What led you to decide to leave politics? Was it perhaps because you didn't see much of a future for the Reform Party in the upcoming Riigikogu elections?

The president's offer was very appealing and I've been in politics for 12 years. The past few years have been somewhat emotionally exhausting. And I felt this was an opportunity to do something similar to what I'd done professionally earlier in my life, without moving too far away from politics and Estonian affairs.

It certainly wasn't because I thought I wouldn't have any prospects or opportunities if I ran in the Riigikogu elections. That was definitely not on my mind.

But what prospects do you see for the Reform Party to succeed in the upcoming Riigikogu elections?

There's always an opportunity to achieve a good result. There are still quite a few months until the elections. And as we've seen over the past decade, things can sometimes change very quickly.

We've had a very strong team and plenty of good ideas. I'm deeply convinced that Estonia needs a center-right liberal party in politics. There are plenty of voters who want that and it's simply necessary. The entire political spectrum needs to be represented — nature abhors a vacuum.

On the one hand, it's understandable that people have been disappointed and perhaps even angry about things that have happened. But things can always be changed and improved and lessons can certainly be learned.

Are you referring to the confusion over taxes or the "tax festival" as it was called at one point? Various taxes were proposed — tax increases, which were then scrapped, followed by announcements that taxes would be cut. Is that what you had in mind?

No, I'm talking about a broader range of issues. There have been various crises and these have been global crises, not just ones affecting Estonia. They've made people more sensitive and frustrated, not just in Estonia but across society in other parts of the world as well.

In situations like these, perhaps the best decisions haven't always been made or there hasn't been enough explanation of why certain decisions were taken.

It's also true that we've had governments made up of different coalitions, with partners holding opposing views. Coalition governments always involve finding compromises and quite often those compromises have reflected the positions of our partners much more than those of the Reform Party.

But the biggest party always ends up taking the blame, as unfortunately often happens in life.

So perhaps there hasn't been enough explanation of why certain decisions were made and the best choices haven't always been made or things haven't always turned out for the best in difficult circumstances.

Even now, in recent weeks, we've seen quite a lot of blame directed at the former coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party, when explaining the situation. The argument seems to be that the Social Democrats prevented the government from governing properly and making the right decisions that reflect the Reform Party's principles. You just said things should be explained better. Is that what you consider a better explanation?

I haven't heard any direct accusations against one party or another. It's perfectly natural for political parties to have different views of the world and that's why they debate these issues. They debate them in the Riigikogu, among themselves and certainly in public as well. That's simply inevitable.

We can't expect people with different political views to agree on everything.

There isn't even 100 percent agreement within any single party. People still debate, discuss and ultimately choose what they feel is the best option at that moment and what they can agree on. And if they can't reach an agreement, then that's how it is.

There are undoubtedly situations where coalition partners have such opposing positions that they simply can't reach an agreement on certain issues.

I think that's happened in every government. One partner doesn't like a particular issue or proposed solution, so no agreement can be reached and no solution emerges.

What would you consider the achievement closest to your heart from your time in politics?

There have been various achievements and it's difficult to immediately single out one or another.

One important change has certainly been marriage equality, which was already being debated more than 12 years ago when we were discussing the Registered Partnership Act. That issue also stirred a lot of strong emotions. Now that marriage equality has been adopted, the whole issue has settled down.

Another little project of mine at the Riigikogu is the Foresight Center, a think tank that provides an opportunity to discuss and analyze Estonia's development prospects.

I spearheaded the legislation and the ideas behind how such a center should operate and what requirements it should meet. So I hope the Foresight Center will continue doing valuable work for Estonian society for many years to come.

Now that you're leaving politics, what's your final piece of economic advice for the Reform Party?

I think it's important that when a party goes into an election, it focuses not on handing out lots of money or giving people gifts, but on taking steps and pursuing policies that genuinely make life better in Estonia.

People generally understand and appreciate that.

The idea that handing out money will win votes... It won't. At some point, it leads to disappointment.

It's worth relying on people who share your worldview rather than those who are simply looking for the biggest promises and the most money.

I recall that the Reform Party itself was involved in handing out money quite generously in the social welfare sector not long ago. There was the €20 increase in the single-parent benefit.

Having a right-wing worldview doesn't mean you don't spend money on social issues or that you approach them coldly.

A liberal worldview values individual freedom, but it also values responsibility — responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions, as well as responsibility toward people who are economically disadvantaged or in a worse position due to circumstances beyond their control.

So helping vulnerable people is a perfectly normal and logical part of a liberal worldview.

But what kind of economic advice do you think the president needs and how can you be useful to her?

The specific responsibilities will certainly become clearer over time and we'll sit down and discuss them in more detail.

But the president has various meetings to attend and when she's spoken about her role as being, so to speak, the mortar between the bricks, that also means she needs to be able to understand economic issues and explain them to people.

That's certainly where I can help — by helping her understand these issues, articulate her views and, more broadly, explain to the public why certain decisions are made, which policies are good and which may be less effective and what the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches are. That will certainly be part of my role.

--

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