For every election promise, it is worth asking what problem it solves, who it helps and at what cost, Külli Taro finds.
With political parties leading the charge, we are preparing for elections to the Riigikogu, the country's most important democratically elected representative body. The first campaign ads are already airing, parties are testing the popularity of their election promises and news about who will run alongside whom will soon become a daily occurrence.
Although the Riigikogu is Estonia's most important institution, tasked with debating and deciding all major issues, particularly those involving questions of values, discussions sometimes leave the impression that parliament is an obstacle to making necessary decisions quickly. This seems especially true when following discussions within government agencies where the prevailing attitude appears to be that things would work so much better if only the Riigikogu were not in the way.
A problem needs solving, an idea is on the table, but then come the questions, disputes, negotiations, consultations and proposed amendments. Why can't we just get something done without a time-consuming and exhausting parliamentary debate?
The Riigikogu seems to be getting in the way. If implementing an idea requires changing the law, the preference is to look for ways around that requirement.
Consider the police experiment with "cooling-off stops" several years ago. Speeding drivers were offered the option of waiting by the roadside instead of paying a fine. The experiment effectively introduced a new enforcement measure, with the police taking it upon themselves to shape penalties policy in place of parliament. Only later was the law amended to give police the authority to test cooling-off stops as an enforcement measure.
Or take the infrastructure fees imposed by local governments, which the chancellor of justice has challenged before the Supreme Court because such fees are, in essence, local taxes. We have agreed in the Constitution that local governments may impose and collect taxes and impose obligations only on the basis of law.
Existing laws do not authorize the introduction of infrastructure fees. There is no dispute that building the social infrastructure needed to accommodate new residential developments requires funding. But it is parliament that must make the value judgment about how much of the cost of new schools, kindergartens and other facilities necessitated by new residents should be borne by developers and, ultimately, homebuyers and how much should be funded from municipal budgets as a general public service. Municipal councils cannot take the place of the Riigikogu by invoking their right to manage local affairs independently.
Examples of government agencies taking it upon themselves, rather than leaving it to elected representatives, to decide how medical records, banking information or other data may be used have caused considerable public outrage. And rightly so.
The Riigikogu must decide whose medical records may be accessed, when, under what conditions and to what extent. Information entrusted to doctors must be protected by clear legal safeguards.
It is parliament's responsibility to set limits on government agencies' access to bank account statements through the enforcement register. Bank statements reveal details of people's private lives and even when an agency is pursuing what it considers a noble objective, that does not entitle it to disregard other values.
The purpose of the police's automatic license plate recognition cameras is also understandable. But what caused the greatest outrage was the realization that mass data collection had been organized without broader public debate or even widespread public knowledge.
Technological advances increasingly confront us with the question of whether we, as a society, actually want everything that technology makes possible. Technological solutions must be accompanied by value judgments that distinguish between what we can do and what we want to do. Smart use of data and regulation must not be treated as opposing goals.
These questions require answers enshrined in law. Resolving them means deciding how much power we give the state and how that power may be exercised. The Riigikogu is supposed to debate these issues. That is precisely why we elect a parliament.
Advisory councils and decision-making committees established on any other basis cannot replace a democratically elected representative body. Elected representatives must, of course, listen to outside advice, but parliament cannot be relieved of its responsibility for decisions, its obligation to conduct transparent and wide-ranging debate or its duty to seek additional expertise when necessary.
If the quality of debate in the Riigikogu is unsatisfactory, the solution is not to sideline parliament but to demand more of it. We should insist on more precise questions and clearer answers.
An avalanche of election promises will soon be upon us. That will give us another opportunity to practice holding politicians to higher standards. With every promise, we should ask what problem it solves, whom it helps and at what cost. A catchy idea about "doing something new or exciting" is not enough on its own. We need solutions that genuinely help and whose objectives, costs and limits we can agree on. Reaching that agreement is precisely the job of parliament.
--