When it comes to elections, a leader must have the ambition to go out and win an election. Without that, there is no point in hoping for success, Kaljulaid went on in a lengthy interview given to ERR's Vikerraadio ahead of next month's local elections.

As autumn quietly arrives outside, the local government elections are also not far off. You are not running in the local government elections — did you fall out with the Social Democrats or are you quitting politics?

I am certainly not going anywhere from politics. I have no such intention — vice versa. As a member of the Riigikogu's National Defense Committee and the Security Authorities Surveillance Select Committee, I currently have a lot of work in politics. Let's say these are definitely not forty-hour work weeks in our field, so the days are long. In addition, I am also the head of Estonia's delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and that involves many foreign trips. So I am 100 percent in politics and trying to represent my voters in the best possible way.

It is true that I am not running in the local elections, but why am I not running? Honestly, I think that may interest journalists and maybe a few other people, but I can't believe it is a general-interest question.

I look at the local elections lists and they are full of all kinds of people whose days are undoubtedly probably even more filled than yours are. Regardless of the fact that you are relatively young, at 43, you have a very lengthy political experience, probably more than half of your lifespan. You have indeed assembled electoral lists for local elections; you often do not need a person handing out pens every day in front of some shopping center; sometimes the name alone is enough.

Yes, it's interesting, a double-edged thing. Whenever members of the Riigikogu, the government, or the European Parliament run, some sort of criticize them and say they are decoys — whereas they may actually not be. Just out of interest, I looked, and within the council composition that is now ending in Tallinn, there have also been some MEPs.

I identified at least two of these: Jaak Madison and Jüri Ratas. Ratas, I think, has taken part in the council's work over these four years. Madison did not take part for a while, but later joined and participated as well. So actually even alongside a Brussels post, that is still only a few hours' flight from Estonia, it is viable to do local government work if one has the desire to do so. So to brand all these people with the same label of being voting magnets is certainly unfair.

Now, on the other hand, I think this to some extent allows people who work either on Toompea or farther away in Brussels to maintain a link with their home zone. When I look at Riigikogu colleagues, those who are also active at the local level have it somewhat easier in sensing their electoral district. The tone of the question was a bit like this: That there are people who run but perhaps do not feel such great interest in the municipality — I think it's both one and the other. It would of course be nice if people stated frankly whether they were running seriously, intending to be a council member and deal with local issues — then in my view that is completely okay. If a person gives one impression before the election and that simply evaporates after the election, then in my view that is not very appropriate behavior.

So the answer is that to the degree that you do not plan to carry out substantive work in any municipality, you do not wish to support your party, by putting your name on any electoral list?

Around New Year's I wrote a book about time management, and I am currently very busy editing and preparing that. Hopefully, it will be published by Father's Day (in November – ed.) at the latest, or at the end of October/beginning of November. And please understand that alongside my work at the Riigikogu, which as I said is definitely 40 plus hours a week, plus alongside that, a very serious book … I don't mean that facetiously, I have truly put in a lot, so that it would be a good book. In that sense, the work goes on, let's say, and in politics I am certainly present, not disappearing anywhere. I hope that you, as a journalist, also see to some extent that I am not exactly sitting quietly in the back row by the wall in the Riigikogu, watching the clock.

Isn't it a bit the case with politicians that if you skip one electoral cycle, a few elections, then on the one hand you somehow lose contact perhaps with the changed election activity, and on the other, with the party political apparatus, those who organize and arrange things?

I would not say that at all. First, I think it is very important for a politician to remain in contact with their electoral district and more broadly with the people of Estonia. I do that, I think I have always done that very conscientiously, I take it very seriously.

