Let's start with Brussels and Strasbourg where the European Parliament operates. Journalists might not ask this often, but I imagine many people you meet on the street still do: what is it that you actually do in the European Parliament? How do you respond to them?

Honestly, I'd say there are three types of people there. First, there are those who've basically been sent into retirement. The European Parliament is full of former prime ministers, ministers, even presidents, who are sent off on their final political journey with a golden handshake for five or ten years. Their involvement tends to be very passive, non-political, since they don't really have a political future anymore and so they just drift toward retirement.

Then there's a second type of person who throws themselves wholeheartedly into what is, on the surface, meaningful work. They submit dozens or even hundreds of amendments to any and every report or resolution. Even if none of them pass, they still feel they've made a great contribution to the good of Europe and the future of its people. But in terms of real political value, impact or results — it's practically nonexistent.

And then there's the third type, which I'd say I belong to. We believe in contributing where we can actually be of some use, while focusing on how to lead our home party to victory in national elections.

At the end of the day, while the European Parliament is called a "parliament," the reality is that no matter what it adopts, if the member states don't agree, it doesn't become binding. It's a very amorphous entity caught between the European Commission, which acts as the executive power and is the only body with the right to initiate legislation, and the member states.

The European Parliament is this in-between structure that tries to steer policy in some direction, whether conservative, liberal, federalist or sovereign. We've seen this over the decades, with the European Parliament often leaning heavily federalist, calling for more cooperation and EU-wide policy-making.

Now, in the current term, we're starting to see more of a return to common sense — re-examining whether the green transition is truly reasonable and whether immigration policy should be such that everyone is welcome and we accept anyone who makes it across the border or the Mediterranean. So it's this kind of shapeless thing, stuck between the member states and the European Commission.

That's a pretty complex explanation — something you can't really present to an average voter on the street in the same way. Many people ask: what can you actually do there, specifically?

Actually, I think I'm one of the few who has tried to consistently provide weekly updates since the beginning of 2019. I won't name names, but I've noticed that a few other Estonian MEPs have started copying me. I take two or three topics and say: look, the European Parliament discussed this issue this week, here was the outcome, whether it made sense or was pointless and here's my opinion on it. That format really took off and I think a large portion of my voters are at least aware of what I and the European Parliament more broadly have been doing.

Now, people who aren't interested in politics — and I believe there are many who just aren't engaged between elections — will find all of this foreign. That's inevitable. European Union issues often seem distant, confusing and very bureaucratic — frankly, they often are. To those people, it can seem like a huge waste of money and just a lot of hot air, with little to no tangible benefit.

You belong to one of the smaller political groups in the European Parliament officially called the European Conservatives and Reformists or ECR. Even the entire group doesn't have much influence there. We can see that things move very slowly in the European Parliament and that there's limited say in many matters. So what can an MEP actually do? What, for example, did you do last week?

I'd actually push back on that — we're not a small group, we're the fourth largest. There are eight groups in the European Parliament. The biggest is the EPP — the European People's Party. The second is the Socialists. The third is the Patriots of Europe group, which includes parties like Viktor Orbán's and Marine Le Pen's. And we, the Conservatives and Reformists, are the fourth. For comparison, the fifth-largest group is Renew Europe, which includes Estonia's Reform Party — their group is smaller than ours.

In fact, our actual influence in the current term is greater than it's ever been. It was already strong before, but now it's especially significant because the European People's Party has started shifting toward a more sensible direction — trying to roll back elements of the green transition and the ban on gasoline and diesel cars because the damage caused has been enormous. Now they're saying, "Oops, we made a mistake." And in order to start doing sensible things — rolling back illegal immigration, reversing the green transition, reviving the European economy — they need the votes of the Conservatives and Reformists.

If our group weren't as large as it is, the EPP could stand on its head and still get nothing done, because the Socialists, Renew Europe's liberals and the Greens are all demanding a continuation of the same disastrous policies. So our group actually carries a lot of weight.

What did I do last week? Last week was still the winter break. The final plenary session before Christmas was held in Strasbourg. One of the most important things we accomplished — thanks to our votes, including mine — was pushing through a shift in immigration policy that brought the member states a bit more back to reality.

