Analyzing the passing of bills through votes of confidence, Estonian Chancellor of Justice Ulle Madise said that this practice must definitely not become a choice of convenience and that the move is only constitutional if state affairs would otherwise become tangled, and there is essentially no other way out.
Madise pointed out that according to the Constitution, the parliament and each of its members have the right and duty when representing the will of the people to carefully review the bills, find and correct errors, mitigate possible inequality and get clear answers from the bill's authors and experts about its impacts. This is regardless of whether the MP belongs to a faction supporting the government or the opposition.
«Therefore, tying a bill to a vote of confidence can only be considered constitutional in truly exceptional cases, where state affairs would otherwise be bogged down, and there is essentially no other way out. It must not be a choice of convenience,» Madise said, responding to a question from leading politician of the opposition Isamaa party, Helir-Valdor Seeder.
The justice chancellor noted that tying the bill to a vote of confidence should definitely be considered unconstitutional if the government starts to use the linking of a vote of confidence to the adoption of the bill as a convenience choice when initiating the bill or before its second reading.
«Since a significant violation of procedural requirements may also lead to the unconstitutionality of the law, the chancellor of justice has the competence under section 142 of the Constitution to propose to the Riigikogu to bring the law into conformity with the Constitution, and if the proposal is not followed, to propose to the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional and void,» she explained.
Madise said that a fair constitutional practice and parliamentary culture require mutual respect, respect for the election result and, through it, respect for one another`s voters.
«Modern democracy requires the protection of minorities, adherence to rules, dignity in communication, collaboration between people with opposing views, and independent institutions. Bills must be discussed in the prescribed manner, and experts must be listened to, considering the good and bad effects of changes. Before adopting laws, as wide support as possible must be sought to them,» Madise said, adding that all parties must be ready to work on the bills. «Only the groups themselves can shape such a working culture, thinking about the future as well.»
What helps achieve a just parliamentary culture is MPs imagining themselves in the role of goverment members as well as MPs from both the government-supporting parties and the opposition, according to Madise.
«The organization of the handling of bills must seem fair from every viewpoint. This is also proactive, as coalitions change. State affairs must not come to a standstill, and in a negotiation democracy, the parliamentary majority ultimately decides,» she added.