On the other hand, when I talk about cooperation within the party, for us at the moment it is actually better than it was perhaps some time ago. Not because something was wrong before, but when a party is in office then inevitably several people involved in party leadership are at the same time also members of the government, are ministers (government ministers cannot sit at the Riigikogu or any other legislature – ed.). Right now, almost all the key people who make nationwide policy in the party are at the one table on Toompea, as we are in opposition. I would say cooperation with, for example, the party chair or vice-chairs goes even more closely and more day-to-day than when they were in government. Inevitably, ministers simply have an enormous amount of obligations also outside the party line.

How does forming local government electoral lists even work? You have been in two parties: You can presumably more or less imagine how things work in the other parties too. What does that process look like?

It is an awful job. I don't envy any of those people who have been dealing with over the past six or twelve months. My background is in the private sector; I have not actually been in politics my entire adult life — I only came into politics in 2016. Before that, I ran advertising and marketing companies, that I had founded myself.

You nevertheless joined the Center Party, in 2001.

Certainly, but I was not on the party's leadership bodies nor in any way active in the party. I did come into contact with them — every four years there were elections and the Center Party was one of our clients, we ran their campaigns — but even there, there were many other people.

Drawing up a list reminds me first and foremost of sales work — it's a numbers game. Naturally, the parties first look over their own politicians, their active people, they need to be talked to, agreements made. There is always the expectation of finding new people too. There are parties which set themselves some additional goals, for instance that the female-male ratio on the list would be better. It is, at the end of the day, holding conversations with very many people. There are people who wish to run but at the same time are not sure. Sometimes, these can be very protracted negotiations.

And what is cast iron about list-making: Everyone is always dissatisfied. People are dissatisfied with where they are placed on a district list. People are dissatisfied with where they are placed on a national list.

I remember there was one person very offended at me, who was in a very high position on the national list I had compiled, yet in their view should have been one spot higher still. And I think perhaps to this day, they have not forgiven me for that.

In that sense, it is quite thankless work, but on the other hand, this is a part of political activity. You have to build a team which you then try to do politics with.

If we talk about the Social Democrats and Tallinn, this time it has been significantly easier to do than four years ago. Four years ago, the Social Democrats' rating was very low. Journalists were saying right here in the studio whether the party would even clear the electoral threshold in Tallinn. The party was deep in opposition. At that time, the only person who dealt with Tallinn matters daily was one adviser of our then-city council faction.

You were the mayoral candidate then.

That's true, yes, but I'm saying that within the leadership of Tallinn, well we were nowhere to be seen there. Now, it is a completely different situation: Over the four years the Social Democrats have held two absolute top posts in Tallinn — the Chair of the Tallinn City Council and now the mayor. We have there — when I look from the side, and in my opinion — a team that deals with city matters. I think the Social Democrats today have a very good understanding of how Tallinn's system works, what can be done there and what cannot be done. And I also assume a better sense of what the people of Tallinn expect.

A colleague this week told me a joke he made up: It seems most parties have figured out what Tallinn voters want — that is to vote for a Center Party member. The point being there are former Center members running for all parties

The Center Party has had, I hope I'm not mistaken on this, four or five major internal wars. which resulted in people leaving. In my time, the first was when Sven Mikser and a number of people around him left the party. Somewhat later came another wave, and then another, and another. But, yes, it is interesting that the party keeps on coming back. Let's say that when today there is someone in the Center Party thinking about leaving, then in all likelihood in five years that person will no longer be in politics. But the Center Party will still be.

This is an interesting phenomenon. Of course, when Jaak Madison joined the Center Party, many wondered why he was doing that — it seemed illogical; he has after all received a lot of votes in the European elections. I was also asked for a comment at the time; then I thought I actually understand the idea behind Madison's move, because the Center Party's trademark or brand is in fact very strong. And at the present moment, there's nothing more to say — they have managed under Mihhail Kõlvart's leadership to make an astonishing comeback. I don't even know what to compare it to; it's like Donald Trump's second term after he lost the election and everyone concluded that there was no point talking about him as a politician anymore.

The question is how much of that is down to Kõlvart's work and how much is other parties' inability to manage their own affairs?

