Editorial: Facts, (Prime) Minister

Photo: Urmas Nemvalts

Receiving refugees serves to heat Estonian public opinion better than today’s sunshine. Alas, emotions seem to trump the relevant kind of facts. Disappointingly, yesterday’s (extraordinary, sic!) press conference failed to create craved concreteness.

Broadly speaking, people from the three power parties – Prime Minister Taavi Rõivas, defence minister Sven Mikser and social protection minister Margus Tsahkna applied varying verbiage to say what we already know. That a refugee crisis exists, that it concerns the entire EU, and that it must be solved together. That the forced quotas aren’t coming and that this is thoroughly in Estonian interest. That hate speech isn’t acceptable. And so on and so forth.

The number of refugees to arrive is still indefinite, they are talking about a couple of hundred in two years. The topic will be tackled by a committee, the bases for creation of which are undecided. This is getting too much like the TV series «Yes, (Prime) Minister» prime bureaucrat Sir Humphrey Appleby logic where seemingly concrete things are intentionally created as actually inconcrete by nature. Thus, creation of committees turns out a means of muffling the problem.

One may claim that things cannot be clear until they are clarified – during July. But that’s beating about the bush. Basically, again we are beholding the government stepping on the same rake as when explaining the financial sources for coalition agreement (i.e. avoiding explanation).

Young journalists are taught the «show, don't tell» rule. And this would well be the lesson for these good ministers of ours. Abstract niceties conveyed in officialese about «raising capacity in certain domains» such as sounded at the press conference yesterday do nothing but add to the emotions already abounding in the society.

Meanwhile, while any fact about said capacity (or, considering our scarce experience, the lack of it) would perhaps throw the public a bone, the voice of reason would be given a chance. The public debate derailed for the very lack of communication might take a much more rational turn. Until the people have facts and answers to simple questions we are like high jumpers going for the try not knowing the height of the bar. Psychologically, this makes one hesitant from the start.

When demanding openness from the government, we arrive at the next Sir Humphrey paradox, the options being «to be open or to have government». But perhaps it would not be overly idealistic by the public to assume that real government does differ from the TV series launched to lampoon it – however witty.