RAIT MARUSTE ⟩ When the public broadcaster asks what the Russians are guilty of

Rait Maruste. Photo: Urmas Luik

The question of who is guilty is a fundamental question for us, especially in light of the preamble of the Constitution, writes Rait Maruste (Reform Party), former justice of the Supreme Court.

In a recent edition of the «Esimene Stuudio» («First Studio») program of the ETV television channel [of public broadcaster ERR], journalist Mirko Ojakivi, referring to the planned withdrawal of the right to vote in local elections from citizens of the Russian Federation and Belarus (but possibly also stateless persons), asked Prime Minister Kristen Michal what they are guilty of.

More specifically, this would be a matter of adjusting the electorate, which each country is free to decide for itself why and when it wants to do it. The war is happening in our immediate neighborhood, and as Ukraine's current and our historical experience shows, not only military force or the threat of it, but all means, including the fifth column, will be used.

Linking the question with the term «guilt» in this context is inappropriate, inadequate.

The Estonian state is constantly correcting and regulating the use of people's constitutional rights, be it freedom of speech, association or movement, the right to use property, etc. Many may ask what they are guilty of in that the use of some basic rights and freedoms is no longer the same, has been limited or replaced by another possibility, etc.

We could and should ask what Ukraine is guilty of for Russia, with its huge military power, to be killing Ukrainians, deporting children, destroying cities and homes, and wanting nothing more and nothing less than the loss of Ukrainian statehood, language and culture. According to Putin and his associates, Ukraine seems to be guilty of the fact that Ukrainians want to live as a free nation that decides its own way of life.

The Estonian state is constantly correcting and regulating the use of people's constitutional rights, be it freedom of speech, association or movement, the right to use property, etc.

We, too, want to live as a free nation, which decides, in a democratic way and with the approval of the majority of the people, its life organization and the conditions of decision-making itself. This is a fundamental question for us, especially in light of the preamble of the Constitution.

The presenter seemed to refer to the inadmissibility of collective guilt, both with his questions and with individual examples. The context and conversation had been set up around the possible «guilt» of the Estonian state, but not even to a comparable extent around the activities of Russian and Belarusian citizens in Ukraine. Why so?

As a reminder, collective guilt, shame and responsibility also had to be borne by many subjects of the German Nazi state who did not spread or support National Socialism in Germany. They understood and endured it, it was humiliating and painful for them, but German society got through it and healed.

If our people's representative assembly, i.e. the Riigikogu, in its fragmentation and due to the opposition of some parliamentary groups, cannot reach a decision on what to do and how to do it, then the only solution in this situation is to hold a referendum. We have practiced it, and a referendum would give a single and clear answer, and the issue would be off the table.