With parties, if we set aside Estonian politics and personal sympathies and antipathies for a moment, then, for example, assess Britain's Labour Party: Their success in the 1990s is ultimately associated with Tony Blair. Of course, there was also John Prescott, Gordon Brown, and probably dozens, hundreds of people who built the New Labour success story, but responsibility always goes up to the party chair. Likewise in Estonia, if we stretch the history a bit longer, it is hard to deny that under Andrus Ansip's leadership, the Reform Party did significantly better than it has under some of his successors. If you look at the Reform Party's history, certainly the Ansip era was the best, in terms of ratings.

There are of course also those — I saw here on ERR's portal that Meelis Atonen had given a long interview — who recall as the very best time the Siim Kallas era, when the party perhaps was not as popular with the masses as later under Ansip, but it was ideologically and in worldview exceptionally clear-cut. With the Reform Party then, there was no doubt what you were getting when you voted for them.

A lot of life revolves around the leader, in Estonia and everywhere else, and inevitably when things go well, leaders must be recognized, and when things go badly then those leaders are responsible.

If we tried to sum it up, what has Kõlvart done right? What would those things be?

He has actually turned out to be significantly more convincing and compelling than I had thought. He himself has once said that he started in the city of Tallinn as a deputy mayor during Edgar Savisaar's time, and has expressed the view that the people who were brought in as deputy mayors at that time were more civil-servant-type politicians. The idea was that they would somehow not shine more brightly than the mayor. Which is not the case — I knew Edgar Savisaar very well; he certainly did not think like that. But he has categorized himself as a civil-servant-type politician.

When I look at his messages and the way he appears publicly, I understand why he, for instance, as a mayoral candidate, gets quite a large support. And it is not only the Estonian-Russian axis. Certainly, the Reform Party or someone else would like to present itself as the party of choice for pro-Russian voters. But it is not quite the case. Studies show also quite considerable support among Estonians for him and for the Center Party. So I still think he knows how to conduct politics — that cannot be contradicted.

So, then, if Tanel Kiik had won the Center Party's internal elections, where he lost to Kõlvart, would the Center Party by now be liquefied?

Well, we will never know that.

Let's perhaps continue a little more on earlier topics. You mentioned here that you have worked a lot with Edgar Savisaar. Savisaar is certainly one of the most mythologized figures in Estonian political history, and I suspect there aren't too many people who have worked with him more closely than you did. How did he approach campaigns and things? What was his luster, knowledge, or genius, that was perhaps less known to the public?

That is a very good question. I mentioned earlier the book I'm writing, where I write quite a lot about goal-setting. One thing that is, in my view, a cornerstone of leadership is what goal, what ambition you even set for yourself.

With Edgar Savisaar, it was clear — I did not know him in the 1990s when he was prime minister, but later — when he did something, his self-evident ambition was to go out and win. When I look at Tallinn's election results, from 2002 until the most recent election four years ago, the Center Party took an absolute majority in Tallinn, and he personally as mayor took 50–60 percent of the vote in his district. The first thing was that he simply did not conceive that it could be any other way.
For this reason, a leader's role in parties is so important: If the leader's ambition is something else — that we are satisfied with third or fourth place, or we are happy just to survive — if that ambition is absent, then there is no point in expecting any particular success. The leader is the person who must ultimately set the goal for his team, he must formulate the strategy correctly, set the principles by which to move toward the goal, and then be able to get the entire organization moving in one direction.

Unfortunately, the quality of Estonia's top politicians has declined, and I think people feel that too. If we compare things now with the 1990s or the early 2000s, there are fewer and fewer people in politics who have mastered the art of strategic leadership. Politics perhaps no longer offers the kind of challenges it did back then, or politics' image has become so toxic that those types of people simply no longer go into politics.

Perhaps Estonians with that type of potential are working today for large international companies and building careers there and cannot even conceive of why they should go run in Estonian parliamentary elections or become a local council member — that doesn't even occur to them.

