Have you considered running for president, or has such a proposal been made to you?

No, I haven't received any such proposal, nor have I considered it. If someone were ever to make a proposal like that, I would consider it, but so far that hasn't happened.

But do you have any interest or desire to become president?

No, running for president of Estonia is not part of my plans.

What is part of your plans then?

For the next three years, I will certainly continue working in the European Parliament, through to the end of my mandate, doing my best. Beyond that, I haven't made any plans, politically speaking — we'll see what comes up next.

Who do you think the Social Democrats might support as a presidential candidate in the upcoming elections?

I hope the Social Democrats will find a candidate who meets our social democratic expectations — someone who shares our concern for the socio-economic situation, and the well-being of the people in Estonia. Second, it should definitely be someone who understands domestic politics, and if they also understand foreign policy, that would certainly be a bonus. But the main aspect is understanding the people of Estonia, and how Estonia's domestic politics functions.

There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about the idea that the president should be especially strong in foreign policy. Do you think that's not primary, that domestic policy is more important?

I think the reason people are talking so much about the need for a foreign policy-focused president reflects a highly accurate perception that Estonia lacks a sufficiently strong foreign policy authority among its politicians. If we look at how the Estonian state functions, that authority should actually be provided by the prime minister and the foreign minister. I believe that the talk about needing a foreign policy–focused president reflects a sense that the prime minister and foreign minister may not be fully meeting expectations when conducting foreign policy.

Of course, it doesn't hurt to have a president who understands foreign policy exceptionally well, as Toomas Hendrik Ilves did. That would certainly be a great bonus for Estonia — and I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But if we look at who represents Estonia at NATO summits, European Council meetings, and various decision-making formats in the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Union, this is not the president. The president is significantly less involved in foreign policy, and in different formats. I think the primary aspect is still understanding Estonian life, Estonian people, and domestic politics.

How do you view current president Alar Karis' various foreign policy statements? Just recently, he spoke of dialogue with Russia, were the war in Ukraine ever to end

To be frank, I do not understand his motives fully. In Estonia, we should surely avoid any rhetoric which would deepen fatigue when it comes to helping and supporting Ukraine, or that might be perceived as putting pressure on our Ukrainian friends to make concessions.

I don't believe the president meant it that way, but unfortunately, that type of rhetoric can be interpreted like that. So it's certainly not the best thing.

But other politicians have made similar mistakes, for example in rushing to accuse President Zelenskyy of propagating Kremlin narratives. We should be more thoughtful and careful with such matters. These are existential security issues for us, and we need to speak about them very carefully.

Should President Karis then be more precise in his communication, adding context and immediately explaining what he meant in his statements and interviews?

I am not the president's adviser or a technical consultant to him. Clearly, if we look at his previous controversial interview — which he later clarified, and where the written version was compared to recordings — there is obviously a question of how his office operates. One would expect that when the president gives an oral interview that is later turned into written text, the competent specialists in the presidential office would review it carefully and ensure that the president's thoughts are conveyed in a way that readers comprehend as intended. That was clearly not done, at least not to a certain degree. But again, I have no reason to over-dramatize this.

Despite all this, would you personally support President Karis running for a second term?

Personally, as a Member of the European Parliament, I am not involved in this election, so I leave that to my colleagues in the Riigikogu.

I'm asking for your opinion — would it be a good idea?

I don't want to share opinions on that via the media at this point. I don't know whether other candidates have been seriously considered, or who they might be. Absent that context, there's no point in rushing. Figuratively speaking, I can't decide on the best song to represent Estonia at the Eurovision after hearing just the one song. I would need to know the full selection, ahead of expressing a personal preference. Right now, I can't say that. If I say 'yes, I support him,' maybe a better candidate would then appear tomorrow. If I say 'no, I don't support him', it might turn out there are no other candidates. So I'm not ready to state whether I support his continuation as president.

Other potential "performers," so to speak, whose names have been mentioned include [diplomats] Riina Kionka, Matti Maasikas, Jüri Luik, X Kyllike Sillaste-Elling, [justice chancellor] Ülle Madise, and [MEP] Marina Kaljurand.

These are all undoubtedly capable and renowned people in their respective fields. But I don't think the real choice will ultimately be between these individuals.

What do you think generally about how the presidential election campaign has been going so far, and how the various political forces have discussed their candidates?

It is to be quite expected, given the balance of power in the Riigikogu. I don't see anything dramatic in it. From reading, listening to, and viewing the media, one might be given the impression that something very dramatic is taking place, but in my opinion, this is a completely standard political process. I have no doubt that Estonia will get a president, and for the next five years. I believe that whoever holds the office will perform at least as well as the current and previous presidents.

In principle, [former president] Kersti Kaljulaid could also run for a second term

Yes, presumably she could, if she found sufficient political support.

But that would likely be difficult to find

Honestly, the news that she is no longer the president of the Estonian Olympic Committee is so recent that I haven't had time to think that scenario through. I found her to be an amenable president, but one has to consider political realities, not personal sympathies.

Speaking of which, how likely is it that the president will get elected at the Riigikogu?

Not very likely, in my view. I would assume that the Riigikogu will not elect a president in the first three ballots. If it follows that one historical case where the process returned to the Riigikogu after the electoral college (in 2016 when Kaljulaid was elected – ed.), then it would get more likely. But looking at the situation now, the Reform Party has a blocking minority all on its own. And I don't see the other political forces being able to agree on a suitable candidate. I don't believe the Social Democrats, EKRE, and the Center Party could ever unite behind the same candidate, in the first rounds. And if the Reform Party has a blocking minority… no one likely wants to hand that position over to a large Riigikogu faction with relatively small public support. That would be hard to see, though not entirely impossible.

At the same time, it's clear that the Center Party and Isamaa have expressed support for Alar Karis, while the Reform Party has kept its cards close to its chest. Is it theoretically possible that Karis has the necessary support?

Theoretically, yes. There are 101 members at the Riigikogu, and 68 votes are needed to elect a president, so the votes are there in principle. But in terms of probability, I don't consider it very likely.

So the Reform Party probably won't go down that route?

They haven't indicated that so far. Ultimately, there are different considerations. One is who is seen as the best or most suitable president, and another is what is actually feasible. In the end, reality often forces compromises — you have to live with options that may not be your first choice. As the prime minister's party and the largest parliamentary party, the Reform Party has a somewhat greater responsibility to steer this process through safely. But it's also clear they can't do it alone. How much they allow themselves to be pressured by a supposed moral obligation, I don't know. Probably not too much.

Returning to the very beginning — does 'President Mikser' sound right to you?

It certainly sounds good. But I've never felt any desire for that position. I also don't see that someone as politically outspoken and ideologically defined as I am would have realistic chances today. I'm satisfied with the work I'm doing now. I don't have that ambition at the moment. That said, in politics, you should never say never. Why should I declare for life what I will never do? But I'm not actively considering it or seeking support, and no one has asked me to consider running.

What about the Riigikogu elections? (in 2027 – ed.)

We shall see. I have backed my party through various elections, to help it succeed, and to support people whose worldview I share. That's a very different thing from running for office myself, which I would have to truly want, aspire to, and be ready to carry out, and for five years. Riigikogu elections are definitely a different ball game. But as I said at the start, I'll work out my three-year mandate here, then see whether my next challenges are in politics, or elsewhere.

--

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