In a previous interview with ERR, you emphasized that you are willing to run for president provided you can maintain an image of impartiality and are not associated with any one party, the coalition or the opposition. Does it damage your image of impartiality if you ultimately fail to receive endorsement signatures from much of the conservative camp?

I don't believe it does. I don't think people's worldviews can be divided so rigidly into two groups, with some being conservatives and others liberals. When I spoke about ideological camps, I had a somewhat more complex picture in mind.

The Social Democrats, who are currently in opposition, were the first to put my name forward as a possible candidate. I believe the Social Democrats' economic and social policy views differ considerably from those represented by the Reform Party and Eesti 200. It is entirely natural for all the parties represented in the Riigikogu to represent a range of different interests and views — that is exactly as it should be.

My point was that I have served as an impartial chancellor of justice and have always remained impartial. I have never become a passionate advocate for any particular cause, no matter how strong the pressure has been, even under very difficult circumstances. The chancellor of justice must be credible and trustworthy in the eyes of everyone in Estonia, regardless of their worldview.

Under the Constitution, exactly the same applies to the president. That is why I want to maintain my image of impartiality as well. From a political-strategy standpoint, there is always a desire either to criticize or praise people in such positions, but neither the criticism nor the praise is necessarily sincere.

Center Party Chairman Mihhail Kõlvart told "Aktuaalne kaamera" news on Monday that you will not receive support across political camps. There will be two candidates and two camps. At your meeting yesterday, did Kõlvart explain why he has concluded that you will not receive cross-camp support?

We don't know that, because the deadline for nominating candidates is August 24. That is how it should be in a parliamentary system. Over the years, people may have been given a misleading impression of the president's role and the presidential election process. August 24 is when candidates are nominated. What matters to me is that I am not associated with any one party, the coalition or the opposition. It is already clear that this will not be the case.

Following my meetings on Monday and Tuesday, I can say that the questions from members of the Riigikogu were very good and the discussions were interesting. I did not sense any disagreements in my meetings with Isamaa, the Center Party or unaffiliated MPs. I said the same things I have said all along, things that I believe are appropriate for a president whose role is to advance Estonia's future and inspire its people.

The questions varied, but I answered them from the same set of values and views. I thought we connected very well. Whatever decisions members of the Riigikogu make are theirs to make freely. I cannot say whether, in these difficult circumstances, they will seek an independent and balanced mediator — the "mortar" in the walls of the Estonian state, so to speak — who can maintain balance and represent Estonia abroad without exposing its domestic problems, while at the same time ensuring that Estonia is noticed and recognized as a country worth defending.

I cannot say how an agreement will be reached in the Riigikogu, what considerations will factor into it or how much attention will be paid to the Riigikogu elections and political maneuvering. That is for members of the Riigikogu to decide. I can thank all the MPs for their good questions and my impression was more that there was no opposition to me.

There is talk in political circles that a Center Party representative met with you in the spring and asked whether you were prepared to run for president. You reportedly said no, and now that you are running after all, the Center Party feels deceived and offended and is therefore unwilling to support you. Did such a meeting take place or is this claim unfounded?

No such meeting took place. I have consistently said that, as the incumbent chancellor of justice, I have not sought any other position in Estonia or abroad, in either the private or public sector. Nor have I gone around putting myself forward as a presidential candidate.

It is no secret that I believe Alar Karis has been a very good president. I have also praised Sirje Karis, who has been an excellent spouse and source of support and has performed her foreign policy role brilliantly. I very much hoped that Alar Karis would agree to continue. Until that point, I maintained a very clear position and did not raise the subject with anyone. It never even occurred to me to do so.

Once it became clear that Alar Karis would not continue, some politicians asked me about it. I don't recall any of them being from the Center Party. I told all of them — and I can substantiate this — that I did not feel I had the strength to shoulder that burden and I hoped there would be several other candidates. I recommended finding someone acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Riigikogu members who could be elected in the first round, as envisioned by the Constitution.

I wasn't seeking the position. There is nothing to formally answer or decide until a sufficient number of Riigikogu members have raised the question. My initial response to those inquiries was that I wanted Karis to continue and I expressed no desire to put myself forward for president. At the same time, I remained respectful of the institution of the presidency while protecting the authority of the institution of the chancellor of justice.

