The headline "How to explain pictures to a (half)dead government?" is a paraphrase of German avant‑garde artist Joseph Beuys's famous performance "How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare," in which the artist tried to interpret the relationship between the artist and the audience and how the public understands a work of art.

But just as artistic values remain elusive to a dead hare, our government, frozen in a strange lethargy, also seems unable to understand or interpret the information scientists and experts provide about the state of Estonian society and its development opportunities.

Many studies have been conducted in Estonia and development strategies have been created that could and should help guide society's development wisely. Unfortunately, political decision-makers seem to live in a kind of parallel reality, ignoring social facts and forecasts that do not fit party ideology. Instead, governments tend to base their work on coalition agreements put together voluntaristically.

Estonia currently has the strategic development plan "Estonia 2035," and work has begun on the nationwide plan "Estonia 2050." The government's website offers sixteen sectoral development plans. In addition, various institutes and think tanks have produced thorough development scenarios at different times.

Since 1995, Estonia's best social scientists have compiled human development reports that include in‑depth analysis of social life and policy recommendations. From 2006 to 2017, the Development Fund did very valuable work identifying social problems and offering solutions, but it likely became too inconvenient for politicians and was shut down.

The understanding that policy must rely on research has nevertheless been accepted. Each year ministries commission social studies for significant sums. Unfortunately, they do not know how to use the results, and most end up sitting on shelves.

On June 13, Postimees published a programmatic article by well‑known and respected social scientists Erik Terk, Mati Heidmets and Marju Lauristin titled "Estonia needs a new comprehensive future strategy." It largely revisited the principles of the sustainable development strategy "Sustainable Estonia 21" (SE 21), approved by the Riigikogu in September 2005. Had the state followed the principles and proposals set out in SE 21 since its completion, we would undoubtedly be living in a much better Estonia today.

SE 21 was based on a holistic approach to managing social life. It stated that to accelerate development in Estonia, we must run in four directions at once: strengthen the Estonian cultural space, ensure people's well‑being, keep society cohesive and maintain environmental balance. These four goals form an interconnected system. They cannot be developed one by one or at each other's expense, but all at the same time. When making changes in one field, it is necessary to consider what changes this will cause in the others.

At first it seemed politicians took the strategy seriously, and even national statistics began tracking sustainable development parameters. Unfortunately, following the strategy proved too difficult for politicians, because it is much more pleasant to deal with everyday fine‑tuning.

Terk, Heidmets and Lauristin propose creating a new form of political cooperation that uses modern technology to shape Estonia's long‑term development — the Estonia Future Convention. The convention would not be a place for final decisions but for forming agreements and drafting proposals. What is agreed in the convention would become input for the Riigikogu and the government.

A similar proposal already appeared in SE 21: the idea of a future convention corresponded to a national development network operating on similar principles, with a development committee in the Riigikogu as its partner.

Two decades have been lost, and there is reason to fear that politicians will stare at this latest proposal — a kind of last cry for help from social scientists — just as indifferently as dead hares. In any case, the three professors' initiative has received no response. Our political system is not designed to promote social good but to reproduce only party power. And for achieving that, strategy naturally offers no helping hand.

Entrepreneur Andres Inn, who ran as an independent candidate in the European Parliament elections, described Estonia's political modus vivendi very aptly:

"Political loyalty is rewarded instead of expertise, short‑term coalition compromises are preferred over long‑term strategy, and ministers are accountable upward to the party leadership rather than outward to the public. Ministries operate like semi‑autonomous fiefdoms, poorly coordinated and often working against each other. Major reforms, whether in health care, education or taxation, arrive half‑planned, over‑promised and poorly executed. When things go wrong, responsibility dissolves into the familiar fog of 'collective decision‑making.' This is not governance. This is political career risk management."

Unfortunately, there is no hope of changing the current electoral system, which, as Guido Viik said, continues to bring to power "vain but not competent" politicians. So the only option is to rely on initiatives made outside the Riigikogu chamber.

Although many believe the president is merely a high state official appointed by politicians, citizens have a different understanding of the presidency and different expectations for it.

The president has the power to launch important social initiatives. SE 21 itself was born in the social atmosphere created by Arnold Rüütel's election as Estonia's president. With support from entrepreneur Aadu Luukas, the The Social Agreement Foundation was created in the early 2000s. It was during this time that work began on SE 21, completed in 2005. This was followed by the creation of the Development Fund in 2006.

Toomas Hendrik Ilves, elected president in 2006, also tried to involve civil society in political decision‑making. In addition to being the patron of the first People's Assembly in 2013 and bringing its proposals to the Riigikogu, he regularly held "president's gatherings." In these debates, involving society's opinion leaders, many current social issues were discussed and solutions proposed.

Although politicians in power treated initiatives outside the Riigikogu dismissively then and still do now, I believe the next president should take social and economic studies and their use in governing the country under his or her wing and become the patron of creating Estonia's future convention. Perhaps the president can show politicians a picture that truly describes society's real condition in a way that makes them ask the question Mari‑Liis Lill posed at the Riigikogu during the 25th anniversary of the creative unions' plenary: "What is wrong with this picture?"

--

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