As revealed by today’s Postimees, Estonia has commune elders dating back to the days of Yuri Andropov*. In every sixth-seventh local government, elders and mayors have basically stayed the same over the entire period of our regained independence. A third, or 73, of these have held office for a decade at least; a half of the latter category – over 15 years.
One might think that skilful leaders keeping their positions grant communities stability, leading to success. Why not, but data tells us otherwise. Lion’s share of local governments, led by super-seniors, falls into the lower half of achievements, some languishing at rock bottom... blaming circumstances, exodus, smallness of state subsidies. But, perhaps, other factors are at play?
As it seems, we have to do with two clashing concepts of power. According to one, commune management is a service purchased from those at the helm. Like with other things in life: if a baker makes good bread, we buy from him. Should his bread, all of a sudden, taste strange, a new baker is not immediately sought, as we will wait and see how next day’s batch pans out: perhaps the dough was bad, or some technical glitch troubled the bakery. Even with a few years of bad bread, nothing much may change, as it all boils down to effectiveness – will better bread – will better bread outweigh the trouble it takes to find a new baker? Should the answer be yes, they opt for the new one i.e. moving to another commune. This is the sticking-to-one’s-last view on people vs power.
The other concept views local life management not as a service to be outsourced, but rather to be participated in. In other words: bread is not baked by baker alone, as all who desire may do that (or help along). If life in a commune turns sour, people will not leave, attempting to turn things around.
Let us admit: local matters are to be settled on the spot; should the people opt for version No 1 or No 2, so be it. Who are we to tell them which is right or which is wrong. What would be wrong, however, is if local leaders enthroned for decades think it not necessary to even ask the people whether they still like the bread. And if, instead of asking folks to come try for themselves, they seem subtly to stress that others would not know how to govern anyway. This is the school of thought dictating that people are stupid, in need of experienced leaders.
A vicious circle then tends to form: the longer a local leader enthrones on his post, the closer the retirement age. The closer the retirement age, the harder it is to find a new post – leading to increased reluctance to cede power. These motives coming into play at elections and also as mergers of communes are discussed – even if hooking up with neighbours might be sure salvation. Problems arise as selfish interests trump those of the local governments. In the light of data disclosed by Postimees, today, in several locations that seems to be the case.
___
*Leader of Soviet Union, in 1983-1984