Inflammatory language and accountability

                                  With Jaak Rakfeldt and Andrus Saar in Connecticut, 1989.

On the afternoon of August 11, a naturalized Estonian citizen walked into the Estonian Defense Ministry building.  According to the authorities, the man had with him a pistol and explosives, he made no demands and took no hostages, and after more than two hours in the building, in which the employees had been evacuated, the man was fatally shot while one law enforcement officer had received a slight bruise and another had been spared by a bullet-proof vest.  In the following days, the handling of the incident was criticized considerably in the media.

August 23, a daily newspaper reported that Defense Minister Mart Laar had stated in his fraternity’s (Eesti Üliõpilaste Selts) list that assailants against the state of Estonia will be shot and he guarantees that also in the future.  To date the only reaction to that inflammatory language has been a brief statement by President Ilves in which he said that whenever an armed person assails a governmental office, takes hostages and shoots at the police, the action constitutes an attack against the state of Estonia.  Parliamentarian Mailis Reps in the weekly Kesknädal warns that inciting violence is dangerous, more so when it comes from a governmental official and especially at a time when the nation is combating violence in school. 

Minister Laar’s inflammatory language has not been followed by calls for his resignation.  Why?  This veil of silence was preceded by the one last month when journalist Priit Hõbemägi asked for full disclosure of the kidnapping of the seven bicyclists.  He expressed his astonishment over the media’s position that the public will probably never know the circumstances surrounding the kidnapping and release of the bicyclists.

A very serious international incident, the hijacking of the Arctic Sea, was associated with Eerik-Niiles Kross about a year ago, but again the public is not told what effect this has had on Estonia’s interests.  Incidentally, at the time of the events at the Ministry, Mart Laar was in the cathedral attending Eerik-Niiles Kross' wedding.

Not holding the country’s leaders accountable for their risky behavior, for stealing from the public till, for mismanaging their offices, or for threatening citizens has become common practice.  Whenever questions are raised about such behavior and demands are made for accountability, a wall of silence and secrecy descends.  The consequence is increased corruption, ineptitude, and a predictable setting in of decay in society.  Before the disclosure of Laar’s statement, we read in March the current Education (and previous Defense) Minister Jaak Aaviksoo’s article in which he justified lying in the name of national interest.  Same month it was disclosed that the International Ski Federation (FIS) suspected Estonia’s two-time Olympic gold medalist, the skier Andrus Veerpalu, of doping use.  In their quick response to the allegations, Veerpalu’s handlers resorted to the Aaviksoo doctrine, but FIS Doping Panel ruled on August 23 that Veerpalu had violated an anti-doping rule.

Eesti Üliõpilaste Selts (EÜS) has been practically from the beginning of the restored independence period a good ole’ boys club in which belong President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Mart Laar, Eerik-Niiles Kross, the brothers Kaarel and Indrek Tarand, and others, which in practice means they and their allies sit in positions of power and others are excluded. This explains to a great extent why the country has not seen the inclusion of women in the state’s decision-making offices and institutions which in essence means the arrest of democratic development. That is also why it has not been possible to work out a national developmental plan, according to the pollster and sociologist Andrus Saar, because it would interfere with the business interests of those in the power structure.  And that is also why the debates between the two presidential candidates, Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Indrek Tarand, were a disappointment to most commentators - both men are in the same fraternity and do not hold opposing views. In addition, both have wives in the same sorority, Filiae Patriae.  Although those 19^th century institutions have pretty much died out in other places, they and their outdated rules of corporate fidelity still have a hold in Estonian society.