The 1995 Riigikogu elections were approaching. The question of what kind of country the Republic of Estonia would become still hung unresolved in the air.

In 1995, a new force emerged on the political landscape, aiming to steer Estonia westward — toward democracy and a free-market economy. The right-wing liberal Reform Party entered the Riigikogu with 19 seats and its contribution to Estonia's development over the next 30 years has been remarkable.

Our slogan was "Reason in honor, prosperity at home!" After that, we set our sights on an average monthly wage of 9,000 kroons and later on making Estonia one of the five richest countries. There's no shame in those goals — on the contrary, we believed firmly that we could improve our people's well-being. The pursuit of happiness is a foundational pillar of liberal ideology (as stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence).

In those first ten years after regaining independence, Estonian society as a whole pursued success, progress and prosperity with extraordinary zeal. Agriculture received no production subsidies whatsoever.

Our society has changed. Some 553,000 Estonian residents have been born since the end of the Soviet era. They lack the rejection of the Soviet system that once propelled an entire generation into building a newly independent Estonia with all their might.

After restoring independence, Estonia chose liberal democracy as its model of governance. It was a major decision and it was enshrined in the Constitution. Now, it may seem like it could never have been otherwise. It feels so natural — especially to us in the Reform Party. But is it really?

After the 2023 elections, the EKREIKE grouping (Center Party, Isamaa and EKRE – ed.) tried to turn the Republic of Estonia in a different direction, attempting for half a year to obstruct the work of a democratically elected legislative body. To them, liberal democracy was and is a dirty word. They talk about some mythical creature called "illiberal democracy." What is that? No one knows. We held our ground then, but liberal democracy is not unshakable. Not in America, not here.

Democracy does not exist when major donors control civic organizations and political parties.

Democracy does not exist when manipulators of public opinion shape society's decisions.

Democracy does not exist when law enforcement agencies manipulate it.

Democracy does not exist when a freely elected legislative body is replaced in decision-making by an unelected state apparatus.

But democracy does exist when modern technology, such as e-voting, is used to implement it effectively. That is our pride and we should not be on the defensive about it — we should continue working to improve the efficiency of democracy.

Are we not familiar with the practice of officials making amendments to bills without any political mandate? Government agencies increasingly want to dig into citizens' private lives. Banking secrecy is about to be erased. That would have catastrophic consequences. Because there will always be people in society who want to break laws criminally, all citizens are treated with suspicion just in case. It's a widespread phenomenon, unfortunately.

Courts are reinstating members expelled from political parties (EKRE). Courts are entertaining lawsuits from athletes who weren't selected for national teams. Absurd. The state does not trust civil society, including political parties and sports clubs. The state suspects all citizens and even itself. But let's not believe suspicion will disappear if we simply write perfect laws and regulations.

Liberal democracy is losing political battles worldwide to autocracy. Why? Has democracy outlived its usefulness? Or do we need to critically reassess the mechanisms through which it operates? That means reexamining how the state functions.

It's not a black-and-white issue. Even classical liberals demand good governance, effective leadership and decision-making at the state level. Blanket rejection of any state intervention is neither credible nor sensible. Good governance must be our guiding principle. But the state must always be viewed with suspicion and citizens must be protected from it.

The year 2004 brought us membership in the European Union, which, starting in 2021, has provided a steady flow of funding — €20 billion in total so far. That's 2.5–5 percent of GDP annually.

This money doesn't come from the private sector or taxpayers — it's state money. Yes, it comes from Europe, but it is public support funding. Big money. And it has changed our attitudes toward work, private enterprise and risk-taking in the economy. It has reduced the need for individual decision-making. This has been a far more profound shift than simply receiving extra money for a better life.

The Reform Party has always been a champion of prosperity policy. Now we're at an impasse. We no longer understand what prosperity means or what kind of prosperity voters want.

Our competitor is social liberalism, whose ideas have consistently been carried in Estonia by the Center Party — and, in truth, also by the Social Democrats — and even supported by Isamaa when it could earn them ten more votes in an election.

Social liberalism is strong and popular across Europe. Some Western European opinion leaders are practically communists. But if we slide toward social liberalism, we hand over our influence to our competitors. We no longer stand out — we don't differ. And we don't truly believe in social liberalism, which means we cannot effectively compete for influence over Estonia's future.

Redistribution. Equalization. Free benefits. These are the engines of socialism and social liberalism. But who does the redistributing? Who is being equalized — and on what grounds? Who pays for the free benefits?

We're told that one-fifth of Estonians (19.4 percent) live in relative poverty. That's false. It's left-wing populism and demagoguery rooted in Europe. The real poverty rate is 3.3 percent. Poor people are being sought out everywhere. If improving prosperity is seen only as improving the lives of the poor, then why should anyone strive to create wealth?

The question of how to bring prosperity into the home has fallen by the wayside. And prosperity itself is now seen more as a sin than a virtue.

No redistribution, no equalization and no distribution of free benefits will ever seem fair to all citizens. And then the citizens will be dissatisfied. When people are supported in every way, they lose the ability to stand on their own, as the saying goes.

A free service, by definition, fails to satisfy its user. The bus comes to the wrong place at the wrong time, it's uncomfortable and poorly maintained and the driver doesn't care about passengers.

