Taavi Rõivas regards will of people as «sacred»

Photo: Sander Ilvest

In office for two months sharp, the government is braced for painful decisions and criticism says Prime Minister Taavi Rõivas (35). During the period, Postimees has interviewed fresh ministers in a series called «Starting Gun» – based on the content underneath not to be renamed «Swan Song».

After these initial two months, do you have full assurance and conviction that you still have a strong and functioning government to lead?

Increasingly so. It’s no secret that we had quite a complicated start. We have weighed the reasons and we probably were to be blamed for not being public enough about our decisions during the coalition talks. We have learned from the mistake and compiling the state budget strategy the work was much smoother already. And as during the process we have reconsidered certain details and made concessions, then after that the working climate has substantially changed for the better, a lot.

There will always be arguments, but the atmosphere is very good. It has probably helped that all parties have the internal elections behind them. There is no longer the need to improve one’s position in internal elections by criticising some other partner in the government. For a while, that could be felt.

You say the atmosphere is good in the government, but is it still a disappointment that from the start the power partners made cooperation difficult?

Just the opposite. All are getting used to the new role. Even today (on Tuesday – T. K.) we had this hours-long and very substantial discussion regarding the refugees-topic and every week life throws us challenges to be solved.

Mutual relations need to be good, to cope with all of that. Sooner or later I think it will be seen from the outside that the working climate has become much better that it was in the beginning.

On Tuesday, the Soc Dems leader Jevgeni Ossinovski confidently announced that the three parties have agreed: after Midsummer Day, the coalition treaty will be taken apart piece by piece. You have an agreement about that?

Actually what he said was that the important agreements by the government thus far – the coalition agreement, the bills already sent to parliament –, are holding and soc dems intend to stand behind them. This is important to know, for us and IRL.

When it comes to the discussions to come, then naturally we should not exclude improving the treaty. I am convinced that as the time goes by, more ideas will pop up as to what we can do to solve the challenges before Estonia.

We are always ready to discuss. We are always ready to stand for the things that are most substantial for Reform, and our voters: lowering labour tax burden, achieving economic growth. Whether executing these means opening the coalition treaty or discussing additional ideas, is rather the question of style.

Among Reform ranks, one hears criticism that this treaty does not look too much like them. Now, the soc dems desire to make it increasingly like them. Meaning: a few months after you signed the governing document, it no longer works. Already, it needs to be changed.

Our parties and other [parties] have thousands of members, among whom there are some who may perhaps not feel they really «own» the treaty. Or who differ regarding some details.  

It’s always the easiest to criticise the clauses written into treaty by partners. So we have also had those who say that some clauses by soc dems or IRL do not fit. But we are not alone in the government. We have given promises to the voters and we intend to keep these. If we want the government to really be functional, we need to work with a larger amount of people that a couple of dozens in Reform Party faction.

Naturally, our partners have promises as well. But when we agree about these together, then this will be joint governmental policy. And then Reform will also have to support them. I see nothing strange about that. Rather the opposite.

What is strange about the open-the-treaty talk is that the difficult stuff – like the tax issues – get confirmed at Riigikogu, by all-night sessions and extraordinary sessions if need be. Not that it’s the Bible, but to open the treaty every three months?! What Mr Ossinovski wants does not feel like preserving the coalition, but meant to break it apart.

Not it isn’t so bad after all. The decisions that Riigikogu is taking right now are very important regarding the future. For instance, we are lowering labour taxes, which is part of a long-term plan to make Estonian economy more competitive.

In every international comparison, they are advising that we lower labour taxes, that Estonia create jobs with higher wages, that the economy could grow. These are very important decisions. Even of, to compensate for these decisions, we need to raise alcohol or tobacco excise or even the fuel excise a little bit, quite modestly.

It is very unbecoming only to emphasise the sources of financing while what we need to see is the big view. Let’s don’t get overly stuck in the short-term financial sources.

For people, the big view is to cope daily. The rising taxes.

