VIKTORIA LADÕNSKAJA-KUBITS ⟩ The dangerous trend of floor-crossing

Viktoria Ladõnskaja-Kubits Photo: Olga Makina

• Julianna Jurtšenko, the new-but-old elder of the Lasnamäe district, is not an exception.
• More than 15 politicians in the Riigikogu made it to Toompea on the list of a different party.
• Behavior pattern of political floor-crossing sets a poor example; erodes public trust in politics.

As of last week, a new, but at the same time old Lasnamäe district elder, Julianna Jurtšenko, officially took up her post. She switched parties, polished her phrasing, but kept her job. She is no exception. There are more than 15 politicians in the Riigikogu who made it to Toompea on the list of a completely different party. There is also a minister in government who switched parties at lightning speed before getting the Cabinet seat. Why does party switching smell particularly bad right now? So asks columnist Viktoria Ladõnskaja-Kubits (Isamaa).

In watching the debates on «Esimene stuudio («First Studio»), captions have never been so crucial before. Without the correct answers displayed in the captions, following the current affairs show would be a complete puzzle: who is representing whom now?

Politicians are swapping seats, changing their phrasing, patching up their worldview, and criticizing their former parties. It's clear that defecting from one party to another (whether for pay, a job, power, or beliefs) is a personal choice. However, as there have been too many such examples lately, perhaps we should pause for a moment to understand why this popular political trend brings nothing good to voters in the long run.

Let's start with the city of Tallinn. What were we promised for years by the opposition in this city, regardless of the party? That they would break up the Center Party's food chain, corruption, power trading. Now we read that the new rulers (Reform, SDE, Estonia 200, Isamaa), who promised a great cleansing in the supervisory boards of companies owned by the city, are taking even more from the supervisory boards in extras than Center Party members during Kõlvart's time.

The offer/acceptance of a seat in exchange for a party switch also appears to be an example of power trading. And notably, the slogan promising to «stand apart from the policymaking of the Center Party» is contradicted by an outright political move – the hiring of Jurtšenko. In other words, the views and actions of Jurtšenko, a member of the Center Party, were not good exactly as long as she was a member of the Center Party, but now that they have been repainted red [the color of Social Democrats – ed.], they are.

If politicians undermine public trust with their behavior patterns and demonstrate that values can be swapped and they can go on doing what they have been doing, what can we expect from the people?

Jurtšenko, too, claims that her values have not changed. Go figure what those values actually are, but the important thing is the answer to the question why such a pattern is not good for the city. Because there's no new pattern. Sometimes even the faces are the same.

Second, why are such buy-sell trends a bad signal within political parties? A political party is a large and complex organism, made up of different people, but primarily of people's ambitions. For years, someone builds their career there brick by brick, and when the right moment to come to power arrives, suddenly a new and cooler person is bought over from elsewhere. What does this do? It takes away motivation, gives bad feedback to the party. It's a bad signal for one's own people – you are not valued.

At the same time, a political move like this is also a signal to rival parties. And with a completely different meaning – this party has a short bench, is short of promising people, and is buying over.

Third, it sends an extremely bad message to voters. Among the general public, this news will not be interpreted in any other way than «all them politicians are up for sale.» Because talk all you want, explain all you like, hire PR services and sit up all night on social media, but when three components – job, salary, and party switch – come as a batch, it doesn't look like anything other than a political buy-sell agreement. And, of course, this will not only tarnish the reputation of the particular politician, but the entire current state of politics, robbing it of voters' trust.

After the above, a legitimate question immediately arises: is changing political parties not allowed then, can't you change parties at all? Of course you can. There are examples of people who became active in politics, joined a political party, and only after several years they realized what their worldview really is. It's awkward to be a socialist among conservatives or a right-wing person on the left wing. In that case (and we've seen it repeatedly) the politician will change party. Often such fact does not even attract the attention of the media.

It can also happen that a party changes over the years as an organization, while the individual member feels that their worldview remains the same, but the party is moving in a completely different direction. Such complex situations have occurred in Estonia, for instance, in the context of mergers or collective expulsions. However, these situations are specific in that they are usually clearly discernible from outside, through things such as internal tensions, debates, divisions, expulsions, and other circumstances.

However, the trend that we've been seeing lately is very different: a person seemed to be content with their party's policies, and more than that, they were one of the leading figures, shaping their party's image and strategy from key positions. And all of a sudden, upon the party's loss of power, this member discovers their values in a completely different party. The next day. In such a case, the event is not credible from any angle.

And from this, we get even further, yet to the core question: if politicians undermine public trust with their behavior patterns and demonstrate that values can be swapped, new explanations can be found, and they can go on doing what they have been doing, what can we expect from the people? Naive new faith for the next elections?

And if (God forbid) we were to face an even more challenging security situation, which our politicians also emphasize through the budget, would the people follow words or actions? On the other hand, it is equally important to understand that if a politician is willing to be part of buy-sell politics in today's circumstances, then in a more difficult situation, for a larger amount and an even higher chair, won't they nod along to a completely foreign power? To be certain about these issues, I would expect our politicians today to show consistency and a firm adherence to their stated values. This is where a strong security message begins.