When members of the Riigikogu approached me last week, before the Council of Elders had given its approval, it genuinely became possible to consider the matter and agree, on the condition that my image of impartiality — which reflects the fact that I genuinely am impartial — would not be harmed. Mihhail Kõlvart also called me a few days ago. We had had no contact before that.

How have we arrived at a situation where the liberal parties support you, someone who is regarded as more of a conservative, while the conservative parties support or hint at supporting someone who is a strong proponent of the green transition?

That is precisely the kind of situation you arrive at when you are balanced and impartial. Everyone has seen how, over the past decade or so, independent institutions, judges, academics and journalists alike have been expected to choose a side and become activists, whether on the green transition, the rights of sexual minorities or other issues.

It was argued that the situation was so bad that even those whose positions require them to be impartial, prudent and fair should now intervene. Yet the strength of these offices lies in leaving day-to-day political battles to those who have a mandate from the people. That principle came under attack.

It is probably the case that liberals consider me a conservative and conservatives consider me a liberal. That demonstrates that I refused to become an activist on any issue, instead maintaining my impartiality and keeping lines of communication open with both sides.

When I took office, I was warned that the modern battleground had become vicious, fast-paced, noisy and extremely simplistic. People don't want to hear sensible, forward-looking ideas that benefit Estonia because they are too complicated. They prefer a black-and-white divide.

If you position yourself between two trenches, you get tarred by both sides. It hasn't been quite that bad, but there is some truth to it. I am glad that the tide is turning and there is a growing understanding around the world that bringing independent institutions to heel leads nowhere.

Let's nevertheless try to get a clearer picture of your worldview. To take an economic divide as an example: Does Estonia need more government intervention than it has had so far or a freer market?

This is precisely where neither the chancellor of justice nor the president should publicly prescribe the "correct" position for voters ahead of an election. When the president is not directly elected, public support for the head of state tends to be very high, as is characteristic of a parliamentary head of state. Alar Karis, for example, had support of more than 70 percent.

If someone holding such an office starts telling people ahead of Riigikogu elections what should be done with state-owned companies, which taxes should be imposed or how businesses should be regulated, they lose their impartiality. That also eliminates their ability to serve as an independent mediator and guardian of the Constitution in difficult times.

Much of the president's work should be invisible to the public. In addition to foreign and security policy, it involves constant communication with members of the Riigikogu, the government, officials, businesspeople and the people of Estonia. The president should be the mortar between the stones in the walls of the state, bringing them together rather than driving them apart. But to come forward with political demands when you have no mandate from the people is entirely inappropriate.

At a broader, more abstract level, people expect the president to take a position. For example, do we need greater redistribution of the wealth we create or should everyone take more responsibility and redistribution be reduced? Is Estonian society too unequal or is that not a problem?

My role, then, is to explain that the president must not answer those questions. As soon as the president, the chancellor of justice, the auditor general or Supreme Court justices answer questions like these, they can no longer be trusted as guardians of the Constitution and their authority among the public justifiably suffers.

President Arnold Rüütel introduced the concept of "two Estonias" into public debate. Are we not going to hear that kind of criticism of the way society is organized from you?

Quite the opposite. My current office has given me a very good and diverse picture of the concerns and lives of people in Estonia. I can put myself in many different people's shoes and I see problems that, if left unresolved, will prevent Estonia from surviving and remaining cohesive. Those problems can be articulated without stepping into the shoes of Riigikogu members or government ministers who have a mandate from the people.

One of my key aims as president would be to ensure that Estonia remains Estonia: our independence obliges us to do everything possible to ensure that the people who carry the Estonian language and culture want to live specifically in Estonia and that we make full use of all our advantages. We should learn from others' mistakes and turn those lessons to our advantage.

No one should have to leave Estonia because of poverty, because their child cannot get a suitable place at school, because they cannot afford a home or because they cannot have the children they want due to a lack of space or money. No one should have to leave because their dignity and identity are being rejected or because they cannot find fulfilling work with fair pay and the working environment is terrible.

These are things the president can and should highlight. All political choices — taxes, benefits, foreign policy and security policy messages — must serve the goal of ensuring that the people who carry the Estonian language and culture are able and willing to live in Estonia.