But to be precise, that leadership skill. And connected with that are your own time-management skills — you dedicate yourself to the goal, one hundred percent. I don't know whether it is due to his influence or I am simply the same kind of person, but in any case, the team which we ran with back in the day ran those highly successful campaigns in the Center Party… It wasn't just that you worked 40 hours a week or 60 — you worked round the clock. There was no difference between night and day; work was done seven days a week. Savisaar might call you on Sunday night at half past eleven, driving from some meeting to Hundisilma, and say he would need something by eight the next morning. And it was done. There was no question at all — some "work and free time" — that interested nobody.

It all still starts from having ambition and setting a goal that I am going to win these things, going to deliver a strong result. If we look back at Tallinn's elections, perhaps a great example is Taavi Aas. He was mayor of Tallinn — maybe some people don't even recall that. He had scarcely ever had votes stick to him as a politician, though, and not many people believed in him. But when he became mayor and was responsible for everything, then he too at that point set the goal of those elections being won. And those elections were won; a majority was taken again on the council, over half the seats, and he personally garnered over 5,000 votes in Mustamäe, or about 20 percent of the votes cast there. That is where the bar lies.

If today's mayor — no matter which party he or she is in; right now he's from my party, but even if it were someone else — if he or she goes to the elections, then that [former mayor] Taavi Aas result should be the minimum baseline of what he or she chases. Below that, there is no point in even putting an ante in the game, if you have taken a role and responsibility on yourself like that.

This is perhaps the thing that a day-to-day observer of politics does not sense. In reality, the self-evident will to win that the top politicians of the 1990s — Siim Kallas, Mart Laar, Edgar Savisaar, and Tiit Vähi — had. Comparable to [cyclist] Erika Salumäe — she did not go to the Olympics thinking it would be great to finish in the top ten. She went there to take gold. Or [cross-country skier and now politician] Kristina Šmigun, who today is my good colleague at the Riigikogu. When you interact with her, you understand that this is a completely different attitude towards life.

Savisaar may have had that all along, but for example after he had lost his control over the Centre Party and went to local elections with his own electoral alliance, he didn't manage to win much then, did he? Yes, he himself did get into the council, but he did not pull his electoral alliance to victory.

This is veering towards too much of a history lesson. But if you ask me which period holds good memories, then that would be from a somewhat earlier time. I think many more books will definitely be written about him. But precisely that aspect … that skill … for example, in running meetings. That is also one thing I have thought about a lot while writing the book — indeed a weak leader does not actually know how to chair a meeting, and vice versa. Usually, good leaders are also good at heading up team meetings. When I think about the leaders I have had the chance to work with, it seems to me it stems precisely from the fact that they have set themselves a goal, and they wish to move in that direction. They want to get their team working in one direction. They do not have the luxury of wasting their own time, and they also do not want to waste anyone else's time pointlessly. They simply, devotedly seek that possibility. Naturally, it can always transpire that you do not achieve the goal, and you will fail. That comes for some reason — either for objective reasons not dependent on you, or you choose the wrong strategy, or you cannot implement it. But at least you tried; you did not from the outset accept that I will sit quietly in the back bench, no one will even notice, I won't differ in any way from a potted plant or the books on a shelf.

If you look at the campaigns of the parties running here in the local elections, does that kind of Savisaar-style, campaigning with no rest, still even exist?

I don't want to draw a parallel between these people now, but when I look at my own party, the Social Democratic Party, and set aside the local elections for a moment, I would say that Lauri Läänemets has definitely exceeded expectations for very many.

Were the expectations that low?

