Editorial: taking the state by the horns

Photo: Toomas Huik / Postimees

Yesterday, Estonian Cooperation Assembly revealed its ideas on reforming the state. A weighty event. Why?

As we know, ECA is a non-governmental organisations cooperation network called into being by the President – a body with a definite say in the society. The more so that, next to «salary poverty» and the tax proposals springing out of that, «state reform» has emerged as a keyword in the political debate this fall. And for good reasons – a couple of months to go to the general elections, it’s wisdom to discuss about the kind of a state we want to and are able to keep. Good to have non-party bodies and interested citizens do a part of the brainstorming – the discussion the broader-based and directly democratic.

With a debate of such calibre, the potential for generalisation rises above arguing over just some standalone stuff. No state reform in Estonia with a couple of cosmetic touches... Meanwhile, let’s not underestimate the importance of details, as, according to a well-worn saying that’s where the devil likes to hide.

Taking a closer look at the proposals set before us, one cannot but agree with the scarlet thread that runs thru it all: let’s cut the nonsense. Sure, no panacea here to bravely split state activities into two. Even so, the trend towards producing less indicators, reporting, all sorts of meta-level red tape – sounds good.

Let’s deal with what’s vital – what directly relates to wellbeing of the citizens. Thereby, we shake the expensive pseudo-activities as often less is more. That also with regulations and laws – no need to stipulate and check every event in lives of Estonians with dozens of norms.

And should the state reform proposals boil down to the need of a decent diet to the snowballing thicket of rules and the state apparatus ever enveloping itself in opaque foundations and other busybodies – the debate will have been a time well spent.   

Meanwhile, the assembly did toss a thought rather fantastic – as regarding administration of the Riigikogu. The idea is to make the parliament non-professional, to convene much more rarely than it currently does. Alas, one is reminded of a certain supreme council some time ago which came together on the occasional scarce occasion raising their hands as one as a nod to things already approved elsewhere (in the Party and the Presidium). Undeniably, parliamentary politics often come across as dirty and a bother. Nevertheless, in a Western type democracy, we will hardly manage replacing it with something smashingly novel.