Hopefully, the new government will not be spinning wheels over cosmetic change.
Editorial: fresh wallpapers
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Spring-coalition is reshuffling domains and names of ministers, deleting one old post and devising two new ones. An attempt to apply some fresh paint? Or desire for essential change in the way Estonia is governed?
So let’s take a closer look at what we have here. In Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication, economy/infrastructure minister and external trade/enterprise minister will now appear instead of former economy minister only.
In Ministry of Social Affairs, social minister’s current domain will be split between social welfare minister and health/labour minister. Regional minister will simply cease to exist.
To begin with, at least, the top guys/gals will be unequal in the eyes of the law. One will be responsible for the functioning of the ministry, the other portfolio-free and receiving tasks from prime minister. In that sense, it strongly resembles what Res Publica once initiated: every minister may employ a political assistant-minister. The idea back then also being that the more complex domains should be divided between two bosses. At the moment, however, no ministry has an assistant minister employed, even though this is still allowed by law.
Finland has been flaunted as inspiration for the new solution. Verily: Finland does have a separate external trade minister – Alexander Stubb, a man well-known in Estonia. And they also have a stand-alone labour minister Lauri Ihalainen, also known presumably to readers of Postimees. Even so, the Finnish structure is quite different from the Estonian one.
Mr Stubb, for instance, works not at economy ministry, rather based at foreign ministry. Mr Ihalainen, in his turn, doesn’t sit at social ministry, going to work at economy ministry.
What is surprising is not the creation/cutting of ministerial posts; rather, it’s the fact that a change like this is undertaken by a government actively to work for under one year. After next elections, a decision may be taken to redo the entire scheme again.
The principle as such – minister jobs may change according to need – ain’t necessarily wrong. It is also obvious that the coalition hatched by Reform Party and Soc Dems must send signals confirming priorities of both, to both electorates. While we’re at it, let’s rather ask: what about the idea of an IT-minister so priority for Estonia? Or: why haven’t the soc dems, unceremoniously dumped from Mr Ansip’s government in 2009, applied for restoration of population minister post?
It’s also obvious that the circle game featuring ministerial posts and names thereof will mean no essential change – without such budget. In the uncertain world of today, the coalition agreement in the making comes across as strikingly generous; and finding money for reforms next to it all feels quite a utopia.
Hopefully, the new government will not be merely spinning its wheels over preparations and executions of cosmetic change – never to be followed by essential work as parties shift into election gear.