Right now, member states haven't been able to deport illegal immigrants because their countries of origin have supposedly been deemed unsafe. For example, tens of thousands have come through Tunisia across the Mediterranean to the island of Lampedusa and from there they're transported across Italy and begin to be distributed throughout Europe. Then we all throw up our hands, asking what we're supposed to do with them.

The member states proposed expanding the list of so-called safe countries to which people could be returned. The groups most opposed to this were the Socialists, the Greens, the Communists and some Liberals. The European People's Party, the Conservatives and Reformists and the Patriots of Europe were clearly in favor. The reality after the 2024 election is that the European Parliament has shifted noticeably in a conservative or centrist direction. That was one example of what happened just before Christmas: the European Parliament approved starting negotiations with the member states on expanding the list of countries considered safe, so that deportations could resume.

That was one example from the second half of last year's European Parliament votes where the European People's Party, broadly speaking Christian Democrats or conservatives, voted together with parties that, on the imagined political spectrum, sit to their right. Brussels-based media described this as some kind of major revolutionary shift, something unprecedented, a complete change of course. But from a distance, it doesn't really seem all that dramatic. Take green transition or climate votes, for example: the EU's previous goal was to completely phase out internal combustion engine cars by 2035 and now that target has merely shifted to 90 percent.

So where exactly is the revolution? Not so much in terms of car policy, but in the fact that you're now voting with the EPP, even though previously it seemed EPP couldn't vote with parties further to the right?

Actually, the EPP has quite often voted with the Conservatives and Reformists in the past — ours is a moderately right-leaning conservative group. The ones they wouldn't vote with were parties in the Identity and Democracy group, which was labeled too extreme. The EPP has always tried to position itself as that classical centrist, pro-European, conservative force that dances the same dance as the Socialists.

Now, though, the EPP has been largely cornered by the AfD. They're facing reality: if they don't get moving and recognize the real situation — what's happened to the German economy after shutting down nuclear power and pushing through the green transition, the tens of thousands of jobs lost in the auto industry due to the electric vehicle obsession — they'll lose even more votes to the AfD in the next elections. It's a political inevitability: real action only starts when people fear losing their seats in the next election.

So now, they have to vote more frequently not only with us — the Conservatives and Reformists — but also with even more right-leaning or national-conservative groups in order to implement any real reforms. And yes, these reforms are undeniably slow. There's nothing revolutionary happening — no sudden 180-degree turn, no slamming the brakes on these reckless policies. What we're seeing is a slow simmer: small steps taken to ensure the Socialists and Greens don't scream too loudly or accuse the EPP of collaborating with the far-right.

But in the end, it's the taxpayer who pays for it all — through higher electricity prices, more expensive food and job losses. As for the car policy, sure, the target was reduced to 90 percent by 2035, but I'm fairly confident that by 2030, it'll be down to 50 percent. In the end, political reality hits like a shovel to the head. The damage has already been massive — billions lost — but it is finally dawning on people that the original plan was simply unworkable.

Basically, unless we want to build full-blown communism where only a carefully selected elite can afford a sleek electric car and comfortably drive it around downtown Berlin or Telliskivi in Tallinn where there are charging stations, that 2035 goal will keep getting quietly scaled back year after year. And then they'll say, "Look, we've corrected our mistakes. Please vote for us again and give us back our positions."

From the inside of the European Parliament, how does the picture of extremism versus moderation really look? It's common for certain parties to be labeled far-right by other politicians and the media and often the ECR group seems to fall under that label as well or at least I've seen it happen. But on the other hand, parties on the far left are rarely called extremists unless they're outright communist. So how does this appear from within? What does "extremism" actually mean in the context of the European Parliament?

That's maybe a broader question about the quality of our universities in training journalists and how capable journalists really are of maintaining political neutrality or at least masking their sympathies for certain political forces. I've seen, for instance, how Marine Le Pen's party is labeled far-right. Even though I don't agree with all of her views, especially when it comes to Russia, I still haven't been able to understand how any self-respecting journalist or media outlet can, with a straight face, call a party that holds close to 50 percent public support "far-right." How on earth is that possible? How can they be extremists?

