So they are trying to warm up that old sandwich of people in the parliament allowed to sit at local councils... Possibly biting off more than we are willing to chew.
Firstly, let’s realise this is a debate touching all and a matter of principle. The very separation of powers is at stake, and the functioning of representative democracy as such. Such decisions must be carefully considered and substantiated.
Sounds nice to state that parliament members will «again have a say on local affairs where they came from», but for that one needs not sit on council. One can vote, or participate in discussions etc.
While citing the Finnish example they conveniently forget that we are not Finland, where people, for instance, directly elect the President. Indeed, representative democracies do work differently.
While the letter of explanation to the bill lists all sorts of legal reasons, the actual goal is still political, as we will probably be hearing.
With the administrative reform underway, local governments will be fewer and citizens are concerned that power and local decisions will grow distant. Headed for the local councils, will the Riigikogu people really be better informed than locals? Or will serious conflict arise between locals and the state, as critics fear?
In their assessments of the bill, local governments and towns are far from optimism. The public is very much anticipating deeper explanations and arguments with content.