Exaggeration has never been excluded from politics, but the proximity of parliamentary elections and the weakened position of the government make it increasingly visible. For example, Isamaa leader Urmas Reinsalu has not been modest lately, using the term "crisis of trust" abundantly.

Whether this crisis is tied to the yet-to-be-held presidential election or the government's actions, one thing is clear: in Reinsalu's view, Estonia is on an unsustainable course, and the political damage caused under the leadership of the Reform Party lacks legitimacy. Thus, last weekend, Isamaa, the Center Party, and EKRE loudly declared that Estonia can no longer continue without snap elections. But wouldn't that be like flipping over the chessboard before the king has surrendered?

Even if parliament succeeded in expressing no confidence in the current government and then triggering snap elections, taking all nuances into account, the elections would take place no later than 40 days after being announced — meaning sometime in October or even November at best.

In that case, however, the newly elected parliament would lose seven to eight months of its usual four-year term, because by law the next regular elections would then be held in spring 2030, not 2031, as would happen if regular elections were held next March. The constitution clearly states that regular elections take place on the first Sunday of March in the fourth year following the previous parliamentary election year.

Perhaps they could stretch things until the beginning of the new year, but by then March is so close that the need for snap elections becomes questionable. Therefore, it would be more advantageous for the opposition to follow EKRE's call and form a temporary government until the elections — one that excludes the Reform Party and Eesti 200. But even for that, they would first need to pass a no-confidence motion against the current government and find a common language among themselves until spring.

In fact, minority governments have existed in Estonia before. It is a parliamentary reality when more than two or three parties are represented — not a sign that the governing parties lack a mandate to make decisions, as the opposition claims. Constantly re-electing parliament in such a political climate simply isn't sensible. Instead, the current emotional and exaggerated atmosphere creates confusion, making it even harder for voters to make choices in the next election.

Whom should voters trust next time? How can one check whether promises have substance and claims have truth behind them? Artificial intelligence will likely be enlisted — capable of checking in real time whether what is said is accurate. Technically, ERR could even add a digital smoke cloud around a politician's mouth during future TV debates whenever they start lying.

We already live in a time when MPs' speeches and inquiries have undergone strong AI scrutiny, if not been entirely generated by thought-robots. One only hopes politicians avoid stepping into the same trap as Canadian conservative Bill Oliver, who repeatedly read aloud AI prompt notes during his speech. So if you hear a politician speaking and they begin repeating a paragraph, adding that "here is a shorter and more natural version of the same thought," you can be sure it's not their own words but AI's.

A separate category consists of braggarts who believe all the world's wisdom has gathered inside their head. And such politicians learn from great role models. For example, Donald Trump's statements have always carried something familiar, almost literary — starting from when he declared upon taking office that he was "the world's greatest peacemaker." Since then, every sentence has edged closer to boasting, something only the "world's greatest" Karlsson-on-the-Roof could match.

If those two rather plump men met, Trump could say he has the world's best memory and is the world's best expert in finance, linguistics, and warfare. Karlsson could reply that he is the world's best stunt pilot, steam-engine operator, rooster painter, and speed-cleaner. And Trump could end the conversation by claiming that many people say Trump himself is actually the world's best Karlsson.

The sad irony, of course, is that only one of them is a fictional character. So we, as voters, must make sure the person we elect is truly flesh and blood — a thinking human being, not a literary hero who prioritizes boasting over thinking. Don't let yourself be dazzled or mischievously baited, because all of this serves one purpose: to win your vote.

--

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