Riigikogu discussed the development of civil society and the role of collective proposals

Today, the Riigikogu discussed the development of civil society, the state of democracy, and the role of collective proposals as a matter of significant national importance.

This year, the debate on the development of civil society that is regularly held at the Riigikogu, focused on the current state of democracy in Estonia and the possibility of submitting collective proposals. The debate was titled “A strong civil society as a foundation of democracy. The role and impact of collective proposals”.

Reports were made by the Minister of the Interior Igor Taro; Appointed Professor of Comparative Politics at the School of Governance, Law and Society of Tallinn University Mari-Liis Jakobson, and Head of Knowledge Transfer at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance of Tallinn University of Technology; public administration expert, and Vice Chairman of Supervisory Board of the Estonian Cooperation Assembly Külli Taro. The debate, initiated by the Constitutional Committee, was summarised at the plenary sitting by Ando Kiviberg, Chair of the Committee.

In his presentation, Minister of the Interior Igor Taro pointed out that in the last couple of decades the civil society of Estonia had made a leap forward – thousands of non‑profit organisations were active in Estonia, and nearly half of the country’s residents had contributed in some way as volunteers to societal well‑being. “This reflects the willingness to contribute and to support each other – a cohesion that is part of our security and resilience to crises,” he said. Taro added that there was still room for improvement.

“There are more motivated people and communities than are currently participating actively. Our goal is to create a framework, in which everyone can easily and naturally make a contribution – whether to the security of the neighbourhood, running a sports club, helping someone in need, or engaging in the creation of new solutions, in cooperation with the state,” he noted, also acknowledging that civic engagement remained low in many fields – people were not always aware of their opportunities to participate or did not feel that they could have an actual impact on public life. This especially applied to young people and less represented groups.

Taro also pointed out the funding problems of non-governmental organisations or the need to move away from project-based financing towards operational grants and strategic partnerships. “Non-governmental organisations are an equal partner for the state and local governments, not merely implementers of projects,” Minister of the Interior affirmed.

Professor of Comparative Politics at the School of Governance, Law and Society of Tallinn University, Dr Mari-Liis Jakobson gave an overview of Estonia’s position in various democracy indices. The Varieties of Democracy Index rates Estonia’s liberal democracy as second in the world, while our participatory democracy is much weaker – we are only in 30th place – and in the Giving Index we have just moved from outside the top 200 into the top 100.

“The weaknesses of Estonian deliberative culture lie primarily in the elites’ modest respect for counter-arguments, the ever-narrow circle of elites involved in decision-making processes and the insufficient justification provided for political decisions. The indicators of participatory democracy are being pulled down primarily by the low use of direct‑democracy practices, but also, for example, by the closed process of compiling electoral lists within parties,” she said. Jakobson pointed out that the decline of modern democracy did not happen through coups or sudden shifts in direction, but gradually – under the guise of democracy. The pillars of democracy usually only start to crumble when politicians who themselves have received a mandate from the people, have for many years undermined the trust in elections (on the results of which rests their own legitimacy) or in the constitutional norms that they have pledged to uphold; when they start to label their political opponents as enemies or harmful elements, or when they start to justify violence, to limit the freedom of speech or media, or the rights of certain social groups. “One process that supports this step-by-step undermining is the social polarisation, that is, a situation where the natural plurality of views and issues in society narrows down to just a few major oppositions.”

According to Jakobson, the indices suggest that countries with a tradition of deliberative democracy do well – public activity is channelled into discussions that are aimed not at ideological trench-warfare (where everyone digs deeper into the mud with their world-view and the outcome is predictable), but where people debate in order to find compromise solutions that allow everyone to move forward with dignity, remaining true to their views while removing one contentious issue between opponents.

The third presentation was by Dr Külli Taro, Head of Knowledge Transfer at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance of Tallinn University of Technology; public administration expert, and Vice Chairman of Supervisory Board of the Estonian Cooperation Assembly. She gave an overview of rahvaalgatus.ee that has become an important digital space bringing together a wide range of voices, from grassroots initiatives to professional advocacy partners. Anyone aged 16 or over has the right to support initiatives. At least 1,000 signatures are required to submit a collective proposal to the Riigikogu.

According to Taro, there is a number of initiatives that can also be called digital protests, the main aim of which is to express one’s attitude towards a political decision or person. “Their aim may not be to directly change the law; rather, they serve to test societal temperature, with the public initiative portal functioning as a kind of a peaceful pressure valve,” she said. Taro also pointed out that the experts of the Estonian Cooperation Assembly, which manages the public initiative portal, had noticed an interesting pattern while analysing public initiatives. “The issues that seem to profoundly divide society in public debate often give rise to opposing proposals on the public initiative portal. However, the support of these opposing proposals is not always comparable. I do not know if one could conclude that actual polarisation in society may be much smaller than what public opinion space makes it seem, or whether that is merely wishful thinking,” she pondered.

According to Taro, another observation concerns the issues that seem to be very important in public debate but do not gain sufficient support as public initiatives. “For example, the direct election of the president. Initiatives of this kind have been made repeatedly, but none have managed to gather 1,000 signatures. The public initiative portal is a litmus test that highlights the issues of importance to society,” Taro said.

In his presentation, the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee Ando Kiviberg affirmed that public initiative and collective proposals were natural tools of a democratic society. Kiviberg stressed the need for a dignified political culture and a more respectful political debate.

Kiviberg also pointed out that the Riigikogu had adopted the Estonian Civil Society Development Concept base document on 12 December 2002. “23 years have passed. It is evident that life around us has changed considerably since that time. I believe it is time to reopen the document and to adapt it to the reality of the present,” he said. Kiviberg said that although the principles of the Concept were timeless – they emphasised partnership, cooperation, trust, and the role of citizens’ associations in shaping policy – the document no longer reflected today’s reality. “It does not support the development of the next stage of trust-based democracy and must therefore be reviewed in cooperation with both members of the Riigikogu and citizens’ associations.”

Kiviberg also proposed forming a civil society support group, as had been done in previous compositions. “Such a support group is not merely a formality. It is a cooperation platform that helps balance understanding, share information, and maintain a continuous and effective dialogue between the two sides – the state and civil society.”

“Strengthening the public initiative system, renewing the Estonian Civil Society Development Concept, and re-establishing the civil society support group are three practical steps that would help build trust, reduce polarisation, and support the maturation of democracy that we all strive for,” said the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee.

Varro Vooglaid (Estonian Conservative People’s Party), Lauri Läänemets (Social Democratic Party), Pipi-Liis Siemann (Reform Party), Peeter Ernits, Toomas Uibo (Estonia 200), and Jüri Jaanson (Reform Party) took the floor during the debate.

Verbatim record of the sitting (in Estonian)

Photos (Erik Peinar / Chancellery of the Riigikogu)

Video recording will be available on the Riigikogu YouTube channel.

Riigikogu Press Service
Maris Meiessaar
+372 631 6353, +372 5558 3993
[email protected]
Questions: [email protected]