M. Mikko at "Political Parties for Georgia’s New Democracy"
Georgia, 17. March 2006
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am here today to share a few thoughts about the changes Estonian society underwent on its way into the EU.
My more precise topic is “Democratic participation, pluralism and freedom of information: the case of Estonia’s integration into the EU.” This is a very wide topic, which I even cannot start to cover in the 20 minutes I have.
My first thought about the topic was a comparison. It seems to me that democracy, pluralism and freedom of information are to the EU accession as air, water and sunlight are to the high school diploma.
Air, water and sunlight are the very basic needs for a person. Without them we could not have gone to high school – on account of not being alive. Yet, to be successful in school, you need a lot more than to fulfill your basic functions.
And the last point – breathing, drinking, washing and getting some light are good for you in themselves – even if you do not intend to get an education. Democracy, pluralism and freedom of information are the key success factors in accession to the European Union. At the same time they are key success factors in anything a nation wants to accomplish. Even if the country does not want to join the European Union.
There are other important criteria to join the Union, or to become happy and prosperous nation without it. You certainly know of functioning market economy and the rule of law. It seems very clear to me that the two latter factors cannot exist with out the first one.
These factors belong inseparably together, they are unthinkable without each other. It is impossible to tell where on of them begins and the other ends.
***
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,
I will use the rest of my speaking time to tell you about the very early years of Estonian integration into the EU.
At the time I will talk about we were about as far from the European Union membership as Georgia is now. Maybe even further, since initially there was no clear vision who Estonia wanted to join, what Estonia wanted to be like. The European Union was only one option. For some people, it was the second choice, given that we could not join the United States of America J.
***
But first, some thoughts about democracy.
Even the Soviet propaganda machine did not dare to stress too much the notion of Soviet Union being pluralistic or protecting the freedom of information. However, it habitually described this "prison of nations"
[1] as democratic.
The essence of democracy was not reflected upon to any great extent. It was just used as a catchphrase. Pretty much the same way the US public discourse equates “democracy” with the “American way of life”, the Soviets substituted “democracy” for “Soviet way of life”. The Soviet satellite states such as Korea or East Germany often called themselves “Democratic Republic”.
In the very ancient sense of the word they might even been sort of right. But they were very far from a modern democracy.
Plato or Socrates might not recognize the way we use the word. Ancient Greek democracy was similar to the present Greek democracy only in its name. The Athenian demos was constituted only of rich men, owners of land and slaves.
The modern European demos sometimes even includes residents from other countries. No one seriously doubts that the change has been for the better. The decisive advantage of the modern democracy over the ancient version is its participative nature.
***
Democratic participation was one of the key factors in Estonia’s success.
In 1991, the dictatorship of the Communist Party was finally swept away by the Singing Revolution. The whole nation was eager and willing to join “the West”. But hardly anyone had any clear idea how to do it. There was no elite to follow, no one with a ready-made recipe. The infamous [in:femos] Western consultants started their invasion only years later.
In this situation pluralism and the free flow of information proved invaluable. They created an arena and a testing ground for ideas about shaping the society according to the new model.
For all its rhetoric, the Soviet system had been clearly neither participative nor democratic. The land was ruled by a small clique. They were men from the same generation, from the same schools, from the same career ladder. Soviet Union was an elitist society.
It was also heavily patriarchal. Patriarchal thinking decrees that the administrative power belongs to “the great and the good”, to the “old and wise”. A man from the street, an average joe, has no business meddling in government affairs. Neither do women and young people.
In the new society of Estonia, the natural instinct was to do exactly the opposite of what the Soviets had done. The crucial time for restoring the republic was also the golden age of participation.
Estonia became very inclusive. The views of all political streams received hearing and consideration in the media and in citizens homes. The input of diverse groups just flowed freely into the political and social discourse. There were some, who wanted Estonia to become neutral like Switzerland, or offshore like Netherlands Antilles. There were those advocating staying close to Russia. There were people advocating a monarchy. There were even some people who dared to dream of Estonia being a member state of the EU and NATO in a few years. All these voices got a hearing in the media.
Whole generations felt empowered for the first time. A significant number of senior citizens, who remembered the pre-occupation years first-hand, had been silenced by the Soviets. They now found their voice, participating in the process of building up a country.
At the other end of the age scale, young people took the chance to tear down the oppressive system they hated for its hypocrisy. Even the punk-rock-following anarchists were eager to contribute. Our freely elected parliament featured a bewildering variety of political groups.
***
In some aspects of the society, though, the old flavour still lingered. Civil courage and the participation of women were weak and they still have not reached the level I would be satisfied with.
During the first elections in the restored republic, many candidates found themselves without competition. If my memory serves me well, the average was 1.14 candidates per seat. Not many had the civil courage to put themselves forward.