In my view, extremism means you have maybe 5 to 10 percent support — you're a niche group with very radical ideas that don't resonate with most of society. That's what being extreme means: sitting in a corner with your tiny support base and out-there ideas. But if you have around 50 percent backing — like Marine Le Pen in the context of the French presidential elections — how can that be extreme?

The same goes for ECR, the group I belong to. Our main party is Fratelli d'Italia, the Brothers of Italy. Their leader, Giorgia Meloni, is the Italian prime minister and remains hugely popular, even while in office, which is quite rare in Italian politics. Calling a group extreme that includes a highly popular head of government who is enacting economic reforms and has managed to get immigration under control — what exactly is extreme about that?

So this is more of a critique of some Estonian journalists who blindly copy-paste articles from Politico and other outlets: if it says "far right," then they just translate it as paremäärmuslane, without having the faintest idea what's behind the label. We could just as well argue that in Estonia, Isamaa isn't even that right-wing — it's centrist on several issues. Same with the EPP, which is often more centrist than conservative. The whole business of labeling parties ideologically is often quite peculiar.

I imagine that for many Isamaa members, it's been somewhat strange lately to look at the EPP's positions from Estonia. Isamaa, for example, has moved more quickly toward a critical stance on the green transition, while the EPP still holds the line of "let's not back away completely just yet, let's not be too critical."

But let me put the question this way: you're a member of the Center Party and your fellow Center Party MEP is Jana Toom. She belongs to Renew Europe, the liberal group. In the most recent vote on countries from which immigration to Europe originates, you two voted differently, didn't you? She felt that we still shouldn't return refugees to countries that are considered safe, such as the previously mentioned Tunisia.

How is a voter supposed to make sense of that? A Center Party voter casts their vote for the party. Their constituency might not include either Jaak Madison or Jana Toom, but they still have to figure out who is the Center Party in the European Parliament, really?

As party leader Mihhail Kõlvart has said: The goal of the Center Party is to bring together different people and unite them in the political center.

But should that unity really be that broad?

Jana Toom certainly has her own views and her own interpretation of which countries can be considered safe. In fact, even some European countries are reluctant to return refugees, because a refugee, by definition, is someone in genuine need of protection whose life or health is truly at risk.

But the reality is that very few of those arriving in Europe are actual refugees. The majority are illegal immigrants who are simply seeking a better life. And while that's completely understandable on a human level and you do feel sympathy for them, Europe just isn't a place where the entire world can come running simply because their own countries are broken or life there is hard.

But what about a very simple and current issue, like this kidnapping of Maduro by the United States from Venezuela's capital in a military operation? As I understand it, you believe the United States took the right step?

I think that even if some steps taken by the United States are not the right ones, Estonia's role or task should not be to lecture or moralize to the United States, which contributes more than two-thirds of NATO's budget.

But Jana Toom has said that this clearly violates international law. Have you two talked about it at all?

Not in any real depth, but I know that her views and ideological positions are certainly different from mine. When I joined the Estonian Center Party, there were people who asked me how I could join a party that includes Jana Toom.

My response has always been: is one person in Estonia's largest party really supposed to be the main argument I should focus on?

For me, what matters far more is the party's official position and political direction — what it stands for when we win Riigikogu elections or are part of the governing coalition. That's what voters need to understand: what is the Center Party's policy when in power.

If we look at the Center Party's platform before the European Parliament elections, even though I wasn't yet a member at the time, it was strongly supportive of the nation-state, clearly opposed to the green transition, in favor of sovereign energy policy and protecting external borders.

So the question is really for individual party members: yes, you're entitled to your personal views, but the party's platform was clearly in support of the nation-state concept. I've always based my actions on the party's official policy.

Today, the Center Party is seriously considering joining the European Conservatives and Reformists Party.

How does that joining process actually work? What needs to be done?

According to the party's bylaws, the party board has to make a proposal to the party council, which then either approves or rejects it.

If I remember correctly, hasn't something like that already happened or not?

What has happened is that in September 2024, the Estonian Center Party left ALDE — the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe — by a decision of the party council. That group also includes the Reform Party. It was a very clear political choice: we cannot belong to that kind of European family.

So right now, is the Center Party just sort of in between?

