What is your party's position on the presidential election? How would you comment on the preparations so far and do you have a preferred candidate for president?

Our party board has put forward three proposed candidates. Looking back, the Free Party once supported Allar Jõks and we believe that, in today's circumstances, he would still make a very good president. Given the current political infighting, Estonia could use, in the best sense of the word, a "police officer" who would keep an eye on politicians and call them to order. In addition to Jõks, we also put forward three other names: Jonatan Vseviov, Kadri Simson and Paavo Nõgene.

At this point, do you think the parties will be able to reach an agreement and elect a president in the Riigikogu?

I very much hope so. The conservative-versus-liberal divide that the mainstream parties have so forcefully drawn over the years is now backfiring on them. As long as everyone remains entrenched in their own political trenches, there will be no compromise. If every party is focused solely on scoring political points from the presidential election rather than finding a president worthy of Estonia, then the outcome will be what it is: the person who becomes president will be the one who offends the fewest people, not the one best suited for the job. That's the state of Estonian politics today.

About two years ago, the Free Party relaunched itself under the name Free Party — Aru Pähe (come to your senses in Estonian — ed.). More recently, you changed the name again to Estonian National Liberals — Free Party. Why?

There were several reasons. People found Aru Pähe confusing and the name may have made us seem more like a protest party. In one sense, perhaps we are a protest party, but not the kind of loud, confrontational protest party that voters have seen elsewhere. Another reason is that the Free Party has always been national liberal. Freedom has always been at the core of who we are. When the Free Party was founded 11 years ago, the media criticized us for not having a clear ideology. Even back then, we could have confidently said that we are national liberals — that the Estonian language, culture and the survival of the Estonian state matter deeply to us. That's the national part.

The liberal part is that civil rights, individual freedoms and the freedom to do business are also fundamental values for us. Put those together and you have national liberalism. This is nothing new internationally — there are a number of national liberal parties and they have won elections. Donald Tusk in Poland is one example, as is Japan's female prime minister. We wanted to be upfront about who we are so there would no longer be any uncertainty about our ideological identity.

On the political spectrum, would you place yourselves somewhere on the center-right?

Thereabouts, yes.

What are your plans regarding the next Riigikogu elections?

We're taking it one day at a time. The reality is that, under Estonia's current laws and electoral system, running in a Riigikogu election requires a very large budget. Just the candidate deposits for a full slate of 125 candidates amount to around €100,000. That's before spending anything on a campaign, and that money isn't refunded. The system penalizes parties that are not already receiving state funding — they have to come up with the money themselves and then lose it afterward. Meanwhile, parties that do receive state funding get that money back.

The Free Party has long argued that political competition in Estonia is unfair. The established parties can remain established indefinitely because, unless you have an American uncle or a mother-in-law handing out bags of cash from the closet, you're destined to remain a fringe party. At this point, it's still too early to say. We haven't made any concrete decisions yet.

So it's possible you might not run at all?

That's certainly possible. There's an old saying: if you have nothing to say, it's better to stay silent. Sometimes it's better to stay out of the infighting altogether. This Riigikogu election is shaping up to be a very ugly one. We're already seeing name-calling and finger-pointing. And as for the outcome in the end... We know that Urmas Reinsalu is not the person who will lead Estonia to success. The belief that everything in Estonia will suddenly improve right after the parliamentary election is unlikely to be borne out.

Why did you change the party's name if you're not even sure you'll run in the Riigikogu elections?

Because politics is a long-term process that requires sustained effort. Miracles don't happen overnight in politics. This is a strategic decision with a longer-term goal.

I haven't said we won't run. We simply have to weigh whether it makes sense. At this point, I can't answer that. We changed the name only a month ago, so we need to give ourselves time to build on it. We've also explored cooperation with other parties, but unfortunately electoral alliances are not allowed in Estonia (in parliamentary elections — ed.). That's unfair. Why shouldn't civic groups be able to join forces and run against the parliamentary parties? In the end, it's the voters who should decide who deserves to be represented.

What will determine whether you run in the Riigikogu elections? Will it come down to how much money you're able to raise?

Most likely, yes. The candidate deposit is quite substantial. We have people who say, "Of course we're running," but we also have to be realistic and ask ourselves whether it makes sense to spend that kind of money if there's little chance of success. On the other hand, sometimes you have to make that sacrifice, spend the money and hope for the best. When we launched the Free Party 11 years ago, we didn't have much money either, but we still managed to field a full slate of 125 candidates and make it into parliament. Of course, the circumstances were different then. There was probably greater public demand for the Free Party at the time. Nothing can be ruled out yet — we still have time — but we also have to be realistic.

So you're currently focused on finding funding. In reality, your party also lacks well-known candidates. Are you also working to recruit prominent people to run on your list or join the party?