What was self-evident for the women in the West, seemed like dangerous radicalism to Estonian women. They willingly put themselves in the submissive position in the political discourse.
A much-used coy expression at the time was “the woman is the neck that turns the head of the family”. Despite having worked on equal terms with the men, the women did not generally even aspire to take an active role in democracy.
It is sad in itself. AND it has had a detrimental effect on society. Estonia today is a very effective economy. But as a society it is in many ways antisocial and non-inclusive. Women are making up for the lost time now, but there is still a long way to go. Possibly we cannot get around instituting temporary quotas for women in elected bodies.
That in itself is a divisive measure, which could have been avoided with better participation. If Georgia still has the chance to get this right from the beginning, I strongly urge it to use this chance. The aim should be to have at least 30% of seats in elected bodies taken by women.
***
Step by step women are starting to participate in setting the political agenda in Estonia. Not so much as politicians as specialists. You might call it “soft participation in politics”.
Currently, about 40 per cent of middle management positions are occupied by women. Many of these jobs cannot be called "soft" by any measure. In Hansabank, one of the most efficient banks in the world, almost 60% of the managers are women.
In our public administration, the women outnumber the men considerably. In the open competitions for the high-level posts in the European administration Estonian women are remarkably more successful than men. At the highest level of service covered by the competitions, the Director-General, Estonia currently has two women and no men.
There is the "trickle-down effect" of the feminine style entering the public debate. But there is no way around the need to show courage, to step up and endure the rigours of politics on equal footing with men.
In democracy participation is all. Without it, there is no democracy.
***
Without the freedom of information, democracy does not work. Without the free media, there is no political arena, where the policy is debated and shaped. It is no coincidence that Samizdat was a tool of choice for the dissenters in Soviet time.
The free flow of information from the Finnish TV and radio helped Estonia to prepare for the collapse of the Soviet empire. Even though the Finns deliberately avoided upsetting Moscow too much in their electronic media, just the existence of the window into the world outside was a great inspiration.
However, the first Estonian media channel to experience and express the freedom of information was the newsprint. A bewildering variety of politically-minded publications appeared.
The first independent newspaper was born in 1989. "Eesti Ekspress" is still the leading weekly publication in Estonia. It was run by young people and its aim was to clean the country of the vestiges of Soviet rule. We especially hated the KGB and all it represented.
It was not an easy fight, since the KGB people were well educated and trained. I personally had to appear in court over hints I made at a certain person's past. We lost the case and I took it very personally. It was the price I had to pay for my ideals. But we won in the wider sense. The former KGB people are not a force in Estonia, as they are in many other ex-Soviet republics.
In 1990, our first "tabloid" newspaper, the "Post" appeared. It was fresh, irreverent and fearless. It did not do a very good job in checking up the facts. The "Post" was the forerunner of today's yellow press, but it was not very good in doing business, so it disappeared in a couple of years.
I personally would like the newspapers to be more of a political and social institution and less of a business. Businesses are less free. They have to be careful not to step on any toes too hard. This means covering up stories, avoiding certain topics or persons. It also means trying to produce as cheaply as possible. This can only happen at the cost of the contents, of the journalistic integrity.
The need to make a profit has led to media concentration. Currently, Estonia has no papers in state ownership. Of our 3 TV channels, one is a public service, combined with radio. Norwegian Schibsted company dominates our market with about 70% share. It owns our main daily paper, has many radio channels and a TV station. It does not take direct influence on content in a way Berlusconi does in Italy, but many people feel that the media has become poorer, less informative. Less free.
Let's be clear about it: media freedom is essential for the European way of life. Media also should be representative. In Estonian media there was a sudden generation change. Initially, this was a real problem. The media saw and presented the world through the eyes of youngsters. This meant less attention to inclusiveness in the society, to the cohesion, to the substance that unites citizens.
Now that the oldest media persons are in their forties, they are able to see more colours than just black and white. But we will face another problem. The present generation is likely to hang on to their positions until the retirement, so I expect that in 15 years the young people will be very much underrepresented in media. A good generational mix and a smooth transition is a point that needs close attention when transforming the media landscape.
Estonian media finally shows signs of maturing. The women are increasingly seen as subjects and not objects. The recent debate about banning prostitution has led to more articles being commissioned from women, it has become a mainstream topic in the Estonian media. However, the society is presently poorer for the time lost as a result of poor participation of all age groups and genders.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I hope it is a lot clearer why I consider participation, pluralism and media freedom essential for success in aspiration to join the European Union or just to become a successful state. There is no replacement for these fundamental building blocks of the modern European society. Thank you!
[1] Actually, the term was used by Bolsheviks to describe the Czarist Russia. But it is very fitting.
Ivari Padar
