Halting the seekers of iron hand

Photo: Mihkel Maripuu

Estonia’s Chancellor of Justice from end of March, Ülle Madise desires to help birth the shared sense of varied understanding of justice in a society. All will have their interests, values, world views. While honouring the Constitution.

Purely by feelings, the last Chancellor of Justice but one Allar Jõks seemed uncomfortable to politicians, the current Indrek Teder a man a bit more flexible. What will be your relations with Riigikogu, government and ministers?

I’ve been in the constitutional law as independent expert since 1996 i.e. I came into public service at a very early age, at the end of university, and I’m used to all these debates, possible conflicts and complexities related to the domain. My style is focusing on the goal. I desire things to be in line with the Constitution, that people’s fundamental rights would be protected, and I hope that I will continue to find the means to help this the best possible way. A Chancellor of Justice has a right to speak at government and Riigikogu sessions.

Watching over constitutionality is the Chancellor’s central and weightiest function. I am not afraid to speak my mind. In a manner substantiated and prudent. On the basis of my experience up to now I may say that, for the most part, politicians and top officials desire clear and honest opinions. The issue is how, where and when these are to be expressed, and at times the debate may turn out sharp; but is seems to me that, for the most part, people are geared towards achieving a good result. This is what I believe at least and, having this kind of faith, it is very good to do one’s job.

The sentence «this is my fundamental right» is sounding increasingly often. Is this good, or has this become some thinly veiled defence tactic in any situation? 

Knowing and defending the fundamental rights is important. My rights, my responsibilities. As a child, a young person, a grown-up. The rights and responsibilities come together. And it is natural for people to fight for his rights, and the Chancellor’s duty is also to help those who are unable to clearly express their problems.

Addressing the Riigikogu, you expressed this concern: in this job, it is not difficult to be a professional, impartial and honest; but that it is hard to explain that what seems unjust may not necessarily be unconstitutional. What would you give as an example?

Like the interest groups, and the lobbyists representing business interests who are swift to wield the constitutionality argument: they claim a law is unconstitutional but what they actually mean is it is not just in their opinion or not in their interests.

It is not hard for me to hold the honest, independent, professional line. I have managed that up to now and I guess I will continue to. I would like to be better at explaining to people that there are varieties of what is understood to be just, in a society. Everyone has his interests, his values, his world view. That things are done this way or that way need not be unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, obviously, if someone’s rights are being infringed and it is clearly seen that in the process justice is not sought after at all, with somebody’s private interests pursued, this may imply unconstitutionality. It seems to me that sometimes the society seems to rather lack an understanding that interest and world views vary. And thence the longing for an iron hand. People wishing somebody would show up who would do everything right. I.e. they way they want things to be.

Have you run into this kind of attitude a lot?

The spirit of the Constitution is that we’re all together here as society, we have a common goal. The goal is keeping alive the Estonian nation, the language, the culture, to have peace and wellbeing. We have values that we go by. That we have separation of powers, that no one will amass overly much power, that the fundamental rights of all be ensured. That we keep striving towards everyone becoming his best version, that every child grow up to be a whole and member of the society, and that every individual might express himself worthily and well. So that we’d all live here together with our differing interests, differing families, different backgrounds.

What will be «your topic» as Chancellor of Justice?

At the moment I’m thinking and hoping that there will be no such thing. The scope of the themes is broad and wide. As I enter the office, I hope to manage them all and be of support to the nearly 50 people who work at the house of the Chancellor, and the wider network. I wish to be an engine, a partner who attempts to delve into their works and, if needed, to ask pointed questions. I hope to have strength and ability to tackle all that.

Both the surveillance of constitutionality, and the work of an ombudsman that has two branches: the children’s ombudsman and the other, less known about, the prevention of any cruel, torturing, inhuman treatment. In that area, there’s very much to be done. And, to reach a goal, one needs to go step by step. One cannot propose stuff that objectively cannot be done. And now, what was added was the surveillance of certain aspects of detective work.

What, specifically?

I think this is a prudent development. While looking at what is going on in the world, it is being tolerated and even enhanced that police forces have a closer eye on telephones and internet use to obtain information on possible terrorists and the preparation of terrorist acts.

While for a time it was being said that the options for covert monitoring ought to be restricted, then it seems to me that even the people are supporting a stricter attitude to avoid acts of terrorism. Rather, there will be added powers to keep an eye on those preparing acts of terror. Regrettably, however, with such severe restriction of fundamental rights, abuse may follow. A way to prevent this is to enforce effective surveillance.

Then, the people who have the option will not unlawfully eavesdrop or monitor anybody, as they will be caught. A development of prudent internal control is vital in Estonia as well and here, the Chancellor of Justice was handed a role. It must always be clear who, why, with whose permission, and when has been monitored. It must be possible to asses if it was lawful.

Child protection and the children’s ombudsman role. As obvious from the Viljandi school shooting last year, we lack a good overview on the children.

The scope of the activities of the children’s ombudsman is very broad and extremely important. This is a recent function but, in my opinion, a rather effective one. The topics range from banning election propaganda in schools, to the best possible education for disabled children, to the rehabilitation of children with various behavioural and addiction problems. 

Alas, there are too many children left alone with their problems, needing help. The system definitely isn’t sufficient. When it comes to the Viljandi incident, this is a situation most complicated. Here, hardly anyone would venture to say how such things could be avoided. But the answers need to be found and this, definitely, will be part of my work.

People have recourse to the Chancellor of Justice but often they do not understand the answer. How to better help people, extrajudicially, so they really understand and are helped?

My experience says people basically want things to be patiently explained. And many are ready to be reconciled to the fact that yes, this plot of land or the house will not be returned to me, this is the law and this is the same for all. Many will understand; however, the sad truth is many are so bitter and also living in such complex circumstances that they view everything in their lives and around them as persecution. Can something be done about that... I do not know.

My experience is these people will ever be complaining and writing letters, no matter how nicely you are trying to explain the issue. They will insist to be right and the only answer that would satisfy them would be a wrong one. But people cannot be lied to. Surely, it would be good if court decisions were so plain that people would understand by themselves. If would be excellent if solicitor’s ethics were always to also explain the court judgement, not just saying the judge was wrong. It may happen that the judge was wrong, but for the most part court decisions are legitimate though they seem unjust. People need things explained to them, not wool pulled over their eyes.

From being a top official at Kadriorg Castle into the midst of an even greater crowd of people and the most mundane of troubles – ready for the next seven years?

I think I’m rather well tuned in to the real life. It’s always a pity when it goes bad for people. One can’t help them all, but one must try.

CV

Ülle Madise

Born on December 11^th 1974

Studies

Graduated from Tartu 15^th Secondary School (Descartes Lyceum), with gold medal

1993–1998 University of Tartu, Bachelor’s degree in law (cum laude)

1998–2001 University of Tartu, Master’s magister iuris (cum laude)

2001–2007 Doctoral studies at University of Tartu and Tallinn University of Technology, PhD in public administration

Employment

1997–1998 Ministry of Justice, public law department specialist

1998–2002 Ministry of Justice, public law department head

2002–2005 adviser at Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, head of secretariat

2005–2008 National Audit 2^nd auditing department chief auditor

2009 legal adviser to President of the Republic

2009 public law professor at Tallinn University of Technology

2015 Estonia’s Chancellor of Justice