Specific solutions — which taxes or benefits to introduce, what to privatize or nationalize — are matters of political choice. But we need to make visible the fact that many people harbor resentment and mistrust precisely because they have been neglected.

Hasso Krull described this aptly in an article in Sirp a couple of issues ago: people pour out hostility in comment sections and online portals, damaging things of value and, indirectly, Estonia and our future as well.

You said everyone must have equal opportunities regardless of their starting point. Am I right to conclude that, in your assessment, we are moving toward excessive inequality?

I hold the same views I have expressed as chancellor of justice in interviews, presentations and speeches. If we look at the Human Development Report and ask whether every child living in Estonia is guaranteed the best education suited to their abilities, a good start in life, good health and access to extracurricular education, then the report's editor-in-chief, Eneli Kindsiko, has convincingly shown that we really do have a problem in education. As a small nation, we cannot afford that.

At the European Union level, do we need closer integration to compete globally with the United States and China or should the emphasis be on strengthening the sovereignty of nation-states, including Estonia, and bringing decision-making power back from Brussels to Tallinn?

Here, too, decisions have to be made on the basis of realpolitik because global politics does not operate like a British gentlemen's club with fixed and fair rules. Estonia can prevail in the global struggle for economic and military power only if we are exceptionally smart and shrewd. Since we do not have military or economic might on our own, it is extraordinarily important to our survival that NATO remain strong and that we have trustworthy alliances with other countries that ensure deterrence and, when necessary, assistance.

Nor can we manage entirely on our own economically: the European Union's single market is essential and Mario Draghi's report is well worth reading carefully. If Europe falls far behind, that will hurt Estonia as well as our allies' willingness to defend us. The European Union and NATO are indispensable to Estonia's survival.

At the same time, that does not mean we should rely entirely on others for jobs, supplies of raw materials or electricity. The heyday of globalization is over and we should not blindly assume that global supply chains will function without disruption.

During the COVID-19 crisis, I sat at the government table in my capacity as chancellor of justice and proposed calling in the director general of the State Agency of Medicines to ensure that we had stocks of medicines for chronic illnesses, cancer drugs and children's medicines in our warehouses because borders could close. At the time, the response was that we had free movement and contracts, but the borders did indeed close. A ship gets stuck sideways in the Suez Canal or the Strait of Hormuz is closed and trade grinds to a halt.

Estonia must look after its own interests and do what benefits us, while at the same time being a valuable partner to our allies. We must ensure our own supplies of food, medicines and electricity at home and cannot afford to become complacent.

In a May 28, 2021 Vikerraadio interview, host Toomas Sildam called you the "chancellor of freedom" and highlighted a photograph of you meeting President Kersti Kaljulaid. The president was wearing a mask, while you were not. Some interpreted that as reflecting your attitude toward COVID restrictions. Can you now explain whether you were opposed to masks and whether COVID measures violated people's rights and excessively restricted their freedoms?

I am not for or against things in that way because that would be activism. At the time, I was under attack from several directions. I relied on research and good advisers and did not go along with any hypocrisy. COVID restrictions were turned into a political weapon.

Under the Constitution, however, only restrictions that are genuinely necessary, that actually help and whose harm is less than their benefit may be imposed. Even then, Anders Tegnell in Sweden was the only one who remained committed to internationally agreed rules for epidemic control and by now it is obvious that he was right.

As for masks, if people had already spent several hours together without masks, I wasn't going to participate in hypocritical displays. It is a fact that surgical masks do not effectively prevent the spread of the coronavirus and we must not create that kind of false sense of security. Germany later required respirators, but that did not solve the problem either.

Overall, Estonia did well. Together with Martin Kadai and Irja Lutsar, we explained that mandatory vaccination is not permitted under Estonian law. Exceptions allowing medical examinations or vaccinations to protect other people do not extend to vaccines against viral diseases.

I am vaccinated myself. I believe that when vaccination is available, you should get vaccinated and I did so against COVID as well as against influenza every year. Vaccination helps prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed and reduces severe illness. The principle that vaccination must be voluntary is extremely important: psychologically, free choice results in more people being vaccinated in society, not fewer.

Where is the line at which an individual must give up a certain degree of freedom for the common good? In some European countries, for example, unvaccinated children are not allowed to attend kindergarten. Estonia has no such law. Where should that line be drawn?