At the moment, we are officially unaffiliated — we don't belong to any political family. And realistically, there aren't that many options. If you're moving away from ALDE, which leaned heavily to the left, was liberal, federalist and a driver of the green transition, then the reasonable direction to go is either the European People's Party (EPP) or the Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).

ALDE began monitoring the Center Party back in 2019, when Jüri Ratas was chairman, because the party formed a coalition with Isamaa and EKRE. That just shows it's a clearly political group that comes to lecture member parties, saying: "We don't like what you're doing — we don't care about election results or democracy, we only care about our ideology." Obviously, the Estonian Center Party cannot be part of a group that includes the Reform Party.

Isamaa is already in the EPP. Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Reformists form one of the most influential political families in all of Europe: they include Poland's Law and Justice party, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's party and the Sweden Democrats — on whom the current Swedish government depends and thanks to whom Sweden has shut down illegal immigration flows and implemented economic reforms. So it's a very strong group.

The Estonian Center Party hasn't made a decision to join them yet, but we are seriously considering it. Ultimately, this sends a clear message to the voter: when you vote for the Estonian Center Party, you know you're voting for a return to normal politics where Estonia's interests come first in Europe.

Over the past year, the Center Party has done exceptionally well. For many, it's been a real surprise how the party managed to recover from such a crisis. You're a relatively new member. Do you think Mihhail Kõlvart, as party chairman, and the supporters who stayed on after the big exodus have done something fundamentally right? Or has the Center Party just been incredibly lucky? After all, being in opposition at a time when the government is raising taxes, inflation is high and unpopular, short-sighted decisions are being made — some of which target the Center Party's Russian-speaking voters — what is it really?

It's definitely a mix of both. Of course, political opponents — like the Social Democrats, the Reform Party or Eesti 200 — will always try to explain another party's success by saying they just got lucky.

Let's be honest — you have been lucky in the sense that no one would have expected the governing parties, or the Social Democrats, who were in government at the time, to hand the Center Party one gift after another.

Yes, but at the same time, you could ask: why didn't those voters rally behind EKRE or even more behind Isamaa? Or why didn't they support Parempoolsed, a completely extra-parliamentary party that's supposedly a clean, fresh force?

As far as I know, Parempoolsed was the only other party besides the Center Party whose support increased last year, according to Emor.

Exactly — so why did voters rally behind the Estonian Center Party? I think the party has to acknowledge that what brought many voters back and even convinced some from other parties to support the Center Party was message clarity.

For me, the key issue has always been that the Center Party's worldview is centrist — finding balance and common ground between different sides. But when things get specific, like a Riigikogu vote on whether to shut down the oil shale power plants, you can't be in the middle. You're either for it or against it.

Are you willing to clash with the ideology of the green transition, which claims it's about saving the planet and rescuing penguins from a supposedly deadly climate crisis? Should we stand up for affordable electricity and national sovereignty, which is also a matter of Estonia's security?

Can we produce electricity in Estonia without relying on cable connections to Finland, which some Russian or Chinese tanker might once again break in January when it's minus 30 degrees? The same goes for immigration: are we for quotas or not? That's not a place where you can sit in the middle. In the end, voters need clarity.

The same applies in the Tallinn context. If I vote for the Center Party, do I get back leadership without four parties bickering over whether Pärtel-Peeter Pere or [Kristjan] Järvan is the tougher guy — one riding a cargo bike, the other driving a car? Will parking spaces be restored? Will snow be properly cleared in the winter? Will new kindergarten spots be created?

Do you get back normal city governance after the "rainbow coalition"? In the end, people vote for certainty.

All of these are important issues, but let's be honest — the Center Party's excellent result in Tallinn was primarily due to Russian-speaking voters wanting to vote for Mihhail Kõlvart.

Yes, but Tallinn has eight city districts and Mihhail Kõlvart could only run in one of them.

Yes, but for example, you ran in the Kesklinn district and didn't get the best result among the Center Party's candidates there. It was actually Andrei Kante who did.

And that's completely logical because Andrei Kante isn't well-known to voters in places like Põlva or Tartu.

But he is well-known to Russian-speaking voters in Tallinn.

