's security and which do not. If we ask such a question about every other law — whether on climate or data protection — why should it be ignored in this case?

Again, this is not only about safeguarding fundamental rights, but also about taking the stated goal seriously and assessing legal provisions in light of that goal. Our constitution expressly requires this.

Ensuring Estonia's security is our most important goal. That makes it all the more vital to carefully weigh how we act in an international environment where the coordinates have shifted.

Economic stability is also a security factor. True, we face a seeming dilemma: on the one hand we must emphasize the reality of threats, but on the other we must not create the impression that instability prevails in our region.

If I had to briefly describe the intersection of our foreign and domestic policy, I would say it is the point of balance where we are aware of the threat and explain how we share it with our allies, while at the same time reducing uncertainty and deepening trust in Estonia both abroad and among ourselves.

In fact, there is no contradiction here. The greater danger lies either in succumbing to fear, which leads to foolish and rash steps, or at the other extreme, in being careless and failing to make the necessary preparations to ensure we can effectively defend ourselves should the need arise.

To be a wise people — this is not just a figure of speech. It is about setting a course in a sometimes chaotic world, but also the difficult task of deciding how to be wise in new ways when, due to technological change, a former leader in development can suddenly become a backwater. It is pleasant to read articles about our digital success story, but satisfaction can lull us into stagnation. We must not fall victim to our own success.

Artificial intelligence is being discussed in every country, but the harder part is finding the right levers to ensure that technological innovation also makes our economy more competitive and our state more effective.

This requires an open and trustworthy business environment that encourages investment, a continued commitment to a freedom-based system of governance and top-level academic research in our universities.

The education program launching this fall is a new chapter in the further development of our digital society. Its goal is to make artificial intelligence–based learning applications available to high school teachers and students. To use AI wisely, we need collective intelligence — the ability to harness the creativity that only a free society can achieve.

Unfortunately or fortunately, freedom does not exist without rules. Choices are unavoidable. From the perspective of a democratic system, the most important thing is to preserve the conviction in society that this chamber is the only proper place to create the rules that govern our freedom.

Strength to you!

--

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