LAURI HUSSAR ⟩ What to think about when it comes to the election of the next president

Riigikogu speaker Lauri Hussar. Photo: Sander Ilvest

• The President of the Republic Election Act requires tinkering and refinement.
• If no candidate receives the required qualified majority, a second round follows.
• But this procedure takes hours, not even days, and does not allow for meaningful discussion.

In a speech made recently, on the day of the restoration of independence, I mentioned some laws that are important from the point of view of the meaning and provision of the Constitution, which, while not having been broken by the ravages of time, still need a little tinkering and refinement. This includes the President of the Republic Election Act, writes Riigikogu speaker Lauri Hussar.

The pros and cons of this law have been well known for a long time, while the bibliography of the latest articles written about its amendment would already exceed the volume of a newspaper article. The topic usually becomes especially relevant after yet another presidential election, during which the bottlenecks of the law become clearly visible.

The responsibilities of the speaker of the Riigikogu also include managing the work and creative processes of the parliament, and doing so in a way that ensures that the functioning of the central axis of state life – parliamentary democracy – is timely and forward-looking. Not just hindsight and a shrug of the shoulders.

Therefore, I think that it would be necessary to start a revision of the laws regulating our democratic way of life namely during this starting parliamentary season. There are actually several such laws (including the Riigikogu Election Act, the Political Parties Act, the Municipal Council Election Act), but I remind you that there is a presidential election coming in the fall of 2026, and the rules could be unambiguously and rationally enshrined in law at least a year before this event.

Despite the modesty of the duties of the president written in our Constitution, the institution of the head of state nevertheless holds great emotional and symbolic value for all citizens. Unfortunately, the President of the Republic Election Act is not adequate at the moment, as it also allows the performance of election campaigns, which occasionally turn into a farce, by so-called self-proclaimed candidates. Thus, the current law specifies exactly when the election commission registers the existing candidates.

The topic usually becomes especially relevant after yet another presidential election, during which the bottlenecks of the law become clearly visible.

I would like to remind you that this happens at the end of the working day on Friday, and the Riigikogu starts making choices already in the morning of the next working day (Monday). If no candidate receives the required qualified majority, a second round follows, in which both the same and new candidates may be nominated. But this procedure takes hours, not even days anymore. Such a «turbo method» certainly does not allow for a meaningful discussion and debate even among the people who analyze politics every day, not to mention the involvement of the wider public.

So it would probably be wise to regulate the process so that candidates are registered for the first round earlier. For all other elections, the deadline for submitting candidates is significantly longer than one month. A registration period of a couple of weeks would help the candidates to present their views, while a full-fledged debate could also take place between the candidates during this period.

Another issue that needs to be decided is the definition of the end point of the election process, because the current law allows a so-called perpetual motion machine, according to which, while in a deadlock, the Riigikogu and the electoral body can endlessly hit the responsibility of the election into each other's court, like Jaan Tatikas and Saalomon Vesipruul with a dead dog. Experts have repeatedly suggested that the electoral body’s third round of voting must produce a result, and not leave loose ends. Whether, in order to obtain a result, it is necessary to lower the threshold necessary for qualification or whether it is necessary to improve the rule for determining the participants in the vote, is a matter of taste and needs to be debated in the Riigikogu.

I am deliberately not going to discuss in this article aspects of the procedure of presidential elections that require the amendment of the Constitution. Although it is well known that quite a few political parties represented in the Riigikogu today have often, during election campaigns, also presented a demand for the direct election of the president. I won't because it is highly likely that there would not be enough time to amend the Constitution in a sufficiently deliberate manner, and, in reality, the general attitude of our citizens on this issue is also not known.

I am glad that a promise to contribute to solving this issue has also been made by President Alar Karis, who, at the opening of the Riigikogu session in 2021, found that a president is sought for the whole nation, after all, and said: «This is a goal to strive for, even if it seems unattainable until the end. But let us nevertheless remember that the president has the role of a balancer in Estonia.» He added: «Therefore, the debate on the most reasonable way to find a president in modern Estonia is by no means useless. Regardless of the candidates, the last two elections have brought their fair share of disappointment and perplexity here.»

But it must still be said: urgently amending the Constitution before August 2026 would be a pointless scramble.

And although we know, for example, that a president with equally as modest powers is elected directly with the participation of all citizens in Finland as well as in the Czech Republic, Austria and Ireland. We also know that the parliamentary state structure has not suffered from this at all. But it must still be said: urgently amending the Constitution before August 2026 would be a pointless scramble. Rather, let this aspect be dealt with at the next Riigikogu elections and with a new composition.

And finally – the question hidden in the Municipal Council Election Act is no less important. If the citizens of aggressor countries can also participate in the formation of a local government, they can also indirectly participate in the election of the president. It may not have a direct impact on the election result, but is undoubtedly problematic in terms of its legality.

And to answer this question, too, it is necessary to consider the necessity of the electoral body. And if the necessity of the electoral body has been established, ensuring the equal representation of all citizens in this body and the elimination of the influence of citizens of hostile countries is unavoidable. The latter, in turn, can be regulated by amending the Municipal Council Election Act.

Estonia 200 has already clearly presented its position, the leaders of the opposition parties have also been able to make their opinions widely known. Perhaps this is where we can find the golden key to open a chapter in parliamentary culture, where, with mutual respect, through the settlement of differences, decisions are still reached that advance and strengthen the statehood of Estonia and the parliamentary democracy provided for in the Constitution? Otherwise, in September 2026, we will once again throw up our hands and complain pitiably: «We wanted the best, but...»