Tõnis Saarts: a one-guy-party and the Russian card flop

Photo: Peeter Langovits

Election result reflects demand for a fresh political force – at the moment, Indrek Tarand pockets these votes, says Tallinn University political scientist Tõnis Saarts.

In wake of the EU elections, atmosphere is filled with questions beginning with the surprising super success of Reform Party and Yana Toom skyrocketing to stardom. Much less attention is paid to the impressive repeat-show by Indrek Tarand, and the lacklustre result of IRL.

When it comes to the deep processes of Estonian politics, the latter two perhaps carry more weight, by posing intriguing questions: what is the Indrek Tarand phenomenon?; and: why did the Russian threat card not work at these elections? Or if it did, then why much low-key than hoped for?

Mr Tarand is a bona fide wunderkind of Estonian politics. Single-handedly, he makes for an entire party: and anti-establishment, big party criticising, slightly populist party which, thanks to the high barriers built by parliamentary parties, has never really taken off in Estonia.

Again, he reaped the votes of those who felt reluctant to vote some party into Brussels, or who adore the way Mr Tarand pokes fun at the big party world. For many a year, attempts have been underway in Estonia to create a new party, with not much success.

It’s a big difference whether we have a popular person running at elections, or an entire party. To be a success, the latter needs a strong team, a party organisation, a hefty campaign budget, a vacant ideological niche etc. Also, it’s another matter to be one among six, that one among 101 (I mean, if Mr Tarand had run for Riigikogu as single candidate).

Could Mr Tarand now get busy launching a party or a movement, to make it big at next Riigikogu elections? The rule has been that the one-man-parties tend to fail, in Estonia. To make it as a party, Mr Tarand should put together a rather strong and credible team, which also would have to have some broader vision than just criticising the big wigs.

Hence the greatest weakness of Mr Tarand: most of the respectable public figures, whom people would like to see leading the new political force, do not want to have anything to do with him. Possibly, being the eccentric and conflicting persona that he is, Mr Tarand may ever remain a successful single player in Estonian politics who will never be able to gather the team it takes to make a party function.

Still, Mr Tarand’s vote catch ought to play on parliamentary party nerves – a significant share of voters have blinked the red light on them, and the talk of the Estonian party landscape being completed with no room for newcomers has thus been proven immature. There definitely exists a social demand for a new political force.

Based on the above, however, it is doubtful whether its figurehead will be the very Indrek Tarand, and whether it will be born in time for the upcoming Riigikogu elections. Cynical as it may sound, the big parties got it right when, at the People’s Assembly (Rahvakogu) times, they did not accept proposals to make it easier for new powers to enter by loosening financing requirements and lowering election threshold. Lo and behold: the threat lurks at the door.

The other vital issue regards the lacklustre result of IRL. At the start of the campaigns it felt like at these elections the Russian threat and security policy would be the main topic; based on this, IRL would real record results. Alas, that did not happen.

Not that the Russian card totally failed – it did work a bit, as while the main engine behind super success of Andrus Ansip was his personal prestige, a part of the voters still probably chose him as counterweight to the hazard of Mr Savisaar. Looks like for many of the so-called Estonian-minded electorate, the «sword and shield» against Mr Savisaar and the Russian threat is still Mr Ansip and not IRL. As shown by the success of Yana Toom, nationality-based antagonism worked both ways, bringing the Russian speaking voter to ballot box.

Even so: first and foremost, IRL’s failed poker game with the Russian card serves to show that EU elections continue to mainly be persona elections. Even before, parties have tried to turn them into topic-based elections, where success was sought by artificial conflicts and problems posed as it fit the party.

This has never failed to fail; in the end, victory goes to the party with strongest list of candidates. Here reformist squirrels had the upper hand over IRL. In their list, there was something for every taste: whoever didn’t like Mr Ansip, could vote for the anti-Ansip-like Kaja Kallas.

IRL, however, had only the quite «the same» and rather medium calibre candidates on offer: all were as tough against Russia and Savisaar as Tunne Kelam, and much less attractive for voters than Kaja Kallas. Also, at these elections the security and Russia topic probably failed to work as it felt a bit worn out – with the Savisaar/Russia threat, we have been dealing with all the elections lately.

To this, the parties weren’t able to add a new touch of colour; also, as the «peak moments» of Ukrainian crisis faded and flowed into the «new normal» (routine news of civil war, not stirring fiery emotion as at the start), the voters did not feel that homeland was under threat. Thence, probably, the quite low voting activity – no mobilising conflict detected.

To wind up, let me add: as shown by these elections, it is totally possible in Estonia to organise dignified and meaningful election campaigns with lots of solid debates, without guerrilla technologies and entertainment.