Skip to main content

A political reform for Estonia

There has been some discussion on politicalbetting.com over the past few days about the differences between the political culture of the Nordic countries and that of the UK. Contributors were highlighting the higher levels of education in the region versus the vituperation that is the norm in the British political discourse. It is customary at this point to make some kind of self critical comment about the destructiveness of the highly personal and adversarial politics in the UK. However I don't entirely feel that this is justified. The fact is that the high seriousness of the debate in, for example, Estonia can be rather wearisome. Only at election results time do politicians seem to let their hair down- and the sight of bottles of strong drink on the election programs is a sign that some home truths may be spoken. There are honourable exceptions, politicians who cultivate a slightly controversial or jokey image, but in general politics is a ponderous, serious, even cumbersome business.

Sometimes, therefore, the sarcastic and acerbic politics of Britain can be a relief. It certainly allows the voters to tell their nominal leaders precisely what they think of them. The downside is that British politicians have to have incredibly thick skins in order to take the battering that is handed out to them. The result of that is that the personality types who enter British politics are fairly limited. Thoughtful, sensitive, introspective types need not apply. On the other hand some kind of sense of humour is probably essential.

In general, though, the political class of Estonia has a broader range of personalities than in the UK. yet there is one aspect o Estonian politics that clearly needs reform. The list system takes to much power from the voters and leaves it in the hands of the party apparatchiks. For example, several sitting MPs have been demoted on their Party lists in a way that makes it all but certain that they would not be re-elected. Meanwhile, several parties boost their votes by offering candidates that are well know, but who, for some reason- such as current membership of the European Parliament- are highly unlikely to take their seats. The point being that they would give up their seats to the next politician down on the party list. It is a practice that is highly controversial, but which continues, because it suits certain parties to do this.

In my view voters should be allowed to chose between candidates of the same party- which is one reason that I am firmly in favour of the single transferable vote in multi member constituencies. Amongst many other positives, it is fairly simple to vote: the voters simply lists the candidates in order of preference until they are indifferent. So voters can not only split their vote -should they chose to do so- they can also chose the candidate they most support within the party that they most support. More to the point, because the number of MPs is variable, the constituencies are fixed, so it is extremely difficult to gerrymander a seat in favour or one or another party: no more interminable boundary commission reviews. In the UK I see AV as step in the right direction, since the voting mechanism is the same: listing in order of preference, but there is only one MP elected per seat.

In Estonia, although the list system is proportional, the voters still do not have much more power than under first past the post, because the party selects the order that candidates are elected in. In my view, that is a right that more properly belongs to the voters.

Thus, after this General Election in March. I sincerely hope that the Estonians will consider two changes to their constitution: firstly to make the President directly elected, rather than indirectly by the Riigikogu or if the Parliament is deadlocked by the Constituent Electoral College. Yet more important still I think would be to change the electoral system to make it more responsive to the voters: in other words to ditch lists in favour of voter choice and the STV system.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

Bournemouth absence

Although I had hoped to get down to the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth this year, simple pressure of work has now made that impossible. I must admit to great disappointment. The last conference before the General Election was always likely to show a few fireworks, and indeed the conference has attracted more headlines than any other over the past three years. Some of these headlines show a significant change of course in terms of economic policy. Scepticism about the size of government expenditure has given way to concern and now it is clear that reducing government expenditure will need to be the most urgent priority of the next government. So far it has been the Liberal Democrats that have made the running, and although the Conservatives are now belatedly recognising that cuts will be required they continue to fail to provide even the slightest detail as to what they think should guide their decisions in this area. This political cowardice means that we are expected to ch