A school recently received an order from the Ministry of Education and Research, prompted by a complaint from a single parent, reminding them that collecting money from parents for PE lessons and other educational activities is not allowed. "Therefore, we are immediately ending all activities that enrich the curriculum with funds collected from parents, including field trips, theater and cinema visits, first aid training, skiing and swimming lessons during school hours," the principal wrote to the parents.

Indeed, when parents provide tutoring or other paid extracurricular activities, some students receive better or additional education. The position of the Estonian state is to prevent this by any means necessary. All students must receive the same mediocre education. No one should be allowed to get a better education.

Just a few days ago, it was claimed that involving private money in healthcare would lead to inequality. But are you really saying that handing out free services will lead to equality in society? Like in the Soviet Union?

Inequality begins to rule through the distribution of goods and free services. It arises through arbitrary equalization decisions. It thrives under command economies, through distributors, planning committees. Arbitrary (political) decision-making — equalization — becomes power. Invisible power. And that is the enemy of liberalism.

Unfair distribution will inevitably be corrected by bribery. It's unavoidable. Bribery is a self-regulating force that counteracts the injustice of forced equalization.

To a right-wing liberal, society develops through citizens' motivation, free choice and competition — not through the distribution of subsidies, not even business subsidies.

Do we notice how journalists and opinion leaders talk about Europe? Europe — that's "them"! I call this mindset an internal mental security risk. Europe is "us"! When Europe is strong, so are we. Europe is the stronghold of liberal democracy. Europe is viewed with hostility by Russia, China and the United States. Defending a strong Europe is a matter of life and death for us. Europe, Euro-positivity — these are our issues. The fight for Europe is our fight. It must not be overshadowed by internal administrative matters.

A key part of modern Europe is freedom of movement for its citizens — available to Estonians since 2007. Just 18 years. But for how long? That is a question for the future. Let's not forget: Europe is not EKRE's, Isamaa's or the Center Party's issue. To them, Europe is foreign and hostile — especially the free movement of people.

In the 2003 referendum, only 63 percent of voters supported joining the European Union. The U.S., China, Russia and other emerging global powers prefer direct, bilateral relations between states in foreign policy. So why should an independent Republic of Estonia be seen as an asset, not a problem, to its Western allies? Who in the world cares about tiny Estonia — aside from Russia, whose interest in us is anything but healthy?

In 2003, our government made the decision to support our U.S. allies in the War on Terror, including the invasion of Iraq. For that, I — the prime minister — was called an American lackey by Estonian leftists. But Estonia's position was clear: if we are allies, then we are allies.

We must not be left alone after the 2027 elections. We need sufficient independent capabilities — on the border, in the air, at sea, on enemy territory and in civil defense. We need a strong economy, reserves and flexibility.

Finance is our song — but not our song festival. And unfortunately, we've been off-key lately. I hope we still know the notes. Our tax burden is low at 35.2 percent, but public sector spending is 44.3 percent of GDP.

How should we view government borrowing? Naturally, borrowing is a financial instrument that can be used responsibly. But globally, it tends to start with defense investments only for the funds to later spill over into everything else once the legislature gets involved. The 2026 budget deficit of €1.979 billion certainly won't be used solely to meet strategic needs. Public transport subsidies are being increased — but how is that related to national security?

Taking on debt doesn't just mean doing nice things — it also means interest payments, growing power for banks, new rules and restrictions and a weakening of a sovereign state's independence.

A balanced budget is a sign of national strength. The British have a saying about borrowing: it's like giving you an umbrella when the weather's nice, only to take it back when it rains.

Sound fiscal policy is not only the concern of the finance minister, budget committee chair and prime minister. In the Reform Party, every member of parliament, every local councilor and every state and municipal government official is responsible. Team accountability for sound public finances must be the Reform Party's flagship for the 2027 election campaign. It must be clear and acceptable to all.

We need money, but there's either always too little of it or none at all. There is no third option. It was a lack of financial literacy that cost the French king his head.

One observation from the recent local elections: the natural environment — its preservation, protection, development — was a key theme. At least in Viimsi. Perhaps we've been weak on this issue overall.

Estonia's natural environment is among the best in the world. Nothing is excessive, nothing is lacking. The air is clean, rivers are clean, there are no garbage islands floating in the sea. There are vast forests. When I used to bring colleagues from other countries to Estonia during our EU days, they'd gape out of the bus windows at the landscape. How is it so clean here? How are your farms so tidy? The challenge is how to protect and preserve that. How to ensure society, through its own self-development, maintains our natural environment without resorting to a massive command economy.

New times call for new people. What kind of people? Like the 791 who boldly put their names and faces on the line to defend the Reform Party and its values? Or those who hid behind electoral alliances and delivered votes to who knows whom?

The Reform Party must field a team in the next elections that is competent, free of corruption, ready to decide and take responsibility and doesn't tell fairy tales, fall into populism or resort to hate. That kind of team has always been our trump card.

The Reform Party is still very strong. We have 39 seats in the Riigikogu, we lead the government, we've always had a strong organization and we've demonstrated competence in governance. Some 58,000 citizens voted for us. Since 2007, the Reform Party has consistently won more than 30 seats in Riigikogu elections. In 2023, 190,000 people voted for us.

We do not give up.

This commentary is based on a speech delivered at the Reform Party's General Assembly.

--

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