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.
/nginx/o/2013/04/12/1687520t1h5fc4.jpg)
The Popular Front (Rahvarinne) idea, introduced a quarter of a century ago, became an engine for Estonia’s nonviolent struggle for freedom. And even with its internal differences still echoing in our politics, Popular Front stands iconic in Estonian history – an expression of unanimous national desire for liberty.
By nature, Popular Front was a social contract, birthed as a window of opportunity opened. The need was there, the people were there, and – what’s most important – the idea was there. Let us recall that a decade ago, there was another attempt at social contract – yet now the unifying idea was lacking. Which is natural, as, in a free society, people are indeed supposed to want different things, being free.
As also evidenced by the Popular Front movement, Estonia of 1988 did possess, despite of totalitarian pressures, a potential for civil society. Without the support of all these clubs and associations, Popular Front would have lacked the needed initial legitimacy to act. Maybe it would not have been born at all, and Estonia’s road back to independence would have been much more difficult.
Estonia is no island – we are interdependent upon our neighbours. As equal as Popular Front here, were organisations of the same sort in Latvia and Lithuania. Acutely aware of our peculiarities, we still find ourselves in the same geopolitical boat. Let’s try to imagine that Latvia and Lithuania, which suffered physical human loss in their fight for freedom, had opted, unlike Estonia, for a non-democratic path. Inevitably, that would have meant that Estonia, even with initial democratic elections held, would soon have followed suit. Nearness to Finland and its longstanding democratic traditions would not have saved us – even today we are still quite different. But Russia would have gained a good opportunity to manipulate the Baltic States.
History is always complicated and gives rise to heated debates. Recent history the more so. Even today do we argue about the real meaning of ancient struggles for liberty. For over a decade we debate the real relations of Konstantin Päts with the Soviet Union. Maybe that’s one important reason why we still lack a decent and academic historical overview the end of 80ies-beginning of 90ies turnabout. Still today it is journalists who write about those days, and not academicians. 25 years might be enough to provide unbiased evaluation of facts. And we don’t have too much time on our hands to collect memories from the elderly involved.
Many involved in the events of 1988 say these were the most exciting and fastest times, as well as most important. UNESCO indeed has entered our peaceful path to freedom into world inheritance, but that alone won’t do. We do have to tell our story ourselves. But for that story to be truthful, research is needed.