I don’t believe that, come to calmly think of it, that anybody would believe or think that alcohol or tobacco, say, would have to cost exactly the same in the stores even when incomes rise. Even the fuel excise, the five cents, this is a category not noticed in reality. We do know that in the filling stations in Tallinn, even now one may find price differences larger than five cents.

Meanwhile, it is important to know that all these tax decisions help us lower labour taxes, improve competitiveness of the economy. We need to think a bit further than tomorrow, about the future of our children. We need to continue in this direction, then we may rest assured that the state that our children inherit will be much more competitive.

Sounds nice, but distrust towards you and the work of the government is felt among the people, in your own party, and naturally the Riigikogu opposition is critical. Centre is planning no confidence regarding you.

I believe that even the people in the Centre realise that the government is taking very substantial decisions, vital for Estonian society. These are not limited to improving the economic environment, but also raising the living standards for those who need it most: families with children, people on subsistence benefit, who obviously are the most vulnerable target group in society. It is planned to create a separate benefit for lone pensioners in 2017, to advance with work capacity reform.

Surely there will also be criticism regarding the administrative reform plan. That we do not need it, or that what the government plans is wrong. But we are definitely not planning to be a government that sits idly by and hides from criticism.

If we know we are doing the right things, which are important for Estonia in the long term, then we must be ready to endure criticism in the short term. This is all in the name of the longer vision. And I am totally convinced that when I finish being Prime Minister some day, I will be able to say I did everything for Estonia to be a better place than it was when I started.

This is all very beautiful, but Centre took its time toying around with its no confidence: to file or not to file. Dou you have other agreements with them? Centre has become very active. They are talking with everybody. Soc Dems are itching towards them.

I’d be very surprised if they (Centre – edit) would not try to talk to everybody. They are an opposition party which surely would like to improve their position in Estonian politics. Meanwhile, the government is working, by the way the government is even talking among itself, we even talk to the opposition. Well, in politics, everybody talks with everybody.

But do I consider it realistic that Centre succeeds somehow to drive a wedge into the government? I do not consider this too realistic at all. They will surely try, they have done that for years on end. They would not be an opposition party, if they did not try that.

But the government has already set its aim and gotten to work. To think that some of the partners would wish to destroy that would be premature indeed. I think that even Centre does realise that rather well.

Would Reform also be ready to be an opposition party?

At the moment, I see no reason for that. Estonian voters trusted reform to govern the Estonian state. Third time in a row. The people have expressed their will and for me the will of the people is sacred. There are all sorts of intrigue weavers and political technologists, but...

...in Reform as well...

...surely there those among us, also, who would want another kind of a coalition, but these people do not overly consider the votes by the people.

The votes cast by the electorate is the strongest mandate a politician, a party can have in Estonia. At the elections, these votes revealed that Reform was the definite winner of these elections.

I have hears that immediately after the elections you had some in your party who advised to better hook up to Centre at once. That it would be a lot easier that way. Back then, you were very resolute regarding Centre – «no way». Have these few months changed your stiffness?

Each single day Prime Minister has these advisers, some more well-meaning, some less. And those who are eager to advise are more numerous that those I turn to for advice. No doubt there were those who suggested other kinds of coalitions, but I do believe the current coalition is the best on the current political landscape.

I have made it no secret that I would have wished that Free Party had shown steadfastness and be standing for itself in the government today. Not for fun did we sit together with them, here in Stenbock House, for weeks on end; indeed, we tries to involve their wishes as well. By the way, the treaty does include lots and lots of promises proposed by the Free. We agreed with IRL and Soc Dems that we leave these in the treaty even when the Free stood up from the table.

After the elections, the only thing I regret perhaps is that we are three parties in the government and not four. I wished that the Free, as a new player, would have also been executing their promises to voters in the government. I do not condemn them for not wanting to do that, as from the start they said they were not totally sure if the y wanted to govern. In that, they were correct in their behaviour towards us.

How do you feel: has the current government taken so many wrong and controversial decisions in the eyes of the people, or is there some broader perplexity and dissatisfaction in the society? 

