MATTIAS JÕESAAR ⟩ The problem isn't talking about the birth rate crisis, it's the weird solutions

Playground with no children. Photo: Sille Annuk

• Both a low birth rate and a bloodthirsty Russia serve as existential problems for Estonia.
• Opinions differ already on the core issue of how big of a concern the birth rate is at all.
• But the problem is serious and keeping it under wraps would be a much bigger mistake.

Demographer Mare Ainsaar said on the ETV program «Esimene stuudio» («First Studio») that it is bad when politicians talk too much about birth rate issues. The problem is not talking about the birth rate, but associating it with indirect and extraneous topics, political observer Mattias Jõesaar writes.

Both a low birth rate and a bloodthirsty Russia serve as existential problems for the small nation of Estonia, neither of which tends to just go away. Estonian society has no illusions about the Russian threat, which positively distinguishes us from many other European countries.

There is a relatively unanimous understanding in Estonian politics and among the population at large that, due to the Russian threat, much more money must be invested in defense and that Ukrainians must be helped as much as possible in their fight for freedom. A scandal arises if it is discovered that the government is not investing enough money in defense, not that too much money is being invested.

But when it comes to the issue of alleviating a low birth rate, Estonian political parties and their supporters seem to be about as divided as Slovak voters are on the issue of supporting Ukraine. The sentiment of the Slovak people towards Ukraine depends on their other political positions and the political parties whose positions are trusted.

A similar political struggle seems to be taking place in Estonia over the birth rate crisis, which is why demographer Mare Ainsaar's concern is understandable. A few years ago, a sharp conflict arose in Estonian politics because some political forces believed that too much money was being directed towards measures to encourage a higher birth rate, i.e. family benefits, while others believed that the opposite was true. There is no consensus.

But when it comes to the issue of alleviating a low birth rate, Estonian political parties and their supporters seem to be about as divided as Slovak voters are on the issue of supporting Ukraine.

Opinions differ already on the core issue of how big of a concern the birth rate is at all. While more conservative parties consider the demographic crisis to be the biggest long-term problem for society, more liberal parties believe that the climate crisis is a much more urgent concern, because it is always possible to increase immigration. About a year and a half ago, I wrote at length in Postimees about how the intention to alleviate the climate crisis and the demographic crisis is dividing politics into two camps.

But unlike the green turn, which seeks to solve global problems, Estonia's low birth rate is very clearly Estonia’s local problem. The fact that other countries have similar demographic problems does not make the low birth rate any less of an existential threat to Estonians.

The world of solutions to the birth rate crisis is diverse

As with many other issues, politicians find a scientist who tells them a suitable story and whose data they can rely on. Some demographers believe that families should be supported more financially, while others say that it would be more helpful if the state provided more services. So, some politicians say that higher benefits will not make anyone have children, while others counter that no children will be born just because more kindergarten places have been created.

Since the issue of low birth rate is a topical issue in society, but there is no concrete solution to increase it, the issue of birth rate has begun to be used to justify everything else. It is claimed that a greener living environment, measures to increase equality and diversity, or regional political redistribution of money contribute to the increase in birth rate.

For example, Minister of Social Protection Signe Riisalo, on whose initiative family benefits were reduced, listed all the areas that the departments she heads in the ministry are dealing with and said that these are all measures that increase the birth rate. Deputy mayor of Tallinn, Pärtel-Peeter Pere, spoke about an urban space that increases the birth rate.

Unfortunately, not every snow removal campaign or the issuance of a diversity label can be called a measure to increase the birth rate. The fact that people who were previously known as climate politicians have started to link their issues to the birth rate seems to be more related to political considerations. Birth rate has so far been a topic of the Isamaa party, but since Isamaa has reached the top of the ratings and the issue is relevant in society, others want to pull this blanket over themselves as well.

How to make political debate more reasonable?

There are many different opinions on issues pertaining to the birth rate, which makes it difficult for people to orient themselves as to what is and is not a measure promoting a higher birth rate. People tend to believe the words of politicians with whom they agree on other issues. Demographers, as scientists, also do not have a common and single answer, and they should not. There is only one thing that demographers say as one: subsidies that have already been granted must not be taken away.

Unlike Mare Ainsaar, I think that talking about the birth rate crisis is very good, even for politicians who are competing with each other. The problem is serious and keeping it under wraps would be a much bigger mistake. It would probably help the quality of the debate if politicians and demographers sat down and conclusively established at least where the line between direct and indirect measures to support a higher birth rate runs. A direct measure is, for example, subsidies, while anything can be considered an indirect measure – including green urban space or the revenue base of local governments.

If it is agreed that funding for direct measures supporting the birth rate will not be reduced, we essentially already have a similar political stance as in the case of national defense. Then anyone can say whatever they want about indirect measures. Any NGO, politician or political party can call anything an indirect measure that favors a higher birth rate, be it a snowman-building competition, a speed limit around a school, or reducing inequality in care work.

At that, something similar should be done for national defense. It is currently agreed that no money will be saved on national security, but no one has drawn a line between a direct and indirect guarantee of security. A skilled orator could talk about every pothole repaired in Tapa as a vital investment in national defense. Let him say what he wants – the main thing is to ensure that the pothole repairs do not take place at the expense of developing direct military capabilities.