In Estonia from this year, public libraries (people’s libraries) have to spend 50% of their state funding on specific Estonian publications, as directed by the state. This has been the result of a minor culture war in Estonia waged by our Minister of Culture Rein Lang against books written by Barbara Cartland and the like. These state mandated, so-called cultural publications, are prizewinners, somewhat elitist works who are rarely read otherwise. Although I can detect some sort of a good intention in this action, I cannot in any way support or agree with it. Even though it is not full-blown Orwellian censorship, it still stems from the notion that the people are dumb and the government is smart and people need to be told what to read. It also means that especially those people in rural areas who had grown accustomed to reading recent bestsellers are no longer able to do so, which is a shame.

It is early to tell what the impact of this decision is, but my guess is that people will use libraries less, because books that they want to read are not there. With dwindling numbers come more budget cuts and reduction of numbers of libraries and soon we might end up with a situation in which this important network of local libraries is no longer there, depriving people of an important service. This means also that fewer children go to the library and appreciate its value.

If the government really wanted to help libraries to perform better, then they should encourage the transfer to and accessibility of digital publications. They should provide better tools for digitizing existing content and create a legal framework where this can be accessible. This should not only be limited to books or periodicals, but also music, films and other important arts. The information society has provided us with incredible possibilities for enjoyment of culture, all kinds of culture, by everyone, but sadly much of the content is locked away due to draconian and outdated intellectual property laws (I know first hand what are the expenses involved in accessing academic journals). In order to make libraries more relevant they could be made into zones where all this culture and education is accessible by all for free.

The constitution was drafted in almost 20 years ago, in a completly different set of circumstances. Accession to the EU was not on anyone’s minds (nor did the EU exist in its today’s form), the understanding and content of several human rights provisions have been altered, etc. The world around us has changed, and Estonia has changed even more dramatically.

The Estonian constitution has been for me, and I suspect for most Estonians, the most fundamental basis for the existence of the Estonian state. I cannot really remember the first time I read it, but it was during school, and I think it was one of the things that made me decide to study law, instead of anything else. The constitution sets out clearly and powerfully why we have the state and what it does. I was most impressed with the Bill of Rights section, which I thought was a brilliant thing to have. Indeed, I was not and am still not so much interested in the institutions the constitution created, but rather the principles it provides.

Estonia is a part of the EU and this is not reflected well in the constitution. The constitution suffered its heaviest blow with the 2004 Amendment Act and its subsequent interpretation by the Estonian Supreme Court. Today, it is no longer clear to which extent the constitution applies in case it is in conflict with an EU legal act. A new Constitution should state more clearly and confidently the basis according to which Estonia belongs to the EU, and not only that, but the way it operates in today’s multilevel governance framework. This not only applies to the EU level, but also to the relationship between the state level and local governments. The latter subject (i.e. local government functions and their financing) have been one of the most contentious issues in Estonian politics for a long time. Therefore my first proposal would be to describe in a chapter the role of the Estonian state in this framework. The current constitution largely ignores the fact that governance is no longer limited to a single state entity, but is much larger concept.

The Bill of Rights needs updating. There have been many changes in recent decades in the understanding and development of human rights, including for example data protection rights. The family rights section should also be expanded to be more clearly inclusive of all types of relationships. For example, although the current constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriages, these relationships should be more clearly protected. A good, but not perfect, example could be found in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The provisions relating to the nation state should be reviewed. The constitution contradicts itself by providing those who are of Estonian nationality preferential treatment. The preservation of the Estonian nation in the preamble is one of the things that should go, and better protection be afforded to minorities. Multiple citizenship should be clarified in the constitution, the current blanket ban is unfair and dumb. The constitution would provide an opportunity for a truly new societal agreement to involve in the governance of the state also those who have been left out so far (ethnic Russians and other marginalised minorities) and move Estonia forward in the democratic path.

A few other things that I would also rather see changed:

1. Abolish compulsory military service. It has no place in today’s society: it serves no legitimate defence need and is burdensome for the individuals from the liberty perspective as well as the society as a whole.

2. Add innovative  things that pave the way for success, for example the right to access to Internet and the principle of Open Data.

The rules that govern us determine where we go as a society. I think there should be more discussion in Estonia on the most fundamental of these rules, especially on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Estonian constitution next year. Let’s face it: the current constitution and life in Estonia today have grown apart and need to be re-aligned. Otherwise we will see in future more and more incredible feats of teleological interpretation, which interpret a clause in the constitution to say the exact opposite of its text and that is not good.