He's a former and also current deputy mayor, the person who oversaw the education reform and under whose leadership a methodology was developed for teaching Estonian to Russian-speaking children. He's done very good work in the past and that naturally translated into results in the local elections. People vote for someone who's done a good job at the local level. So the strength of our list in the Kesklinn district was exactly that — it was a strong list.

We had former district elder Monika Haukanõmm who is now also a deputy mayor. The list was strong and even my nearly 1,000 votes — in that context, running for the first time on the Center Party list in Tallinn where my voter base isn't the largest, but rather in Järva and Viljandi counties — that's not a bad result at all. I'm perfectly happy with it.

But in the end, the real question is: what has led to the fact that today, the Center Party is supported by more than three times as many Estonian-speaking voters as it was in the summer of 2024?

What has brought that about?

Precisely message clarity. The certainty that the Estonian Center Party is not, in the negative sense, some kind of "Russian party" that only Russian-speaking people vote for and that looks toward Moscow. It's the largest people's party in Estonia whose goal is to make it possible to live a normal life in every region of the country.

That rural schools and local businesses are preserved. That the tax system doesn't strangle Estonian entrepreneurship, forcing businesses to close and laying off workers. That energy policy provides stability and foresight, so we know what the price of electricity will be in mid-February when it's freezing cold. That entrepreneurs have predictability about their input costs when it comes to energy.

That we have sensible policy that defends every person, no matter what their native language at home is, while still being very mindful of Estonia's security concerns and of the fact that the official language of Estonia is Estonian and every child must learn it properly.

If Estonian-speaking voters are given that assurance — that the Center Party stands for normal, responsible policy — then they'll be willing to vote for the Center Party again, even when the Reform Party pulls the "Russian card" out of its back pocket once more to stir up panic and fear in society just to boost its own support.

That tactic doesn't work anymore.

If I ask Mihhail Kõlvart the same question, will I get the same answer?

I actually met with him just last night — we talked about the Riigikogu elections — and yes, he has the same answer. In fact, he reminded me of something we've emphasized to Estonian-speaking voters: which mayor of a European capital was the first to go to Kyiv immediately after the war broke out in 2022.

That's true. Mihhail Kõlvart was also likely the mayor who, in his very first speech as mayor of Tallinn, spoke about the importance of the Estonian language. If we look at the coalition agreement the Center Party has now signed with Isamaa, there's more talk about the Song Festival than about snow removal. The Estonian language is mentioned heavily and from what I've heard, those points were pushed more by Mihhail Kõlvart than by [Isamaa chairman] Urmas Reinsalu. Am I wrong?

I don't think you are, no, because Mihhail Kõlvart is a true Estonian patriot, a member of the Estonian Defense League.

The millions of euros that were spent under Kõlvart's leadership to help Ukrainian refugees in Tallinn while he was mayor — that all came to an end when Jevgeni Ossinovski [SDE] became mayor, together with the so-called "white forces" of Eesti 200 who have fortunately managed to shoot themselves in the foot with their own foolishness.

What this new supposedly progressive and pro-European city government did was entirely against Estonia's national security interests — it mocked Ukrainians and refugees.

What Kõlvart did as mayor was provide strong support and aid to those people.

But if we look again at party support surveys, the Center Party is clearly not the most popular among Estonian-speaking voters. Most recently, Isamaa was the most popular, followed by one or two other parties, and only then came the Center Party. So, third or fourth place among Estonian-speaking voters.

We have room to grow. But if we've managed in about a year to triple our support among Estonian-speaking voters — at a time when the party's financial situation has been very difficult and we haven't had the money for any major PR campaign...

Then that result has come specifically from clear messaging, a firm ideological stance and providing voters with the confidence that the Center Party is a strong alternative to the current government. I believe the direction has been the right one.

It still requires a lot of work, but if we can raise the share of Estonian-speaking support to 15 percent, that would mean around 25 percent nationwide and that puts us in the game to win.

So you believe that, in pursuit of that goal, the Center Party and Mihhail Kõlvart will be able to keep Aleksandr Tšaplõgin and Jana Toom, so to speak, under wraps indefinitely?

Does anyone need to be kept under wraps?

Well, Aleksandr Tšaplõgin didn't even make it into the city council, which seemed quite interesting.

Undoubtedly, Estonia's largest party includes a variety of people, but what matters most to voters is the policy the party pursues as a whole.

