MIKK SALU ⟩ Several mistakes in a row: voting rights of gray passport holders, the SALK foundation, and the Urmas Reinsalu case

Photo: Mihkel Maripuu / Postimees

• There is no point in poking at something that works.
• Politics is always the art of compromise.
• The law amendment creates the precedent for next ones.

I am probably one of the few Postimees writers who thinks that the Riigikogu's decision on the issue of the voting rights of gray passport holders and Russian citizens in local elections was a mistake. Not because they somehow deserve the right to vote. The explanation often used by the Social Democrats, which is that participating in local elections somehow contributes to integration and cohesion, is also not very convincing, journalist Mikk Salu writes.

The reason to be skeptical is rooted elsewhere. It could be called an Edmund Burke-style argument. Namely, if something works, there's no point in tinkering with it, especially if there's no good evidence that the change would make something better. And especially when it's something very important, as the electoral system written into the Constitution certainly is. It's not worth poking at something that works.

Currently, there are several other issues of a similar category in Estonian politics, and all of them are problematic in the same way and for similar reasons. EKRE's fight against e-elections (previously mainly led by the Center Party). The SALK foundation case, which first went through the political parties financing oversight committee ERJK and has now been sued by various parties. And most recently, the Isamaa and Urmas Reinsalu case, which is also a question of party financing.

None of these issues deal with the content of politics, but with the rules of doing politics. Different parties and voters of different parties also have completely different views on these issues. Depending on how decisions are made, someone loses and someone feels like they have lost.

All of this creates unpleasant precedents that will be referred to in the future when the next power combination arises, in order to then somehow change the system to their advantage. This deepens the feeling among various groups of voters that there are biased forces somewhere who do not play fair, but want to twist the rules of elections and politics to their advantage. Involving certain committee members and judges in deciding on how politics is conducted creates an uncomfortable feeling. This is not good at all. In the worst case, it is even dangerous.

In all these different cases, there are also meaningful and sincere arguments, but there is no point in creating illusions that there is no political technology thinking also at play. There are enough smart people in Isamaa and the Reform Party who have certainly thought about how depriving gray passport holders of their right to vote will affect the election results of their parties. EKRE is thinking about the same things in the context of e-elections. When the Social Democrats say that a cap should be set on political party donations, they too are calculating which party would benefit from it and which would be negatively affected.

There is no perfect system for doing politics. It is always a compromise. The playing field is never equal, cannot be equal, and does not have to be equal. Right-wing parties usually have more money because they are supported by entrepreneurs. This is their advantage. At the same time, there are always more non-entrepreneurs than entrepreneurs, which gives space at the ballot box to parties that pursue populist anti-entrepreneurial policies. People of the culture sector and vocal opinion leaders usually lean to the left, and this is an advantage for left-wing parties. Parties sitting in parliament have an advantage over political movements outside parliament. Government parties have an advantage over everything else, because government press conferences and party workplaces are in the state apparatus.

There is no perfect system for doing politics. It is always a compromise.

One can discuss this for a long time and keep looking for the ideal system. But it is instead necessary to look at the big picture. Following the restoration of independence, elections have been held in Estonia for over 30 years. There have been different governments and different coalitions. There are enough different parties and offers for people with different worldviews. In almost every election cycle, there is room for a new party to enter parliament. Even if not ideal, there is still a pretty good balance between political stability versus change and giving opportunities to newcomers.

Estonia is in a difficult situation anyway and there are so many other things to solve here, so engaging in a fight between parties about how to make the rules more beneficial for someone in these circumstances and at this time is actually bad. Some damage has already been done and it probably can't be reversed. But in other respects, it would be better to leave it alone and if there really is no other way, then at least make quick and concrete decisions.

Instead of trying to create advantages for themselves through rules, Estonian politicians could engage in classic politics: convincing voters of the correctness of their views.