I do not advocate shifting the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the society on the whole. It is clear that those individuals who were proven to commit a specific act deserve to be punished according to the law. However, in order to prevent such acts in the future, it is important to look at and analyse the causes of these events. The society should also look into things that are wrong and try to remedy these. This way, the horrific events could be turned into possibilities to make a better society. This does not mean that we somehow reward the criminals, because the motivation should not be fear of someone doing something similar again, but to eliminate the root causes of these actions.

Some people (especially those who like to see things in black and white terms) think that there are people who are evil and that is that. Those ‘evil’ people need to be tracked down and put to prison or even killed. That is not the way I look at things. I think people and life in general is much more complex. Goodness and evil are subjective, relative terms that could, at best, relate to specific actions in a specific ethical or moral framework, but not really to the whole of a person.

Faced with complex set of issues that shock or frighten, people tend to seek for strong leaders with simple, harsh measures. However, I think it is best to analyse the situation and also look at the root causes of these criminal events. Trying to ignore problems will not make them go away.

Speaking the truth is closely related to trust and transparency. Governance needs trust and transparency to be democratic and legitimate. Professional sports need the same values in order to preserve the notion of fair play and to attract interest of supporters. It would be difficult for me to place trust in an educational institution or people involved in higher education that resort to lies and dirty tricks to achieve their goals.

In the long run honesty is still the best policy, although in the short term some people might think that desperate or extraordinary circumstances merit spreading of lies. These people are wrong, because the short term lies create long term distrust and we need to have a society where there is less distrust and more trustworthiness.

Stable and prosperous democracy can in my opinion be built only based on mutual trust and trust of important state or private institutions. It is a shame that some people in our society still are willing to sacrifice these things for personal short term gains.

• The iPad editions of all of the items I read seemed shorter. They actually had in general the same content, but in paper form I had the impression of getting more. I believe it is due to the fact that people are used to associate physical printed material with more content than electronic versions. The Internet seems vast and there is a lot to it, but the individual pieces are usually shorter. The paper edition also allows you to see the whole article on one page, zoom in and out of different parts of the article, whereas the iPad’s 10” screen requires you to scroll down to find interesting stuff in a single piece.
• There seems to be more value in a physical product. Although the amount of content is the same, and there are even some nice extras like music and video, it is difficult to pay the same amount (or more in Eesti Ekspress’s case!) for essentially the same product, but in an electronic format. GQ is a nice exception as it costs here in Estonia significantly less than the physical copy. There is also the notion that information should be free online and therefore any kind of paywalls are undesirable and fragmenting. My suggestion is to sell the iPad editions of newspapers in a subscription format.
• The current system of downloading the whole newspaper to the iPad and then reading it is tedious (especilly as it seems that it cannot download in background). Therefore I am stuck looking at the downloading screen for a signficant amount of time. The GQ solves the problem partly by starting already to display textual content before all the ‘heavier’ stuff has been downloaded, but it still is cumbersome. The ideal solution in a subscription world would be that the electronic edition would be delivered not on-demand, but immediately when available so that I do not have to wait for the hundreds and hundreds of megabytes to download. There must be a better technical solution to this waiting. I can get to the www.epl.ee website instantly, but have to wait for 30 seconds or so each day before the newspaper downloads (and installs!).
• My last gripe about the iPad versions of newspapers is payment and pricing. Surely the reduced costs of not having to print the newspaper and the added benefit of targeted and smart ads should lower, not raise, the price of the newspaper. I think a small weekly or monthly subscription fee for a bunch of newspapers bundled together is the way to go. I am especially disappointed with Eesti Ekspress who sells their iPad edition for significantly more than their paper version. Who was the idiot who came up with this?

I think that media has an ever increasing role in today’s world and as a watchdog of democracy. New technological advances, such as the iPad, open new ways of delivering high quality content instantly and with added value. This means that journalism must adapt to these new realities and also alter the business model accordingly, not simply create paywalls for content that was previously available for free. I think that the podcast model suits news media better than the music store model…

I keep hearing that people should vote in the elections in any case, even if they do not feel that there are anyone who they could vote for or if people think the system is fundamentally flawed. They say that if you do not vote, you will not have a right to complain later. That is not true.

I refuse to vote for the party or person I detest the least. If I am going to vote, then I want to vote FOR someone who I believe in to make life better and represent me as best they can. Currently I cannot see that I have any connection to any person I have ever voted for (and I have dutifully voted each and every election).