You yourself made a truly brilliant choice when you left EKRE and joined the Center Party. As I understand it, you had the option of going to Isamaa or maybe even somewhere else. But at that moment, the Center Party didn't exactly seem full of promise. Let's be honest, if you had gone to Isamaa, you probably wouldn't be a deputy chair today.

I remember very well a fascinating opinion piece by the respected host, Mr. Samost, right after I joined the Center Party. Was it perhaps in Lääne Elu? There was a sentence in it that said something like: "Madison probably isn't afraid to ride the crest of a wave or to take risks."

That line may very well have been in there. So it seems I was right?

I've never been afraid to take political risks. In the beginning, there were a lot of people who said, "I voted for you and you betrayed me — you joined the Estonian Center Party." But I told them: take it easy.

Right now there's still a window of opportunity where a number of politicians who appeal to Estonian-speaking voters could join the Center Party and secure good spots on the list ahead of the next elections?

Good spots on the list are earned primarily through hard work.

Certainly, but also thanks to previous achievements and popularity.

We've had a large number of Estonian-speaking members join us, many of whom previously had a background in EKRE. Especially in rural areas, active local-level politicians have joined the Center Party, seeing that the party is once again rising to become a strong people's party.

The fact is, the Center Party won the nationwide local elections, coming out of a very difficult situation. That victory would not have happened without the support of Estonian-speaking voters.

Of course, it also helped that Russian-speaking voters have clearly come back to support the Center Party — something that disproves opponents' claims that the Center Party is some shady entity that poses a threat to national security. Not at all. The Center Party has consistently supported increased defense spending, strengthening Estonia's security, opposed Russia's actions and supported NATO.

And despite all of that, the Russian-speaking voter in Estonia still chooses the Estonian Center Party.

As for those we call "pro-Russian" — and unfortunately that includes quite a few Estonian-speakers — the common thread there isn't the native language spoken at home, but rather a mindset, certain peculiarities in how their brains work, where they somehow start to think that what Russia is doing is, in some twisted way, exciting or admirable.

Are you referring here to Mart Helme's recent foreign policy article?

That's a very interesting one, actually. There are other members of parliament too who say things like we have no choice but to pack our bags and go negotiate in Moscow. These kinds of people exist among both Russian- and Estonian-speakers. And there are certainly parties out there for them to vote for — Koos, for example.

Based on what you're saying, the theory that the Center Party has been taking votes from Isamaa doesn't hold up. It seems you're actually pulling more support from EKRE?

If we look at the growth in support in rural areas, I see movement coming from two directions. One group of voters is coming from EKRE due to value-based issues, like the nation-state, immigration, security and energy policy.

The other group is coming from the Social Democrats — not because of value issues, but because of economic ones: how large families are coping, how the elderly are managing, social issues, caregiving for dependents.

People who, in theory, should be voting for the Social Democrats are disappointed because the Social Democrats are more focused on "rainbow issues," which the average Estonian simply doesn't care about.

Do you want to put those issues on the table in the elections?

I have no problem debating any topic, including value-based issues. I just know that the opponents always lose.

But is that the issue the Center Party wants to campaign on in the elections?

No, the Center Party will go into the elections with substantive issues — namely economic policy, taxation, cost of living, demographics, birth rates, security, life in rural areas, agriculture and business-related topics.

These are the core issues that will determine the future of the Estonian state and whether we, as a nation, will even exist a hundred years from now.

We can allocate 20 percent to defense and buy up weapons, but if we don't address demographics and birth rates, then who are we building and defending this country for?

Let's talk about Estonian politics from the perspective of other parties. The government includes the Reform Party and Eesti 200 both of which have had consistently low support. Eesti 200 polls around 2–3 percent and the Reform Party between 10 and 13 percent. Combined, that gives the government about 15 percent public support — an almost unprecedented situation in Estonian history. Do you think these two parties will remain in government simply because together they still hold over 50 seats in the Riigikogu until the next election?

It all depends on whether Eesti 200 starts to fall apart or not. All it would take is two people from Eesti 200 jumping to the opposition and the coalition would lose its majority.

Then the question becomes whether Kristen Michal can manage to "buy" a few votes from the sidelines to somehow keep the government limping along until the elections.