I think perhaps no one expected this from him. When I just look at how he works … And quite sincerely, of course — I am a Social Democrat, I am probably not objective — but I see him across the table a lot right now. In my view, he has this ambition that this party could be bigger. He has actually brought the Social Democrats away from the electoral-threshold borderline. With this party, no one is talking any more about whether they will even exist tomorrow. In my view, he has that skill to set goals. And when I look at his work tempo as well, whether when he was interior minister or now in opposition, or how much, for example, the Social Democrats were in the picture in the summer…

They were in the picture in the summer, of course, probably independently of Läänemets.

But really also on policy issues of state. Or when I look at what colleagues say, that our party has also been in opposition before, but we are definitely today more active, more forceful and stronger there than before. That is actually taken note of. Those workdays and sessions of the Riigikogu have gotten quite long, as there are very many parties in opposition. And when I look — I sit in the front row — and when I look back, there are still people there.

Läänemets is certainly diligent, but…

He is indeed diligent. And it's not just that he's diligent — that is in my view very good.

Well, one could also say that Reinsalu is even more diligent.

Reinsalu is also that kind of type, absolutely. I agree. Urmas Reinsalu has done wonders with Isamaa. Let's be frank — he has. Isamaa was also in that red zone where four years ago, at the time of the local elections, the party was about to be left out, just as EKRE is now sliding below the threshold in Tallinn. But if Isamaa had been left out in Tallinn four years ago, would it then have survived the [2023] Riigikogu elections? I am not at all sure of that.

Really, four years ago Reinsalu was my competitor, Isamaa's mayoral candidate, and he managed to come into that campaign and establish himself there. He spoke about forming an anti-Center-Party front — super strong work. And now, as party chair, Reinsalu has, let's be honest, brought Isamaa very strongly back into the picture.

But speaking still about the campaign — you didn't answer: Do you see that somewhere, right now, that kind of essentially 24/7 campaigning is going on?

This I do not see. What is interesting for me is that when I look even at the electoral lists, I would say the Reform Party has, as expected, quite a strong electoral list. Even as right now it is probably not the best time for them. Their roster is long and they have managed to wheel that out for the elections. If you look purely at Tallinn's eight electoral districts, then the Reform Party has two to four high-profile people running in each and every district. That organization certainly has that strength.

But when I then look at the messages, I don't understand. If, figuratively speaking, I choose them, Parempoolsed, or someone third or fourth party, then what do I get in Tallinn? Is there some conceptual difference there? In my view, there is not.

Well, you could say that the campaign has not yet fully kicked off yet either.

As of now it should have. We are already so close to election day. The peculiarity of an election campaign is that you must have a strong message but then you must repeat, repeat, repeat it, and in every context. From recent political history — setting aside Donald Trump's election — one of the most professional examples of holding a campaign message and focus would be Boris Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" campaign, when he became prime minister. He got a very strong mandate, and levelled the Labour Party.

That did end quite badly for him, since as prime minister he no longer managed so well, but that message — let's get Brexit done, let's move on — was at that time a very strong message. And the way Johnson managed morning, noon and night, before and after meals, in every context, to utter that one sentence: That Brexit needs to get done, was utterly astonishing.

Right now I am not seeing that. I am not seeing anyone building a strong narrative. And I think one reason why the Center Party is doing so well ahead of these Tallinn elections is that they alone have, in my view, drawn out that narrative quite well. They say that, in the meantime, others came to power, and it has been a grand mess — something which is hard to gainsay. You could not really say that the past summer was somehow particularly edifying for Tallinners, to watch what the city government has done, that it is so clever and wise.

That strange process, initiated by the Reform Party in Tallinn in the summer, certainly helped to line up the Center Party's argument. Now their pledge is very simple: Look, in our time, messes like these didn't happen, so vote us back in and then everything will calm down again. They have that narrative.

The Center Party's support is indeed now such that one could narrowly talk about sole power — depending on who gets in and who doesn't. At the same time, the Center Party is well-known for not having any funds right now, at all. What scope is there for other parties, by switching on the money sluices and flooding media and public space with ads, to alter the election result and support?