Life has changed quite fundamentally in the last 20 or 10 years, but democracy has not. It is still the essentially the same system as was in use 10 or 20 years ago. How bizarre is it in today’s age that the main influence I have over who governs me is every four years through a convoluted system of political parties and candidates. How come there has been  no innovation in the election procedure except for the possibility of not going to a physical location to cast my vote.

The only way to change the system would be to found my own political party, win the elections and then hope that the party has not yet been corrupted by the system so that to drive through any kind of meaningful reform. That seems like an impossibly difficult task.

So I take the easier road and simply not vote.

If you can’t find anything you like on TV then you don’t watch the least crappiest show. You don’t watch TV.

If you don’t find a university where they teach you what you want the way you want, then you don’t go to university.

So why should you have to vote for a crappy politician in an election, when you can simply not vote and try to achieve your aims in other ways.

1. Estonian National Republic

The overall emphasis for the state is the protection of the rights of ethnic Estonians, Estonian cultural heritage and language. The policies of the state prioritise preservation of the Estonian nation above all. This means that immigration should be reduced, ethnic Estonians should have more children (and should get support for it). This also means suppression of human rights of minorities, forcing them to adapt to the prevailing order of the society. Estonian language laws are strictly enforced, even in the private sphere. There is complusory military service to protect ethnic Estonians from the threat from Russia. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia and sexism are tolerated by the state as a necessary evil to ensure the continuation of the nation state. Ethnic Russians are called occupiers and attempts to build mosques are resisted. Higher education institutions serve mostly locals and are thus limited in their research and education capacity.

Nationalism usualy prevails over rational arguments, which means that the society is not democratic (rather a dictatorship of the majority) or very successful.

2. Estonian Open Republic

The emphasis of the state is in providing protection and equal opportunities to everyone who lives or comes to live in Estonia, trying to make life better for all (and not at the expense of others). High degrees of diversity are promoted and supported by the state. Racism, homophobia and xenophobia are contained and criminally sanctioned. Language laws are relaxed, people are free to speak and communcate information in any language they wish, the state is still using prevailingly Estonian. There is no compulsory military service as new security challenges require modern highl trained armies. There are many people of different backgrounds and ethnicities who come to work in Estonia’s economy. Ethnic Russians are viewed as an important part of the society and ethnic Estonians have also adapted to the new realities. Higher education institutions are international and competitive.

There are no taboo topics, decisions are made based on their merits in a democratic way, taking into account the views of all.

Which Estonia would you like to live in? I would strongly prefer the second option.

The debate regarding military service brings all this out in the open, because there are not so many rational arguments for keeping it as it does not help to strengthen national security in any way, but rather weakens it by misplacing resources into meaningless and futile activities. The direct economic cost for the young men missing from study or work for a period may be calculated, but it is much more difficult to calculate the indirect social costs that military service creates (for example by entrenchment of gender stereotypes). Culturally, it is difficult to combine the peaceloving peasant individualist Estonian nature with the idea of collective national defence. Huge pompuous armies are not very Estonian.

Outdated gender stereotypes are a real problem in Estonia. The state is working hard to change them on one hand, but on the other hand it also reinforces them by limiting military service requirement to young men only. Many people still think that man should be the one who takes care of the family and protects it, and that those who have not participated in the military service are somehow less worth in that regard.

Military service is also a threat to democracy. Not only does it teach conformism and discipline, it is also patriotic brainwashing (although admittedly not very effective). Nationalism is good only when it is moderated and respectful of others, not when it is used in political debate.

Read more (in Estonian):

Endine kaitseminister ei poolda ajateenistuse kummardamist: http://www.postimees.ee/?id=286584,

Kas ajateenistust ootab hääbumine? http://www.postimees.ee/?id=286404,

Aaviksoo: sõjaväekohustus püsib veel vähemalt sajandi http://uudised.err.ee/index.php?06209174

Read my article from 2008 (in Estonian): http://www.postimees.ee/250608/esileht/arvamus/338259.php

“The question facing Estonia is whether its independence can co-exist with Russian strength. The answer to this question likely depends on Estonia’s reconciling itself to the paradox that, while it can be independent of Russia, it can never be free of Russia. An important step in this reconciliation will be the realization on the part of Estonia that it cannot be restored to its relative ethnic purity of 1940. Rather, Estonia must move beyond ethnic nationalism and pursue a civic-based model of the nation state which will foster a shared identity and loyalty between its ethnic Estonian and ethnic Russian populations. Quite simply, restoration does not require exclusion.”

Source: CREATING THE ETHNIC ELECTORATE THROUGH LEGAL RESTORATIONISM: CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS IN ESTONIA Richard C. Visek, Harvard International Law Journal Spring, 1997