Presidential elections in Estonia can easily feel like an uncomfortable dream that repeats every five years. A dream that is quickly forgotten. As dreams usually are.

It is now the end of July. The nomination of candidates for the Riigikogu voting rounds must be completed in about a month, but so far the public has no clarity about who might be the candidates supported by parliamentary parties and whom the Riigikogu will decide on. Only one party has clearly stated its preference. Presidential elections should not look like this.

Meri's unfinished reform

This realization was reflected in a certain sense in Lennart Meri's almost final words as president. Speaking for the last time before the Riigikogu, he said at the very end of his speech: "In a moment you will have before you a bill that gives the Estonian people a right that most democratic European peoples have. Process it swiftly!"

This bill was a draft initiated by President Meri to amend the constitution and concerned the direct election of the president by the people. Lennart Meri's last wish as president was that already in the next presidential election in 2006, Estonian citizens could elect the president directly. But Estonian people still do not have that right.

History went another way. The bill was quickly forgotten, and the majority of Estonia's political elite has until now consistently opposed direct presidential elections and supported the idea that appointing the president should be their privilege. Regardless of the fact that this current process hardly does anyone honor. And regardless of the fact that a very clear and overwhelming majority of Estonian citizens have always supported direct presidential elections. About three‑quarters of Estonian citizens consistently support it.

Estonia's current presidential election system limps on several legs, but none of the injuries is large enough to force the parties — the actors involved — to actually act. What stands out most?

Backroom deals persist

The deadline for nominating candidates is still problematic. The time window before voting is glaringly short — nine days before the first voting round in the Riigikogu. Such a short deadline inevitably pushes the entire decision‑making process about candidates into party backrooms, where it is not visible. And it sends the message that public transparency is not important in choosing candidates.

In addition, the election procedure still contains the possibility that the election fails in the electoral college. As happened in 2016, when Kersti Kaljulaid was ultimately appointed president as a result of an agreement among party inner circles. The process can fail because in a close situation it is possible to sabotage the vote by spoiling ballots.

Also, the current system has two different electorates — the Riigikogu and the electoral college — which can potentially give the president very different democratic legitimacy. This is an especially acute problem in the current political situation, because there is a considerable likelihood that the decisive role in the presidential election will be played by that part of the Riigikogu which has long lacked substantial voter support and trust.

In the electoral college this problem is somewhat mitigated, because members coming from local governments reflect voter preferences better than the current composition of the Riigikogu. Even despite the fact that the administrative reform cut the share of local government representatives in the electoral college several times smaller than it originally was.

The short deadline and the fact that candidates are first nominated only by Riigikogu members ensures that the entire process is non‑transparent. There is a month left, and we do not know whom and why parties support. Various names have been floated, but no one can be trusted in this process, because there is so much empty talk, manipulation and deliberate muddying of the waters.

Parties resist change

At the same time, one can be sure that somewhere behind the scenes an intense game and matching is taking place, deliberately kept hidden from the public because in daylight it would simply leave a very bad impression. This process does not honor democracy — rather the opposite.

Direct elections would be a solution to the shortcomings of the current system. A solution used in other parliamentary democracies where the president does not have much direct power.

A solution would already be if the nomination of candidates were a democratically open process.

Currently, in the Riigikogu voting rounds, a presidential candidate can be nominated by 21 members of the Riigikogu. Considering the size of our electorate and voter turnout, these 21 MPs represent about 100,000 voters.

Considering the electoral college, 21 members of the electoral college — who can also nominate candidates — represent roughly half that, about 50,000 citizens. Why not give the right to nominate candidates to a corresponding number of Estonian citizens? This would force a significant part of the process out of party backrooms.

One could also consider eliminating the Riigikogu voting rounds altogether and holding the election only in the electoral college. For this, of course, the flaw in the voting system that allows the election to fail in the electoral college would need to be fixed. A system where the decision is made by the electoral college but candidates can be nominated by citizens would be unique. But that does not mean it is not an option worth considering.

We are, however, prisoners of our political process. This temporary discomfort and the couple‑month‑long spectacle do not create a sufficiently large political crisis to force a Riigikogu majority to take steps to amend the constitution. And it seems that no one has enough political will to fight for making the system more open, more transparent and more democratic simply because it is the right thing to do.

--

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