On Monday, the Riigikogu will convene for the opening session of its spring term. There are 85 draft bills currently in parliamentary procedure, including a proposal to amend the President of the Republic Election Act. The bill, initiated by 37 members of the Riigikogu, aims to move the deadline for registering presidential candidates earlier and allow each candidate to deliver a speech of up to ten minutes both in the Riigikogu and in the Electoral College.

The proposed changes are justified by the argument that there is currently too little time between the nomination of candidates and the vote for the public to become familiar with their positions. But is the real issue the timeline or rather the selection of candidates or the awareness of the voters?

A suitable presidential candidate should have already demonstrated, through their prior actions, that they are capable of holding the office with dignity. If that's not the case, then setting the nomination deadline a week earlier or allowing a ten-minute speech won't solve the problem.

The motivation behind the bill largely stems from the events of 2016 when Kersti Kaljulaid was introduced as a so-called surprise candidate after the failure of party-backed contenders. If members of the Riigikogu were unfamiliar with Estonia's representative at the European Court of Auditors, they might do better to reflect on themselves rather than the law. After all, the existing legal framework has never prevented anyone from getting to know the candidates.

The bill also proposes changes to the composition of the Electoral College, aiming to increase the share of local government representatives and restore the balance that existed before the administrative reform. During a session of the Constitutional Committee in December, the question was raised as to whether the framers of the Constitution intended to regulate the number of representatives from each municipality individually or whether the focus was on maintaining a fixed proportion between Riigikogu members and local government representatives.

The main point of contention in the Constitutional Assembly was, in fact, whether the president should be elected directly by the people. There was an appeal to popular sentiment in favor of direct elections, though it was acknowledged that this was more a matter of day-to-day politics than of constitutional design.

It was largely for this reason that a compromise was reached: the president would be elected by popular vote the first time, but thereafter the task would fall to the Riigikogu. If the Riigikogu fails to agree on a candidate, then an Electoral College is convened. When the constitutional framework was being developed, the election of the president was considered a matter of state governance and the precise share of local representatives in the Electoral College was not subject to detailed debate.

The original wording regarding the election of the head of state — initially titled riigivanem (state elder) — stipulated that they would be elected by a majority of an electoral body composed of Riigikogu members and at least one hundred delegates appointed by representative bodies of local governments.

Peet Kask, who chaired the committee responsible for the presidential chapter in the Constitutional Assembly, expressed the view that the head of state should preferably be elected by parliament, but that "the participation of county representatives is conceivable, though their number should not exceed half the number of MPs." Thus, during the drafting of the Constitution, it was not deemed necessary for local government representatives to outnumber Riigikogu members in the Electoral College.

The drafters of the Constitution did not delve into the details of the presidential election process. There were far more pressing matters to discuss. The president was envisioned, in keeping with a stable democratic model, as a symbolic figurehead — a "flower maiden," not meant pejoratively or dismissively.

At the September 27, 1991 session of the Assembly, Peet Kask described the role of the head of state as someone who "must observe politics attentively without interfering in the slightest, stepping in only when all politicians have somehow simultaneously made a mess of things and the normal process has ground to a halt, which might happen once in a century."

Of course, the Riigikogu may take up the task of improving the presidential election procedure. There is certainly room for improvement. At the same time, work should also continue on the nearly 80 other draft bills still in the pipeline.

One justification for changing the Electoral College's composition is to emphasize the importance of local governments. But if the goal is to truly enhance the role of municipalities, a far better solution would be to amend the Local Government Organization Act — a draft amendment of which is also currently under review in the Riigikogu. Additionally, a long-pending anti-corruption bill is awaiting action in the Constitutional Committee, having been in limbo for over a year and a half. This bill deals with issues such as conflict-of-interest restrictions and the definition of public officials. Meanwhile, amendments to the Political Parties Act and regulations on prohibited donations are also awaiting their turn.

Let's hope to see meaningful debate on those issues as well. Good luck to the Riigikogu!

--

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