Under the Constitution, preventing the spread of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases is an entirely legitimate and necessary objective. The question is the means: should a child be deprived of access to education because of a choice made by their parent or should vaccination remain voluntary while parents are persuaded? If a child has no medical contraindication, vaccination is sensible. The consequences of polio or diphtheria returning would be terrible.

The law must not impose greater restrictions than are genuinely necessary and the less restrictive option must be chosen. Where mandates have been introduced, communities of unvaccinated people have emerged, dividing society. Human psychology and emotions have to be taken into account. People must not be casually condemned or ostracized.

Many people believe the most important problem facing Estonia is demographics. Each year, 6,000 more people die in Estonia than are born. Demographers at Tallinn University have warned that Estonia's population could fall below 700,000 by 2100. What difficult choices do we face at this demographic crossroads and which direction should we take? Is it realistic to expect Estonia to raise its fertility rate above replacement level on a sustained basis in the 21st century?

I think it is possible, but we certainly won't achieve that goal by disparaging anyone. When we ask these questions, we never know why someone does not have as many children as they would like.

What the state can do and where the president can be one of those leading the way comes back to the same central idea I mentioned earlier: Estonia must be a place where the people who carry the Estonian language and culture feel that this is their home.

It should be the best place to live, do business, invent things, have children and build a home — a place with space and opportunities. I would also very much like people to be able to live everywhere in Estonia, so that everyone does not have to concentrate in cities and life does not disappear from rural areas. Experience shows that people in rural areas also tend to have more children.

I would urge people not to lose heart. We have been through difficult times before. On the one hand, we need to do everything possible to ensure that people who want children have the opportunity to find a good partner. That brings us back to how boys are doing at school and how boys and girls find one another as adults, so that boys have not already fallen out of the education system.

People need to be able to establish a home and schools and kindergartens need to be available. There are also some social attitudes that perhaps need to change. Competition that begins almost in kindergarten and the enormous pressure to be a perfect parent, with constant comparisons and criticism of other people's children or parenting, creates unnecessary fear instead of the joy that parenthood should bring. Several experienced journalists who are mothers have also spoken publicly about this.

We need to do everything possible to ensure that the generations we have are strong generations — that no one is, so to speak, lost along the way and that everyone has the opportunity to grow into a good person, the best version of themselves. Here, too, there are many ways in which the president can contribute.

I am glad that our higher education is quite good, but in my view, more should be done to ensure that young people do not leave for other countries immediately after upper secondary school and then remain there. There needs to be confidence that you can get an excellent education in Estonia and that if you study abroad, you can return and conduct research here.

What are the issues on which the president should speak out on their own initiative and provide direction?

I've spoken at length about the first one: Estonia must remain Estonia. We must use our independence to build the best possible home for our people, sincerely and in such a way that no one should have to leave Estonia. If a situation arises where things begin heading in that direction, the president is an impartial balancing force for the country as a whole, finding ways to reach people. A public speech is not the only way, although it is very important. There are other ways as well. I have used those opportunities in several areas as chancellor of justice, for example to change pediatricians' attitudes toward children. Fortunately, very many have always treated children excellently and humanely, but there was also a fair amount of work to be done to make that approach predominant. Sports safety is another example.

Those are certainly among the issues. And then there is trust in one another, which contemporary political tactics unfortunately tend to undermine. This is a fundamental issue on which the Estonian people's survival and ability to remain united depend. We need to constantly find ways to emphasize that we do not have to agree on everything — that isn't even possible in a normal society. Take questions such as whether a property tax is good or bad, whether a car tax is good or bad or how high it should be. In a normal society, everyone will never agree on such things. That's impossible.

But we could agree that Estonia must remain Estonia and that it should be a good place to live. Another person is not your enemy simply because their life experience, health, interests, convictions and views are different.

We can argue and perhaps both become wiser as a result and when necessary, we can respectfully agree to disagree. That is another major task I have set myself if I am elected.

Let me quote you: "The prevailing attitude now seems to be: the worse, the better. Might makes right. Speak the truth and you'll get beaten for it." That's what you said in a speech at Tallinn University of Technology on November 16, 2023. What led you to such a harsh assessment of our society?

