Estonia by Paul A. Goble Capital: Tallinn Population: 1.4 million GDP/capita: US$16,203 Ethnic Groups: Estonian (67.9%), Russian (25.6%), Ukrainian (2.1%), Belarusian (1.3%), Finn (0.9%), other (2.2%) The economic and social data on this page were taken from the following sources: GDP/capita, Population: Transition Report 2006: Finance in Transition (London, UK: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2006). Ethnic Groups: CIA World Fact Book 2007 (Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 2007). Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Electoral Process 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Civil Society 2.50 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Independent Media 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Governance* 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 n/a n/a n/a National Democratic 2.25 Governance n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.25 2.25 Local Democratic 2.50 Governance n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.50 2.50 Judicial Framework 1.50 and Independence 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 Corruption 3.25 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Democracy Score 2.25 2.13 2.00 2.00 1.92 1.96 1.96 1.96 * With the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects. NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the authorofthis report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author. The ratings are based on a scale of1to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year. 256 Nations in Transit 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY hree events in 2006 symbolized Estonia’s remarkable—indeed, almost unparalleled—achievements in making the transition from Communist occupation to free society, as well as highlighting some of the difficulties Tthat a small Baltic country still faces in the future. First of all, 2006 saw a symbolic change of generations at the top of the country’s political hierarchy, with the death in March of former president Lennart Meri and the defeat in September of then incumbent president Arnold Ruutel by Toomas Hendrik Ilves. Meri and Ruutel grew up in pre-1940 Estonia, lived through the Soviet occupation, and represented in their own persons the continuity of statehood that has been a keystone of Estonia’s national life. Ilves, in contrast, was born and grew up abroad; he came to Estonia in the 1990s to work as foreign minister, journalist, Social Democratic politician, and (most recently) member of the European Parliament. In addition to the obvious generational change his election represents, Ilves brings an important new dimension to the presidential palace neighborhood of Kadriorg: He is closely tied with the Social Democratic Party he helped to reestablish and thus is likely to change the dynamics of the relationship between the presidency and the Parliament over the course of his tenure. Second, in 2006 Estonia became an even more important “exporter” of democratic values with former prime minister Mart Laar serving as a key adviser to the government of the Republic of Georgia and Estonian forces participating in NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and Iraq—even though some international monitoring agencies and at least one domestic nongovernmental organization (NGO) stressed that Estonia itself still had a long way to go to institutionalize democratic values. Third, 2006 was marked not only by political change at the top and abroad,but by a continuing “battle over monuments,” as Estonians and ethnic Russians—some citizens of Estonia, some citizens of the Russian Federation, and some still without citizenship in either country—struggled over how key events in the country’s national life in the twentieth century should be commemorated by statues or other monuments. Disputes over the fate of the Soviet war memorial in front of Estonia’s national library in the capital, Tallinn, attracted the most attention, but Estonians also found themselves divided and sometimes criticized for other memorials, including those involving Estonian resistance to the Soviet advance against the Germans in World War II. Estonia 257 National Democratic Governance. Estonia’s parliamentary government remained more stable in 2006 than in earlier years, but this stability of cadres did not translate into the adoption of much legislation. One reason is that the Parliament remains divided among a large number of parties. Another is that many of Tallinn’s most immediate challenges are bringing its legislation and practice into line with European Union (EU) rules, an effort that is often devoid of dramatic votes even though it involves some of the most serious issues. Yet a third is that the year saw another recombination of political groupings as various parliamentary and extraparliamentary factions positioned themselves for elections to the Parliament that will be held in the spring of 2007. Taking all these things into consideration, Estonia’s national democratic governance score remains at 2.25. Electoral Process. There were no local elections in Estonia in 2006, andthe election of the president in the late summer and fall took place indirectly through the Parliament, where no candidate received the necessary two-thirds supermajority, and then through a broader electoral assembly, where Toomas Hendrik Ilves defeated Arnold Ruutel. As in earlier years, many Estonian commentators called for amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the direct popular election of the president, with one senior minister urging the wholesale redrafting of the Constitution now that Estonia is a member of the EU. If polls are to be believed, Ilves would have won a direct election, but many observers complained that the media were not balanced in their coverage of the election. One opposition politician even suggested that the election was not between Ruutel and Ilves, but between Ruutel and the media, which he said were entirely behind Ilves. Estonia’s rating for electoral process remains at 1.50. Civil Society. The Estonian government places few restrictions on the activities of NGOs. Indeed, measured by that yardstick, Estonia is already one of the freest countries in the world. But the country’s small size means that NGOs are often dependent on a single domestic supporter or on foreign assistance, thus undercutting the meaning of what would otherwise be a dynamic public space. In 2006, Estonian NGOs continued to struggle, with some playing a larger role in interacting with government and broader society, but with others facing an uncertain economic future. But one very encouraging sign is that many young Estonians tell pollsters they trust NGOs more than political parties or most other institutions. As a result, Estonia’s score for civil society remains at 2.00. Independent Media. The Estonian media in 2006 had both positive and negative features. Among the most positive were the continuing ability of the media to operate free of direct governmental regulation, the rise of Russian-language editions of portions of the national press and the appearance of a special series entitled Remaining Russian on the state television channel, and the continued growth of Internet use in what is already one of the most online countries in the world. But among the more negative features were the Parliament’s rejection of a bill 258 Nations in Transit 2007 that would have ensured better communication of government decisions to non- Estonian speakers, the appearance of the worst kind of yellow journalism in the run-up to the presidential vote in the early fall, and the inability of the print media to escape the dilemma of operations in a small media market, where most papers are financed either by readers (which makes prices high) or by owners (which raises serious questions about editorial control) rather than by the bundled advertising that is typical of larger markets. Estonia’s independent media rating thus remains at 1.50. Local Democratic Governance. Local elections at the end of 2005 led many Estonians to think that their local governments would be given greater taxation authority and independence of action. That did not happen in 2006. Instead, the local governments outside the major cities were forced to confront the problems arising from declines in the number of residents and a rapidly aging population. And while some in the regions were encouraged by the fact that the presidential election was resolved in the countrywide electoral college rather than by the increasingly Tallinn-centric Parliament, particularly in the economically hard- pressed south and northeast, many in these regions felt that the national government was either ignoring their needs or seeking to address them on a national rather than a regional or local basis. Estonia’s rating for local democratic governance remains at 2.50. Judicial Framework and Independence. Prodded by the EU and other international bodies and aware of shortcomings in the past, the Estonian government worked hard in 2006 to improve the training of judges and to expand consultation between the judicial authorities on the one hand and academic experts and civil society groups on the other. But if the already independent judicial sphere showed progress, conditions in Estonia’s prisons did not. They were the subject of sharply critical reports by the EU, the United Nations, and human rights watchdog groups, and a few Estonian public figures were sufficiently concerned about the country’s penal system to the extent that some in the government suggested that private entrepreneurs should take over the prisons and work to improve them.