We are and the name change is partly connected to that. Having a clearly defined ideology is very important to potential candidates. That said, I wouldn't say we necessarily lack recognizable names. We have people like Tiiu Kuurme and Märt Läänemets. If you start listing them, they're not exactly unknown figures in Estonia. But of course, if you're talking about having a high-profile candidate in every electoral district, that's a bit more difficult.

On the other hand, if we look at politicians who keep moving from one party to another, do we really want to see the same faces return to the Riigikogu under a different party label and continue governing the country in the same way? The people themselves haven't changed. Edgar Savisaar once mentored Yana Toom's predecessor Deniss Boroditš. Perhaps we should focus more on developing the next generation of Boroditšes, so that new names can emerge. In any case, we are actively working to recruit additional members.

Maybe you need to be more politically strategic? It seems that's unavoidable in today's political landscape.

That's true. Exactly. We'll be making those decisions in the fall. Our plan isn't to spend the summer sitting idle — we intend to keep working and see what's left in the political field. The six parties that have dug themselves into opposing trenches aren't likely to produce anything worthwhile. But I'm sure there are people within those parties who are looking around, because even behind the scenes you hear that many are unhappy with what's going on.

Our political strategy should be to make sure we're there and, if needed, provide a platform for those who want to move forward. If you look at where the parties stand today, many politicians are likely to find themselves out of office. Let's be realistic — that's when the jockeying will begin. Eesti 200 is in a position where clearing the electoral threshold (of 5 percent — ed.) is just as difficult as it is for us, even though they have money. Money alone isn't enough. What also matters is whether a party's words and actions are consistent.

Let me go back to the name for a moment. Why do you think this new name will work better than Aru Pähe? Do you think people will better understand what the party stands for?

I hope so. I can't say for certain that they will. But ideological clarity is important. Our platform includes key principles that reflect both the national and liberal sides of our worldview: preserving rural life, maintaining Estonian as the official language and supporting a free-market economy. In Estonia, the free market is gradually disappearing — there's a growing tendency to regulate everything and put it under state control. That's dangerous as well, because if everyone depends on government regulations and subsidies, people stop thinking for themselves. We still have a lot of work ahead of us to get that message across. Time will tell whether the new name makes that message easier for people to understand.

Which parties' voters do you think could also be potential Free Party voters?

I think, above all, people who are interested in politics but have become disillusioned. Looking across the political spectrum, I believe there are plenty of Isamaa voters who are considering supporting the party simply because the Reform Party and Eesti 200 have not done a good job in government, while they don't see a viable alternative.

I also think nationally minded voters, including some of EKRE's former supporters, could be interested, because EKRE is all talk. The Helmes like to make speeches and pound the table, but they understand very well that they don't really want to govern, because once you're in power, you're accountable. And once you're accountable, you'll inevitably make mistakes. When that happens, you can no longer keep talking about how you would have done everything better.

Our goal is to offer a reasonable alternative to today's two constantly warring political camps. All of the parliamentary parties have had a hand in creating the current situation. When people argue that one party is more to blame than another for the state budget being out of balance or for the need to raise taxes, the reality is that they all share responsibility. Raising defense spending to 5 percent is necessary, but using that as cover to continue the same old bureaucratic agenda — where everything is regulated, everything is subject to oversight and nothing can be cut because otherwise the Estonian state would supposedly collapse — is simply not credible. Anyone applying common sense can see that isn't true.

What are your main concerns about Estonian society at the moment?

Preserving rural Estonia is at the top of the list, because no political party has been willing to address the issue in a meaningful way. It's one of the foundations of national security. To support rural communities, we need to eliminate as many unnecessary regulations as possible and instead create a supportive environment through government policy.

It's also important to conduct a thorough review of regulations, mandates and restrictions across other areas of society. We should go back to the time Estonia joined the European Union in 2004 and carry out a comprehensive review from that point onward. That would reduce the state's administrative burden and save taxpayers' money. A third priority is protecting the free-market economy and the freedom to do business. The state should intervene as little as possible, including through subsidies, so as not to distort the market.

We should also look at practices in other European Union member states to ensure we don't put Estonian businesses at a competitive disadvantage. But in general, the less the state operates businesses itself or subsidizes particular sectors, the better the market functions. Before asking taxpayers for more money, the government must first take a hard look at its own spending so that people do not feel they are being treated unfairly. The only way to avoid that sense of injustice is for the state to be honest with its citizens, lead by example and be the first to tighten its own belt — and to do so in a way that clearly demonstrates a genuine commitment. Today, the government is asking people to pay more while continuing to make wasteful expenditures that offend people's sense of fairness and fuel public resentment.

Ultimately, we need to restore a society in which communities are self-reliant and, thanks to greater individual freedom, people are happier — making the country as a whole more successful. The state should not be a burden but a foundation that provides security and stability. Happiness, however, is something each person must create for themselves; it cannot be imposed by the government through regulations.

--

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