What I saw as chancellor of justice. I saw trust and some of the most valuable things we have, including trusted institutions, being undermined. For some reason, too many people's feelings have been hurt. There is too much resentment, creating a market or demand for simply shouting one another down instead of hearing and listening to each other.

Let me quote from the same speech, this time on the car tax: "I suspect that a deliberate flashpoint for anger was created here. Some may actually have wanted to give the impression that cars are bad and so are the people who drive them. Driving must be made as unpleasant and expensive as possible. Others exaggerated this already exaggerated picture even further, making it seem as though the intention really was — and as though it were even possible — to use taxes to take people's cars away and leave people living farther afield, families with many children and people with mobility difficulties in trouble." As president, are you prepared to criticize the government and the opposition just as pointedly?

Of course. The institutions of the chancellor of justice and the president are exactly alike in that respect. Presumably, the intentions were good, but that is exactly how it went and how it turned out. I'm afraid the current situation confirms that I was right.

What can the president do to prevent the deliberate creation of such flashpoints for anger?

Work to ensure that all the people who live here, as well as those who want to come here to carry forward and advance our language and culture, have no reason to feel resentment and mistrust. There are various ways of doing that, but describing them all would take too long right now. I think it is possible if we serve these people respectfully and with dignity — by listening, noticing and encouraging those who can, in turn, inspire and encourage others.

People would then be less easily incited against one another and against Estonia. That is certainly one very important key. The second is being evidence-based in the best sense of the term. The period when scientists, journalists, public officials and judges were expected to choose a side and carefully watch what they said, asked or thought in order to serve a particular political objective has unfortunately also done considerable damage to the authority of science.

That period is over now. In my view, a scientist must not be an activist. A scientist's job is to use the methods they have mastered to establish the facts, relationships and conclusions, while also honestly stating what science is not yet capable of explaining. I would very much like to restore science to its proper place of esteem. I have also discussed this with the president of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. We have exactly the same views on this, so I believe we will succeed in doing it together.

How is that possible with an issue such as forestry? Scientists at the Estonian University of Life Sciences hold one set of views, while scientists at the University of Tartu hold another. Forestry industry representatives tend to favor the views of University of Life Sciences researchers, while forest conservationists favor those of University of Tartu researchers. How do you find common ground when finding it seems impossible? Work on the Forest Act, the Nature Conservation Act and the forestry development plan has dragged on for 10 years, while the conflict has only deepened.

I also don't understand how, in a situation where the whole of Estonia is being photographed with extremely sophisticated cameras, it can be impossible to determine where and how much forest we have, what condition it is in and where different species grow or nest. I'll say it plainly: I don't believe that.

This is an excellent example of where we need to examine what methodology researchers have used and what kind of research they have conducted, how they have presented their results and what conclusions they have drawn from them.

Sometimes it also happens that scientists, precisely because they are genuine scientists rather than trained message-makers, have with the best of intentions given politically embattled sides an opportunity to misuse their conclusions. This is a very important issue for the Estonian people and the president has a role here as well: to bring peace to the debate. That does not mean industry representatives and forest conservationists will always agree. That doesn't happen in any country in the world.

President Alar Karis has on several occasions emphasized maintaining domestic peace as a constitutional value. When he declined to promulgate legislation banning the Moscow-affiliated church, Karis likewise argued that in countering Moscow's influence, the state should not use measures that could themselves cause alienation and radicalization in society. As chancellor of justice, you are undoubtedly very familiar with both cases. Using these cases as examples, how would you act as president and what opportunities and obligations does the president have in maintaining domestic peace?

I would repeat the same message. As chancellor of justice, I also explained tirelessly that these are local elections, where local issues, not matters of national government, are decided. I wrote many articles and gave many interviews and opinions on the matter and that was also why the Constitution was ultimately amended, because this was precisely the thinking of the Constitutional Assembly: local and national affairs were two different worlds.

Local issues are street lighting, kindergartens, nursing homes, school-start allowances, local events and the construction of new roads and streets. All permanent residents should be able to have a say in organizing their shared local life by voting in elections.

At the time, there was also debate over whether they should be allowed to stand as candidates. In many countries they can, but it was decided they should not because the Constitution would not permit it. That was a very deliberate choice and I repeatedly explained why it had been made. This is not about exercising state authority but about building social cohesion: voting rights were held only by people who, while not Estonian citizens, had long-term resident permits. That, in turn, requires that you not pose a threat to national security or public order, that you have an income and that you know Estonian.