It is certainly viable to a certain extent. In an election campaign, it is very difficult to persuade people who are set in their choices. So, I live in Tallinn, and I have decided to vote for someone, but then see an election ad and now completely change my mind — that is a tall order. But there is that demographic who do not have such preferences, and the formation of a preference can start to be influenced by the election campaign. The election campaign is a tool which a party maximizes its potential support through, by bringing as large a share of its supporters to the polls as possible.

If in the campaign you remain very faint — either due to a lack of funds so that media volume is very small, or because the campaign is poorly executed, doesn't stand out or resonate — then that to a certain extent curbs a party's options. To a certain extent it renders the election result poorer, because the party cannot bring all of its potential supporters to bear in voting, cannot make it clear to them that they must certainly go out and cast a ballot.

This risk has been analyzed quite well in Estonia. There are some parties that do get a small advantage in the final pre-election scrap precisely because they have much more money, and they manage, with their advertising, to dominate and flood the media landscape in the pre-election phase.

In the Center Party's case it is also important that previously their advantage had been, either voluntarily or forcibly, a great many people connected with the City of Tallinn who have been put on the lists to run. These people have formed a large pool of free labor that has in every way supported the party and carried the campaign. There have been scandals with this too — one person who became district elder of North Tallinn after me used the district's bus to transport campaign materials and tents, etc.

The Center Party does not have that advantage this time around, however. So there are certainly things that can bring the Center Party's strong current ratings somewhat down when we talk about the actual election result. I see that the party's leading figures have in recent days also begun to say: Don't get euphoric over those ratings — they are only ratings, and what actually matters is the election result.

At the same time, other parties still have the opportunity — those who, I assume, have more money for the campaign — to improve their position slightly. Even that same Reform Party, since they have strong lists and well-known figures, which is already a major advantage — there is certainly something to gain there. Some of those candidates are certainly more sympathetic to the people than the Reform Party brand itself, at the moment. If they now know how to play their list correctly in the campaign, they definitely have something to gain from that.

But when you ran the Center Party's campaigns, did you then factor in city resources as your campaign resources?

We did not.

But it was there.

By today it is indisputably clear that it was there. There are also several court cases on this issue, argued through all instances.

You also had one yourself.

Fortunately, in that case I had to argue about there being maybe three outdoor ads — it was a small thing. But the Center Party last had to pay, I think, about a million euros in fines or something like that, and even before that there were disputes with the Political Parties Financing Supervision Committee (ERJK), where the party likewise had to pay significant sums precisely because it was found that public money had been used.

But of course, what I must say is that when I myself ran four years ago against that same apparatus… when the Center Party still had such good positions in Tallinn, I have said this before and perhaps it has not been taken seriously, but in Tallinn, elections were in fact no longer truly free. At some point, it crossed a line where one party's advantage, which stemmed from its power, was so large that the Prosecutor's Office, the ERJK could no longer block or process it all. The way the city's media — as of now, I think closed — Stolitsa and Pealinn, bluntly, week in and week out, beat, mocked, disparaged, and ran down opponents — that had its effect.

Likewise, the sort of crowd that practically dealt with promoting the incumbent city power.

I remember there was an event right before the elections where we were out with the Social Democrats and there were, I think, three different filming crews on the City of Tallinn's payroll who came to film Mayor Kõlvart because he was giving a speech there. It was completely absurd: On a Saturday morning, eight people, paid by Tallinn taxpayers, coming to photograph and film the mayor. As if Tallinn were Los Angeles, an enormously big city where you could understand the city having its own TV or radio channel. That system had ultimately become a real monster.

We talked about the Tallinn system and the time four years ago. At that time you were the Social Democrats' mayoral candidate, and after the election, Kõlvart personally said he would not sit down at the table with you.

But he did. I was the head of the Social Democrats' negotiating delegation, and we held negotiations with him, agreed on forming the city government, and then I handed it over to good colleagues.

Yes, but he did not agree to govern together with you.

