Editor-in-chief of DV Olesya Lagashina.Photo: Andras Kralla
By proposing a vote of no confidence in the newly appointed Minister of Infrastructure Vladimir Svet, the Pro Patria party and its leader Urmas Reinsalu, together with EKRE, are once again demonstrating how little they actually care about the well-being of Estonian society.
Blocking Russian-speaking candidates for high-ranking positions, citing their lack of loyalty to the Estonian state, has become a habit among representatives of right-wing parties: not long ago, Fatherland managed to successfully push Tatyana Lavrova out of her post as the elder of Lasnamäe. That time, the “Russification of the Estonian capital” did not please Riina Solman, who believed that the coup in Tallinn was aimed at creating a “pro-Estonian city government.” The pressure on the candidate had its effect, but the elder has not yet been found, although, according to rumors, the Social Democrats are running off their feet in search of a worthy candidate.
Meanwhile, to the great displeasure of the “patriots,” hostile personnel continue to infiltrate even higher positions, and in the biography of each of them one can find ambiguous statements and discreditable connections, if one only wants to.
Some allowed themselves to reason when it was only necessary to name the password (the question of Crimea has been working smoothly as a shibboleth since 2014). Others spoke out against the transfer of the Bronze Soldier – and the fact that in 2007, for example, neither Putin’s permanence in the Kremlin nor the possibility of Bucha occurred to anyone, does not play any role from their point of view. Still others can always find some Russian relatives and friends whom for some reason they refuse to consider the fiends of hell. Still others allowed themselves to criticize, for example, the education reform… This list can be continued. And this is a very convenient instrument of political pressure. Convenient, but toxic.
Vladimir Svet noted in an interview with DV that he does not see a big problem in the fact that higher standards of verification are applied to him as a member of the government. I will allow myself to disagree that this is correct. The point is not that these standards are applied to him as a minister, but that they are applied to all more or less notable Russian-speaking public figures without exception. And this unequal treatment is not at the level of the law, but at the level of political manipulation, which in no way strengthens the solidarity of society.
It seems that a Russian-speaking politician, when taking office, must make the “coo” sign three times and squat down, proving his loyalty, while an Estonian (although not every one, the party must be “correct”) can be blamed for his membership in the CPSU or, say, a visit to Putin after the annexation of Crimea. In any case, this does not hinder their political careers and does not harm their reputation.
It is clear that the social democrats, having pushed the centrists out of the capital’s power and let in principled nationalists, are trying to tame the Russian-speaking population by taking on the usual functions of the centrists and borrowing their leading politicians. The latter is part of the normal competitive process, the former is difficult to explain from any point of view except purely arithmetic.
Ideologically, the Social Democrats are poorly compatible with the Fatherland party. And of course, for them, inviting a municipal politician to the government is a receipt that there were no other reasons for the fall of the Kõlvart city hall than the already mentioned competition. The officials who worked together cannot help but understand that the city government was quite “pro-Estonian” even in its previous composition, and pro-Putin views are attributed to its members when necessary, when someone’s political ambitions require it.
It is, of course, funny in itself that the reformist Pärtel-Peeter Pere, who took over Vladimir Svet’s city duties and is part of the city coalition with the Social Democrats, blames his predecessors for all the city’s infrastructure problems, while at the state level the SDPE recruits his predecessor as a qualified manager in this area. It is a well-known fact that everything that is not done by us is done poorly, and vice versa.
But the transfer of the discussion from the area of competence to the plane of loyalty is poisonous in itself, although not surprising. It is difficult to find another occupation to one’s liking in the opposition. For EKRE, initiating votes of no confidence has long been the only strategy to somehow appear on the agenda, so their joining the attack against the Light is not at all surprising.
As for the centrists, the situation looks rather contradictory for them. On the one hand, there might be a desire to kick the defector and vote against the coalition minister. But on the other hand, it would be absurd for the centrists to pass a vote of no confidence in Vladimir Svet now as a Putinist: in fact, this would mean that over the years of working together, they have missed the national traitor in their own ranks. Not to mention the impression this would make on Russian-speaking voters.
It is probably strange to reproach politicians for behaving like politicians and seizing any opportunity to sink their rival. Why do we need all this shaking of the air in a situation of a worsening economic crisis, when decisions must be made quickly and professionally, is another question and mainly rhetorical.
The presumption of disloyalty of any Russian-speaking politician, including the former adviser to the Chancellor of Justice, is absurd and counterproductive. A Russian-speaking public figure should not have to prove his loyalty more than is required of all other citizens. And if Russian-speaking politicians themselves, representing different political forces, publicly showed a little more solidarity on this issue – including with regard to “defectors”, it would be good.
Source: www.dv.ee