Another question is what's happening inside the Reform Party — if their rating doesn't start to recover, will they really want to go into an election with 10 to 13 percent support, knowing that Prime Minister Michal will be seen as the main person to blame?

It seems to me that no one in that party wants to make such a decision right now. No one is challenging the party leader, no one wants to be the one who takes the electoral loss on behalf of Kristen Michal.

They're probably calculating that they'll take the loss and no one wants to be the one blamed for it. They're assuming that a new government will come in without the Reform Party and then they can sit in the opposition and lecture everyone — just like Kaja Kallas did in 2019 and 2020. Then, come back in 2031 as the so-called savior of the Estonian people.

That's one theoretically possible scenario.

As for Eesti 200, the question is: which parties would even want to offer members of a failed party a life jacket?

If a minister or MP from Eesti 200 were to come now and express interest in joining the Center Party, would you not accept them?

That's a question for the party chair to answer, but I can say this — there are certainly several ministers and MPs in Eesti 200 in whom the Center Party has absolutely no interest.

Am I right in understanding that if anything characterizes Center Party chairman Mihhail Kõlvart, it's that he has a good memory? Some Social Democrats who left the Center Party a year ago have expressed interest in returning, but Kõlvart has said no. Is that true?

I don't think you're wrong. I can't say who exactly may have approached Mihhail Kõlvart directly about coming back. But I do know that just a few days ago, an acquaintance of mine — whose close friend is a Social Democrat who lost their position in another city, not in Tallinn, due to a change in power — was wondering whether, if they were to join the Center Party, there might be a chance to get a deputy position in one of the city districts.

I politely said that my gut feeling is: probably not.

This is classic political opportunism — wanting to be near the honey pot, but not willing to contribute to the campaign or the actual work. A party really shouldn't have much interest in people who made a choice to leave, switched parties just to get a position.

Because bringing them back would essentially be flipping off the people who stuck with the party during the hard times, who endured, who risked their jobs and ultimately played a big role in turning things around and bringing the party to victory across Estonia.

And then you go and tell those people, "You know what, we're actually going to bring back those who comfortably ran off to the Social Democrats or somewhere else and now want a job again and come crawling back."

Nice that they're interested, but they should find another outlet.

At the same time, parties are facing a serious shortage of people who can bring in votes and who have ideas and the desire to be active in politics.

That's true and it's a major challenge — how to convince people from the private sector to come into politics when the reputation of politics in Estonia is far from great.

Just look at the situation in the Riigikogu — the constant bickering, the quality of the government. Take the finance minister, Jürgen Ligi [Reform], who seems more focused on working out than on intellectual development and who prefers to rant on social media about the United States, all while carrying major baggage himself, starting with billions in money laundering scandals. Being the finance minister and not having a clue.

With the government at the level it is, convincing a successful person — someone doing just fine in the private sector or a top lawyer or leading doctor — to enter politics is extremely difficult.

It hasn't exactly been easier for opposition parties either.

Of course not. The Riigikogu is a reflection of society. When voters say, "Just look at what's going on in there," the answer has to be: take a look in the mirror — they didn't end up there by accident.

That's a fairly rare statement to hear from a politician. But we have a presidential election coming up. The Reform Party and Eesti 200 are now launching an initiative in hopes of boosting their own support through the presidential election and, possibly with the help of the Social Democrats, getting the president elected in the Riigikogu before the next government comes to power. Could that scenario succeed?

If it was possible in 2016 for Kersti Kaljulaid to become president, then I'm afraid anything is possible. If the Reform Party manages to reach an agreement with Eesti 200 and the Social Democrats...

The Social Democrats have always shown themselves to be relatively cheap. Their price usually isn't very high when it comes to getting or demanding certain things. So their votes are definitely up for grabs.

That would leave just two votes short and while there are people "under the window" (independent MPs – ed.) who are certainly very principled — for example, I cannot imagine anyone could convince Leo Kunnas to vote for a Reform Party–approved presidential candidate — there are also people who don't belong to any party and whose worldview is closer to that of the Reform Party and Eesti 200.

The hope is to secure a president who would then start torpedoing the next government's agenda — if that government doesn't include the Reform Party.