I think it is not all quite that one-dimensional. If you were to ask me how great the enthusiasm I had in my soul four years ago, after I had left the Center Party in 2019 because they brought EKRE into government — which in my opinion was a very big mistake and damaged Estonia — if you think I had a huge inner fire to spend a lot of time with exactly the same people, to jointly discuss which Tallinn park and in what order to reconstruct — well then no, I did not have such an enormous enthusiasm.

Four years ago I sincerely hoped to achieve two things: Point one, that no party would get an absolute majority. That was achieved, together with other good colleagues. At that time we had much more cooperation with opposition parties than was envisaged.

Including EKRE?

Yes. If we look at things that were done in opposition at the time — for example, expressing no confidence, etc. — the opposition did that jointly. I believe that helped to ensure the Center Party did not get a majority. The second goal I hoped for was to form a coalition in which there would be neither the Center Party nor EKRE. The Tallinn voter did not give us that opportunity.

On election night, of course, people call each other about what will happen next. It was clear that it was not possible to proceed in a way where EKRE was included. It was clear that that red line — that no cooperation could be done with EKRE — was, for several parties, so strong that it would not be crossed, and therefore the second aspect of the plan did not materialize. From there, a possibility arose, which Jevgeni Ossinovski saw, to form a two-party coalition with the Center Party. So that was done.

So you were pushed aside?

I certainly do not agree that anyone pushed me aside. The fact that I did not go into that city government nor seek any position was equally my choice. The fact that the Center Party also wished that — very good, our interests coincided. But once more: If you ask whether anyone refused to sit down — people certainly did. We conducted negotiations successfully and for several weeks; we got the coalition together, the posts distributed, and that coalition functioned. I still have very many good friends in the Center Party, and let's say with Mihhail Kõlvart we greet each other politely when we meet somewhere.

You say you say 'hello,' but does he still consider you a traitor?

That I don't know — what he considers or does not consider — and to be honest that doesn't interest me much either. We have already been talking for 45 minutes, yet we haven't even talked about my work in the Riigikogu's National Defense Committee. In that arena, our paths do not cross. In that field, my paths cross with Center Party members we are together with in opposition at the Riigikogu.

My question was rather prompted by the fact that, over time, a large number of people have left the Center Party and found a home in other parties, but in your case specifically at least some Center Party members seem to feel a deeper wound. Were you then so important or close in the Center Party that your departure or actions have made you more repugnant to them?

I think there is another reason. This is that in 2019, when the party opted to form a government with the far-right, having promised they would not, there actually was a possibility to prevent that. To do that, the then Center Party politicians — especially those who got votes from the Russian community, toward whom EKRE had been very vicious — should have come to the Riigikogu. But they did not. And I think what they did not like was that I drew attention to this fact.

These were people who had received thousands and thousands of votes — we are talking about Kõlvart, Jana Toom, and several other Center Party members with mainly Russian surnames, who did extremely well in the elections. People put their hopes in them, but they took those votes and simply threw them in the trash. They did not come and publicly said they supposedly opposed the decision to invite EKRE into government, but in reality inside the party worked to make it succeed. I think what some still do not forgive is that I simply said this is nonsense what you are doing and that you are lying to people. I think at that moment the Center Party voter also realized that they were being lied to, and that certainly did not do the party as a whole any good. With one exception — I understand the prime minister and my good friend Jüri Ratas, why he made that decision. But those people who said one thing and did another, I still do not fully understand to this day.

And speaking of prime ministers, our time is relentlessly running out. Let's take on a nationwide question as well. You have a fairly long political experience — will we have a new prime minister in the autumn or next spring?

It is impossible to answer that right now; it depends on what the results of the local government elections will be, and not only in Tallinn.

Let's assume they come as currently forecast.

That same question of setting goals and having a vision. For a new prime minister to emerge, and assuming either the current coalition remains or the Reform Party continues to lead the government, someone must emerge within the Reform Party about whom the critical part within the party is convinced that this person can make the situation better.

