The difference between answering a question and voting

Sociologist Juhan Kivirähk. Photo: Madis Veltman

Sociologist Juhan Kivirähk has been studying the Estonian society and public opinion for the last 30 years. He currently works at the Center of Excellence for Strategic Sustainability with the University of Tartu Institute of Social Studies. Kivirähk believes that the government has not clearly communicated what it wants to do and find out regarding the upcoming referendum.

We know that there will be a referendum or a plebiscite on April 25. Which is it?

There is great confusion here. When I listen to representatives of the Conservative People’s Party (EKRE), I hear talk of a referendum, while those of the Center Party prefer to talk about a plebiscite or a public vote. Even though the Estonian Constitution does not provide for the latter.

A referendum is a particular constitutional procedure that involves various state institutions: National Electoral Committee, regional committees etc. A referendum is held much like elections.

A plebiscite that might include other questions besides the marriage issue, following recent signals from the Center Party, would be similar to the omnibus surveys of pollsters, with the difference of consulting all voting-age citizens.

Mayor of Tallinn Edgar Savisaar also held public votes back in his day that saw voter turnout of fewer than 10 percent but still gave the mayor a mandate for pushing certain things through in the city council. What could a major nationwide plebiscite yield on top of what a normal poll would?

I believe that a survey that uses probability sampling would provide a better picture of how the people feel than the planned nationwide procedure. The Institute for Societal Studies has held a poll on the concept of marriage that found most people support marriage as it is currently described in the Family Act. It seems peculiar to have a nationwide vote on whether the Family Act should remain in effect.

As long as EKRE were talking about the need to introduce the concept of marriage to the Constitution, the initiative made sense as a constitutional amendment would require a referendum. But using a plebiscite or referendum to confirm what the Family Act already stipulates seems inexpedient. In a situation where an omnibus survey on a single topic costs a few hundred euros, the government is looking to spent two million!

How to explain Tallinn city government making decisions based on plebiscite results?

Tallinn had a one-party city government and still does, meaning that they could have easily made those decisions without a public vote. They used it to try and legitimize decisions that would have otherwise been difficult to sell to the people.

Even though we do not yet know what we will be participating in come April 25, we can guess that a referendum is what is being meant. Regarding which matters is a referendum even justified?

I believe that a referendum could be used when an important decision absolutely needs to be made for the state to continue functioning, while there are major opposing camps in society. While there are differences when it comes to the concept of marriage, as evidenced in a recent petition (supporting same-sex marriage – ed.), they do not have the potential to disrupt how society functions. It is not something that absolutely requires a referendum.

The plebiscite as planned today would definitely leave the losing side feeling bitter and is therefore not sensible. A vote over the concept of marriage inevitably takes on a discriminative hue from the point of view of sexual minorities. At the same time, the petition in support of gay marriage is very likely too radical a step for most people. The Family Act is in force and full entry into force of the Registered Partnership Act and its implementing provisions would make sure everyone’s rights would be protected and regulated.

The coalition has said it wants to boost civil participation and strengthen direct democracy. They will soon have the opportunity when the gay marriage petition that has over 30,000 signatures will reach the Riigikogu. The coalition agreement also includes a plan to automatically enter into Riigikogu proceedings public initiatives that receive over 25,000 votes. Whether it will be supported by most MPs is another question.

There were concerns over democracy in Estonia a decade ago. Movements were created and there were efforts to make the voice of the people heard again. You also participated in organizing the People’s Assembly – did it solve anything?

The People’s Assembly was based on the deliberative democracy model that could be a suitable tool for making important social decisions in the future. It does not include a majority vote for or against but rather tries to find a compromise. People would gather based on a representative sample to weigh pros and cons in matters where society is not mature enough to find a final answer.

Would it be sensible to reconvene the Assembly as it took place in 2013?

Yes, we could definitely make use of the People’s Assembly moving forward. The first one yielded a set of proposals that President Toomas Hendrik Ilves forwarded to the Riigikogu and some of which even became laws. Things weighed and judged with help from experts could work to raise the level of maturity in social debate.

The need for direct democracy has been widely discussed, which would likely mean more frequent referendums. Could the People’s Assembly replace them?

Just like a plebiscite, the People’s Assembly is not a constitutional institution but rather a political aid we can use. But whether it is necessary to question everyone to gauge an opinion or whether it could be obtained more simply should always be on our minds. In the end, it is a matter of expediency and where we want to spend our resources. The 2013 People’s Assembly discussed the nature of democracy more broadly, including the founding and funding of political parties, petitions, direct presidential elections etc.

In matters that require a rapid and principled decision (such as the Brexit vote in the UK – whether to remain or not) referendums are justified. However, the People’s Assembly should be preferred for questions where there are different opinions and that do not keep society from functioning normally as it would help bring the opposing camps together and look for a compromise or at least mutual understanding.

How to boost trust in public authority?

Alienation is an objective process. No matter what kind of a tool man makes (the state is one such tool at society’s disposal), it will become alienated from its creator and take on a life of its own, come to rule over its creator.

Building and losing trust are both lengthy journeys. Mistrust in public authority kept growing during the long period of Reform Party rule in Estonia. People need to be able to understand what public authorities are doing.

The populists are successful because they speak plainly, but they cannot offer solutions – [the solutions they propose] can result in wholly unpredictable consequences. A plethora of factors needs to be kept in mind when making decisions in what is a highly complex world today. A decision in one area could affect many other areas and even though it is difficult to explain to people, attempts must be made. Representative democracy is based on trust between the people and their representatives. However, the circle of those who people really trust has become narrow indeed. Most people have no idea who a lot of MPs are, what they are doing or why they are there in the first place. Transparency of public authority, exchange of information – it all counts. The media environment is also making it very difficult to create trust. Information is highly fragmented and people can get all of it from a single echo chamber.

I suppose every party and politician can take steps to dial back this mistrust.

I’m sure everyone can do something. The Riigikogu is about to discuss the “Estonia 2035” development plan. The previous one (“Sustainable Estonia 2021”) concentrated on social coherence. Coherence stands for considering every participant. However, when it comes to the marriage referendum, those who are opposed [to the current definition of marriage being between a man and a woman] are mirroring the chosen rhetorical style of the Conservative People’s Party (EKRE) that is behind the referendum when they say that marriage is outdated. What we have is mutual labelling. The understanding that societies are highly diverse and that different views constitute a benefit is disappearing. The attitude that those who are not with us are against us seems to be prevailing, but confrontation cannot contribute to social coherence.

Doesn’t democracy stand for the rule of the majority?

That is a highly simplified approach and one that cannot paint a realistic picture of the nature of democracy. All social groups have the right to exist and none can simply be steamrolled. Of course, there are times when a majority vote is needed. But compromises should be sought in most cases.

Society has become so complicated these days that the ordinary person can no longer grasp it. This is when people are ready to listen to those offering very simple explanations. That is dangerous. History teaches us that all civilizations have fallen upon becoming too complicated or when entropy grows out of hand.

It is likely that no mechanical plebiscite or vote can safeguard us from entropy and that the only way to do that is to want to endure as a society and find compromises and consensus for that purpose.