20.06.2011
Shadow of populism over Estonian economy
 |
| Editor, news2biz ESTONIA |
|
|
The words "populist" and "populism" sound negatively in Estonian due to the context they were used when independence was regained. It was the idealism vs populism era. On one side, there were politicians who were making the right decisions with long perspective regardless how much it cost them in popularity polls; businessmen who pursued towards creation of the "Estonian Nokia"; visionaries painting the somewhat romanticistic picture of the pre-war Estonia, where everyone had allegedly been happy, and what was about to return soon enough if everyone worked hard enough. Populists, in turn, were those who made short-sighted decisions just to make the less educated masses like them; who did not care about the future, but only about the present day; who had allegedly no ideals; who changed their views next day if doing so ensured the rise of popularity. Or, to be more precise, these were the images that the media created and amplified. Journalists, in general, lined with the first lot of people - idealists in their hearts as they mostly are.
From that idealists vs populists confrontation originate the terms "white forces" and "dark forces", which are quite commonly used in the media since then. No racist context whatsoever - it is more like forces of light vs forces of dark, The Fellowship of The Ring vs Sauron and Saruman, The Rebel Alliance vs The Galactic Empire -style stand-off. We take no prisoners. There will be no deals with the enemy. Who are not with us, are against us. Etc.
In political landscape, the "white side" consisted of the conservative Isamaaliit and the liberal Reformierakond parties - one stands for traditional family values and cares about the fate of the nation as such, the other promotes entrepreneurship, the "self-made man"-hood, hard labour creates wealth -attitude. The "white side" also included the social democrats generally considered as the wise people caring of children and poor. When the Res Publica movement evolved into a political party, they were also included to the "side of light", as people who bring fresh air into the corrupt system.
The "dark side", however, consisted of the centre-left parties of Keskerakond and Rahvaliit. The first flirted with the aliens, the Russian-speaking people having no Estonian citizenship, as well as defended tenants against owners. The latter is an ultimate sin for an average Estonian, whose aim of life is to become an owner of property. The other, Rahvaliit, the party having the largest influence in rural areas, had the former heads of kolkhozes and local communist party leaders, or "red barons" on its side, thus representing the continuation of the Soviet-time country life.
Those simplified images were actually quite far from the truth, but they were promoted by politicians as well as the media so many times that they started a life of their own in people's minds. "Kesik", the shorthand of "keskerakondlane", meaning the member of Keskerakond become a curse word for many - just like "reformar", short version of Reformierakond's supporter.
The original confrontation was largely present in the politics of the nineties. In the next decade, the politics shifted, however, to a more pragmatic direction. Reformierakond had no hesitations to kick Res Publica out of the government coalition in 2005 and establish a new coalition with Keskerakond and Rahvaliit, for instance. Also three years earlier, after Mart Laar's second government fell apart, Reformierakond ruled with Keskerakond for 15 months. In the established white-dark scale, both events were similar to Anakin Skywalker felling to the dark side of the Force and becoming Darth Vader. Hence, one could assume that both moves cost Reformierakond votes in the following elections. But none of that happened - the supporters of Reformierakond blindly ignored the fact that their idols made a deal with the Devil. Twice.
Although the voters and also the mainstream media have largely failed to notice it yet, those events marked the end of the idealist vs populist era in Estonian politics. Silently, all political parties adopted populism, even if openly denying that.
Below, I would like to open the eyes of those, who still keep the old light-dark confrontation alive. Populism, when practised by Keskerakond and its leader Edgar Savisaar is still considered a bad thing in the mainstream media, while similar actions of the right-wing Reformierakond-IRL coalition go largely unnoticed. Populism is always populism, regardless of who practises it.
For instance, in 2007, after the elections, when the question of the fate of "Alyosha", the Soviet-era statue in the centre of Tallinn, arose, the decision of its removal was made because the majority of the voters supported it. Never mind the actual rhetorics about removing the source of nationalistic conflicts and sending the grave monument to where it belongs, that is, to the graveyard - as opinion polls showed that the voters of the ruling parties were widely pro-removal, it was removed, period.
When the economy entered the recession, it became necessary to cut expenses. Almost every population group suffered from budget cuts, but who suffered the most? The young families with children, due to the fact that they are the most impassive group among voters. The pensioners, however, saw their pensions rising, as they are politically the most active group. Nobody confirms it publicly, for sure, but quite seemingly the choices were made on the basis of how much setback they bring along in terms of voters' support.
That populism has silently disseminated into economical decisions as well. The voters seem to be against listing the national energy monopoly Eesti Energia in the stock exchange? Very well, we do not allow it and say that the time is not right. The voters like to cut the profits of Tallinna Vesi, the water monopoly of the capital? OK, let us tweak the anti-monopoly law in a way that they are forced to cut their margin. The voters support the idea of re-nationalising Estonian Air? No problem, we will find resources to buy SAS out despite tight budget. Etc.
Unlike several of my colleagues I do not consider populism in politics completely wrong. I think the politicians should – at least in most of the cases – listen to the people and do what majority of them wants. That is what they are supposed to do, aren't they? But they are also supposed to make the decisions which will probably cost them votes, if those decisions are based on a factual evidence and analyses which will prove them right in the future. Especially in questions involving economy.
Populism is neither better nor worse than the idealistic approach of the beginning of the nineties. Different problems just need different approach. One should not judge the solution simply on the basis whether masses like it or not. The question is rather how much foresight and analyses were implemented in the decision-making process, how sure the politicians are that their decision will look like a right type of action even after several years.
Hence I am worried about the wide-scale implementation of populism by the current government in almost every field, and especially in decisions which should be purely based on economical reasoning. There is too little of analysis, assessment, pondering pro et contra argumentation in decisions such as denying Eesti Energia's IPO.
Or, let us take for instance the row over the location of the new prison facility in the vicinity of the terminal of Vopak E.O.S. In May, the discussion was solved simply and logically: Vopak E.O.S. pays EUR 2m and the prison facility will be erected elsewhere. But the government was unable to make that deal with the terminal operator for over a year, due to the fact that the elections were approaching. No politician decides to move a project, which creates jobs for construction workers at first and later for wardens, from the municipality where there are votes to be won to the municipality where the win is sure anyway. The win-win decision in the economical point of view was delayed only because there were votes to gain. This is the populism at its worst. One can only hope that there will be less of that in the near future, as the next elections are four years away.