And until that comes to pass — and my best knowledge today is that such a person does not exist. I have never seen anything like this before — the Reform Party is very, very much at odds with itself internally, personal relationships are bad and tangled, tensions are high. But at least I do not yet see anyone who would convince the majority of their colleagues that "I can do better." Another thing to keep in mind: Even if the sitting prime minister is unpopular, things are not going well for them, it is terribly difficult for a party to go and topple its own prime minister. It is a very complicated process. To say yes or no here, that is speculation.

In some sense, it may seem that there is nevertheless a certain shaping of the landscape from those who would like to be heirs to the mantle. But most likely whoever from within the party would throw down the gauntlet to the prime minister is certainly not the one who will become the new prime minister.

I have myself lately been thinking about when we last in Estonia had a government where an ordinary Estonian person, who is not personally involved in politics, would have had such a good feeling that indeed a team has formed, one that has a plan and works together toward carrying it out.

When I started to think about it, then I must admit that at least from the time Taavi Rõivas became prime minister up to today, all Estonian governments have been characterized by the fact that there has always been some party that is in government and at the same time sort of in opposition. There has been an enormous tugging of the blanket toward oneself. Yes, some of it has been to gain some political points. But generally, being in government has had quite a bad effect on parties and there has been no spirit of cooperation. And I have thought on the other hand whether right now is not precisely the time when we would need this the very most? To get back to the point where part of political culture would be that in government we argue so that the feathers fly, but then we decide, go out and say that this was in the majority's view the best decision. And we do not fight somewhere in the Delfi or ERR portals, on Facebook or on TikTok, against our own decision.

The latest good example is the car tax. I came here by taxi, and the driver just reminded me how the Reform Party talks about it as if they had nothing to do with it, as if it was someone else's doing. Excuse me, but it was the Reform Party's government, the finance minister was from the Reform Party, in the coalition talks it was the Reform Party that put it on the table, they worked it out and they all voted for it. I think for a thinking person it is disappointing and nasty when you realize they are simply trying to convince you that black is white or lie to you.

The voter's memory is after all nevertheless short.

It is not that short at all. I fear that the fact that the right-wing parties, several of them, lied that there was no need in any way to touch or raise taxes before the previous parliamentary elections, that will certainly be remembered in the next and perhaps even the one after that election. And I think some party's fortunes will go very badly because of that.

I was right here in ERR in national defense debates, at that time chairman of the defense committee, at the table sat – it was not only the Reform Party, that same Estonia 200, Isamaa – all spoke of how billions must be directed additionally into defense, and all tried with a completely deadpan face to claim that this could be done without touching taxes or even lowering them.

They are all thinking, intelligent, people who have drafted state budgets, with government experience, who knew that this was not some political rhetoric, but simply a lie. It is not possible.

I remember one of those politicians, who had been defense minister, claimed that this could be done by way of cuts. I said, by all means, there is a month to go until the elections, publish where you will make cuts worth a billion. He said we will publish it on our party's homepage. But it was never published. And of course, finally at the government table it turned out that cuts of that kind were not possible without massively closing schools, laying off teachers and police, shutting down the very last rescue brigades, and so on.

We have not even gotten to talk about for example the drone incident in Poland, but I think in Estonia we should start seriously talking alongside the health-sector hoo-har, also about the security hoo-har, which is also being done. Very often when an incident like that happens, we have several politicians, experts, and opinion leaders who state, in the indicative mood, what it was, without having any evidence for that.

Then when later it turns out that it was something else entirely — as in the case of the Baltic Sea cable damage, where it was stated that this is hybrid war and an attack, we are being tested, we must immediately start buying underwater drones, do all sorts of things, halt shipping in the Baltic Sea… As of today it has even been ventured here and there to admit publicly that, most likely, after all, these were accidents, down to negligence.

--

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