I believe the main problem has been that we have not sufficiently explained our choices. And immediately after signing the coalition treaty we were faced with the economic forecast not bringing us good tidings. This, in turn, prescribed a need for painful decisions. Naturally, we are not happy about that. Up until we agreed about the budget, there were several issues inside the very government...

Yes, what played a role was that other parties were having their internal campaigns and they were trying to strengthen their positions in their campaigns. But by the budget the policy of this government was settled.

Probably, the constant negotiating got too long for the public, and to a degree they were fed up perhaps. In some ways, the detailed debates were positive – by that, there will be fewer debates in the future. I have also seen coalition agreements which take four of six pages, and in the social programme the weightiest item is turning the clock.

Over the administrative reform, for instance, we debated for three days at least. This is a matter of great principle and if by the end three parties have a unified understanding about something attempted for 20 years, then we do realise we have undertaken quite a task.

Probably, there are those as well who hope we will not make it. But we intend to be a government unafraid to tackle big issues as well.

One big issue, which does not depend on the government alone, is the refugee policy. I would think the hysterics around the gay bill was child’s play compared to what gets stirred up by refugee policy.

Clearly, the proposal by European Commission prescribing that Estonia receive 1,064 people is beyond our ability. We will have to be able to clearly substantiate why this does not fit us. Why we find it unfair. Meanwhile, we will naturally need to find in us the understanding to deal with the problem.

Naturally, certain political forces will find the opportunity to stir people up with unrealistic claims and gain short-term popularity. I am very thankful that Estonian media has covered the topic in a manner balanced and rational. They have shown both sides.

Also, it is totally inappropriate to talks about mass immigration. We are still talking about a small number of people. Multiple times smaller than the amount that migrates to Estonia yearly anyway. Inciting anger and calls to meetings may serve some parties’ interests short-term, but will definitely not help solve the problem.

One may be sure that should Estonian prime minister or interior minister attend [European] Council and say that the commission’s proposal does not suit us, but we ourselves have no ideas and we do not wish to help a single soul, this would not be understood. If we wish to achieve a result as we are able to bear, we will need to make a reasonable proposal ourselves.

We hear there is a party in the government, IRL, who says we will not be able to receive anybody?

No, it’s not that bad. We have had very substantial and matter-of-fact discussions. We realise that should we set about solving this issue too eagerly, we will create additional tensions in the Estonian society.

We’ll accept 150 or 1,000 refugees – obviously, the topic will not raise your popularity, not that of Reform. Are you afraid of the new popularity ratings of the party, and should Reform continue to slide, what will be your position in the party? How will you be able to prove yourself, defend yourself?

A year and a few months have now passed since I was elected Reform chairman. Then, the rating of Reform was third among parliamentary parties. I think there were not many who believed that, under my leadership, Reform would win elections for the third time.

We won the elections. We gained the trust of Estonian people and have been working very hard in order to also earn and justify that trust. I am convinced that we will do that even in the future.

After a party has won elections and formed a government, one may be sure that the position of the chairman of that party is very strong in that party. As also confirmed by the last general assembly where I was also handed a very strong mandate to continue as chairman of the party. Which is also natural, and according to expectations.

But being in the government one must also be ready to not only make decisions that will raise rating the next month already, but must stand ready to also shape public opinion. In Reform party, we have never been afraid of any unpopular decision.

Concerning whether our rather rational and not closed-up attitude towards the refugee issue is popular or not, I dare to think that there are lots of people in Estonia who well realise that by such racist anger we will only create extra problems. Surely, there are many in the Estonian society who understand that solving the problem as we are able will also help us solve our problems.

It is not totally accidental that the European Union invests a lot into enhancing our life. It’s not an accident that the NATO allies are in Estonia already and are ready to defend us. And their participation in defending Estonia is only increasing. Next to that, our little input to help people caught in the atrocities of war ...

I think there is enough understanding in Estonia people regarding why the government is doing that. Laying aside all humaneness and assuming a very cynical position, we may also rest assured that should Estonian government go to the negotiations with a proposal totally against any Estonian participation, we would get what the commission has offered us i.e. 1,064 refugees.

Standing totally against, we will not be able to talk down the problem. Rather, we’d be faced with consequences more severe.