Our job is to make sure that the president isn't elected in the Riigikogu, but rather in the Electoral College where there's broader representation. And to elect a president who focuses first and foremost on defending the Constitution, something the current president has done very meaningfully.

I don't see any reason why Alar Karis shouldn't have the chance to continue.

Have you discussed Alar Karis's candidacy with Isamaa, for example?

I haven't personally. Maybe the party chairman has, but I couldn't say.

So, in principle, if Alar Karis wanted to allow his candidacy to be put forward again — say, in the Electoral College — he could have the votes of Isamaa, the Center Party and maybe even EKRE? Though I do have serious doubts about EKRE.

Yes, that is doubtful. But I think this is always a classic scenario that plays out every five years, where each party tries to maneuver a favorable presidential candidate into office.

Even though the presidential institution is extremely important, it's often viewed as just some kind of rubber stamp or a fancy position with a nice official car.

In reality, the president is one of the last lines of defense in upholding the Constitution, especially when political processes go off the rails. Or when the ruling coalition starts rushing through initiatives without regard to whether constitutional values and interests are being protected. The president serves as that safeguard and can exercise constitutional oversight.

But this whole situation turns into exactly the same kind of political struggle every five years. That's why, in my view, one of the key issues in the 2027 Riigikogu elections should be whether we can finally move toward amending the Constitution so that the president is elected by the people — following the example of Nordic countries like Finland.

I just can't take that seriously.

I can, because if we're talking about a potential rational and sensible coalition that actually tries to solve real problems, then this is one of those recurring issues we see every five years when it comes to electing a president...

But that's not something you can change with just coalition votes.

There are always agreements within a coalition. If one party gets to promise its voters something it likes, then another party can also push through issues that are important to them — thanks to the coalition partners' consent — so that everyone gets to implement something.

I think we've had coalitions before where practically all the parties supported direct presidential elections, but the bill just ended up sitting in a drawer somewhere.

Actually, that hasn't been the case. In 2019, it was the Estonian Center Party and the Conservative People's Party who clearly supported direct elections, while Isamaa was skeptical.

But they weren't opposed either, were they?

They weren't opposed, but from day one there was a barrage of attacks from what is supposedly neutral Estonian media, claiming that we were heading down the path of North Korea and that some kind of terrible regime had descended upon Estonia.

I don't specifically remember North Korea being mentioned.

The comparison was definitely made that we were now reactionaries, dragging the country back to the Middle Ages, that it was a horrible situation. All because there was a plan to hold a referendum on whether the Family Act should remain as it is.

It seems to me that the Reform Party could be saying the same things right now.

Back then, the Reform Party proudly claimed that this issue didn't interest anyone at all.

No, no — I meant the opposite. That the Reform Party could now be saying the same thing: that the media is being overly and unfairly critical of them.

Well, every party tends to feel personally attacked when something negative is written about them — it's always perceived as a targeted hit.

But back then, what happened was that the president proudly put on a show in the Riigikogu chamber: "freedom of speech."

And when we talk about the presumption of innocence, whether someone has beaten someone up or broken a woman's arm, then the president is immediately the one who rushes to defend liberal values and freedom of speech.

It's a classic case of double standards.

It seems like you're still hoping to face off with Eesti 200 over values issues in the next election.

Our main goal is precisely to make sure that parties like Eesti 200, whose strategy is to stir up conflict in society, don't manage to deceive the average voter. And that they don't succeed in turning these pseudo-issues into the main conflict when the real issues are Estonia's economy, our tax situation, national security, demographic crisis, the survival of rural life, rural schools.

That's always been the classic liberal playbook: create a fight out of a pseudo-topic, whip up a frothy spectacle around it and then start lamenting — "oh no, they want to drag us back to the Middle Ages, but we're the noble, shining force of good."

Listening to all this, I have to ask — are you just bored over there in Brussels? The 2027 elections are approaching. Will you definitely be running for the Riigikogu?

If I didn't run, it would mean I don't love my country and the Estonian people enough.

And the next European Parliament elections are in 2029. Will you leave the European Parliament after the 2027 elections?

If the Estonian Center Party wins or is part of the next coalition, then most likely I'd be more than happy to leave.

--

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