What I'm getting at is that these two issues in particular caused friction between incumbent President Alar Karis and the governing coalition because he criticized bills, laws and decisions that were very important to the coalition, seeing them as problematic and as a threat to domestic peace. Aren't you concerned that if you act on constitutional values and disagree with the governing coalition, you could very quickly find yourself at loggerheads with it?

No, I'm not and I hope my work to date has demonstrated that I genuinely am not afraid of that. My job is precisely to defend both external and domestic peace, whether I become president or, as I have done until now, in my work as chancellor of justice. I have explained everywhere that our people's rights, dignity and identity must be respected.

I remember explaining, I think on "Esimene stuudio" (political talk show — ed.) as well, that those loyal people who respect our constitutional order but for one reason or another — and the reasons vary — do not have Estonian citizenship nevertheless work in hospitals, work in construction and drive buses. There is no reason or desire to send them away because without them things would be very difficult. Therefore, we must do everything possible to ensure that they feel like full members of society.

The first duty listed in the chapter of the Constitution describing the responsibilities of the president of the republic is that the president represents Estonia in international relations. It was precisely international relations that, in the view of today's governing coalition partners, proved a stumbling block for incumbent President Alar Karis. What do you plan to do differently from the incumbent president in foreign relations?

As I said, I strongly support Alar Karis. I believe he has been and continues to be a very good president and I certainly will not criticize any of Estonia's presidents. As I have sincerely said in several previous interviews, the right person has been in the right place at the right time.

Should the president unequivocally convey the messages and positions developed at the Foreign Ministry by the foreign minister and the ministry's secretary general or is the president entitled to have messages of their own?

The system calls for cooperation. If I am elected, I would certainly seek to work on foreign and security policy issues on a daily and weekly basis with the foreign minister, the Foreign Ministry, the diplomatic corps and the Riigikogu Foreign Affairs Committee, and on defense matters with the Riigikogu National Defense Committee.

Estonia has many people with tremendous expertise in these areas and one of the president's roles in shaping foreign and security policy is to bring all these people together, discuss behind closed doors what is best for Estonia's future under these real and difficult circumstances and then present a unified message.

So I agree neither with the idea that the president of the republic is simply a carrier pigeon handed an English-language speech to read from a podium somewhere, nor with the idea that the president should formulate foreign policy single-handedly, based on their own judgment, in place of the foreign minister.

We have excellent foreign and security policy experts and the president's job is to bring these people together regularly. If an exceptional situation arises, the facts should first be established, people should think and discuss the matter among themselves and only then should action be taken swiftly or a public statement made.

The president is also the supreme commander of Estonia's national defense and, if necessary, must declare a state of war. Have you considered what the role of supreme commander of national defense actually entails in practical terms?

Yes, I am familiar with what it entails. I worked for a long time as a legal adviser at the Office of the President of the Republic and we had a practice of holding advisers' meetings every weekday morning, with the president attending at least one of them. So I am familiar with issues involving promotions in military rank, coherence in defense policy, the National Defense Council, the National Defense Committee and ensuring that documents and agreements concerning national defense are clear and consistent. All of these issues are familiar to me. I think the president needs to be active, well informed and bring people together on a daily basis.

Complete transparency is important when it comes to the person serving as president. Tell us about your family. Who does it include?

I keep my professional and private lives separate. The position of president of the republic in Estonia is not one that the entire family is expected to fill. My spouse and I have attended presidential receptions together and naturally that is no secret. My spouse works at the General Court of the European Union and wishes to continue doing so.

That is entirely natural, because this is, after all, the office of president in a parliamentary republic and the president is an impartial senior state official. In my view, it is perfectly natural for a woman to be president while her husband continues working and naturally the reverse is true as well.

So you have not agreed as a family that your spouse would become, so to speak, the president's companion on official visits and give up his career?

Modern conventions do not require anything like that. State visits are known about so far in advance that if his presence is useful and necessary for Estonia, then of course my spouse will attend and he is prepared to do so. On lower-level visits where the spouse's presence is not necessary for representing Estonia's interests, there is no need for him to attend. In my view, Kersti Kaljulaid handled that quite well.

--

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