EDITORIAL ⟩ The arrival of a climate-resilient state secretary

Cartoon of the day. January 8, 2025. «But remember! Just because you are done gnawing at the environment does not mean you can start gnawing at the prime minister's chair!» Photo: Urmas Nemvalts

• Kristen Michal has publicly stated that he wants to see Keit Kasemets as the state secretary.
• Is the function of the state secretary really changing?
• Is there any real change planned? Otherwise, the reform effort is like seeing a new shiny toy.

In mid-December last year, we criticized the Riigikogu for changing the law to allow candidates without a law degree to apply for the position of state secretary. There was reason to believe that the amendment was driven by Michal's wish to appoint his long-time ally, Secretary- General of the Climate Ministry Keit Kasemets to the post.

It is now certain. Michal has publicly promised to offer Keit Kasemets the state secretary position. According to the prime minister, the role of the state secretary is evolving, as the state secretary is expected to become a top executive in the future. The plan is to transform the Government Office into a strategic unit that will support the government's major reforms.

In mid-December, we argued that it is inappropriate to adjust the qualifications for the state secretary role to fit a preferred candidate, as those requirements were not established arbitrarily more than thirty years ago when the Republic of Estonia was founded, but rather based on the responsibilities of the role. Now, we must additionally ask whether the state secretary's role is truly changing, or if Michal intends to create a new superstructure in the government, a sort of «Prime Ministry» modeled after the Climate Ministry.

In Michal's (and other democratic prime ministers') defense, one could argue that a politician must have the right to choose their own team. Furthermore, politicians must have the right to implement the policies for which they have received a mandate from voters. Unfortunately, we often see cases worldwide where entrenched, stagnant bureaucrats hinder progressive reforms proposed by politicians. In such a situation, the prime minister indeed needs a strong leader for the Government Office who can distinguish between what genuinely cannot be changed and what could be changed if public officials were more proactive.

Bringing a powerful reforming force to the position of state secretary could be justified if Estonia and its voters gained something from it.

However, we are inevitably led to ask another question: what are these major reforms planned by the government? So far, the Kallas/Michal government has not been known for any significant state reforms, nor can we recall such promises being part of their election platform. Instead, recent years have been marked by discussions on state finances and tax increases. Cuts to the public sector have been modest, even comically minor. As for Kasemets, he has been involved in pushing forward the Climate Resilient Economy Act at the Climate Ministry, which seems to be evolving into a new kind of creed.

Bringing a powerful reforming force to the position of state secretary could be justified if Estonia and its voters gained something from it. This would be the case if Kasemets launched a major downsizing plan and made the state more efficient (the narrative that Estonia's public sector is extremely lean is not entirely accurate). Or are there other reforms planned that would improve our lives? If so, we would like to hear more about them. Otherwise, the prime minister's reform effort resembles a technology enthusiast in an electronics store, getting excited about an ultra-modern gadget without actually knowing what they need it for.