Lennart Meri: on some days, the state realises itself through a single sportsman


Shortly before Christmas, Lennart Meri gave an interview to the Eesti Päevaleht at his Viimsi home.

From the poll of Eesti Päevaleht, it is apparent that most people consider the year 2000 to have been a successful one. How do you evaluate your year?

I am glad to hear this assessment from your side, as I have been disturbed by the sentiments prevailing in the Estonian media. In summary, they give a more dismal picture of the country, of the government, of the parliament, but above all of the people than the one we can actually see. I am not sure whether I can point out the reasons. Probably a newspaper wants high sales results, and is therefore first and foremost open to scandal.

In my opinion we can be content. We must be content especially as we know that what we have accomplished is an intermediate point on a long way we still have to go.

The closing year was also remarkable for the fact that two big and influential countries - the USA and Russia - got new Presidents. Probably, these individuals represent big changes in the behaviour of their states. How can these changes influence the world and Estonia within the world?

Being a Head of State myself, I cannot judge other Heads of State and say whether I like them more or less than their predecessors. In this sense, my freedom is much more limited than yours. I could nevertheless add that reduced oil dollars mean a temporary weakening of the Russian economy. I still assume that Vladimir Putin will attempt to develop co-operation with the European Union and the United States of America in the situation that has occurred - first, to stabilise his country's economy by means of foreign investments, and second, to tighten the competition between the European Union and the US. The order may also be reverse. I presume he will have some success in this, as on the one hand, there have always been one-day-isolationists both in Europe and in America, and on the other hand we must not underestimate the Russian diplomacy whose most glorious accomplishments as a rule fall to the periods when the state itself was weak. Thus, the success of Russian politics depends on whether the state will be able to implement the legal acts adopted in Moscow - including those related to tax policy - also within thousand, or four or eight thousand kilometres from Moscow. Above all, time is needed for that.

Estonia will always be strong if she proceeds from the real world. And not from her own fantasies. Here, I would like to encourage Estonians - we must not forget the experience of our past, because past experiences are something whose value will grow in the future. Especially when we join the EU.

The Euro-sceptics claim that small Estonia would be lost in the big Union. On the recent Nice Summit, the statements of e.g. the French President Jacques Chirac sounded quite menacing. The new ''problematic'' countries must indeed have smaller representations, Chirac claimed cynically. Is Estonia not in danger of becoming a ''second-rate'' member of the EU?

This question has two aspects. Estonia wants to remain Estonia. Estonia wants to speak Estonian. Estonia wants to include Tammsaare, not only Shakespeare and Moličre, among her classical authors. I believe that accession to the EU will give every thinking Estonian a firm guarantee that the Estonian people and Estonian national culture would last.

Europe has become Europe exactly because so many different cultures have been concentrated on a small area. This also means different languages and different mentalities. Their sum has created this tolerant, contemplative European nation. In Europe, it is not common to talk of small countries. Europe is the great sum of small countries, and on the meetings, we sit and talk in the order of the French alphabet.

Do you not see it as a threat that in enlarged Europe, there would be an inequality between new and old members?

Let us consider this urgent matter. I remember that in an Estonian paper (I do try to read them) it was said that in the EU, political decision-making would be in the hands of three major members. I can of course name them - Great Britain, Germany and France. This was seen as a threat to small countries. But is it really a threat?

We must make it clear to ourselves that small countries are much more interested than big ones that the European Union would first and foremost be a strong union. We do not need a super-democratic solution as there was in the League of Nations. Such a solution may seem attractive until a crisis occurs. And in the situation of crisis it would then appear that the European Union is not strong enough to solve it.

Yet at the same time we need an organisation where small countries would have the right of speech. Now if you ask me how to achieve this I must spread my hands. Because we are now doing something that no one in the world has ever done before. And this is what makes the EU interesting.

For years, you have been worried about the alienation between the citizens and the politicians in Estonia. The poll of Eesti Päevaleht showed that people consider their personal welfare to be on the increase, whereas their trust in social and governmental organisations is gradually declining. How do you explain this contradiction?

Let us not close our eyes to the fact that this is an opinion we have in common with Russia, not with Britain, Germany, or France. So we must look for the reasons among ourselves.

I will bring you some examples. In spring, a dog attacked a boy in the city of Hamburg, and the boy died. The German Bundestag discussed this three days later, because in that wealthy country, where criminogenity is low, the security of a child was a concern of every family. The citizen's problem - also the death of a child - is a problem for the Western parliaments. And also a solution was found, a real solution, not a populistic one. The opinion of researchers, saying that there is no such breed as ''fighting dogs'', and that a dog will behave as it has been taught to behave by man, and it is the man, not the dog who is responsible, was taken into account.

We have had two similar cases of death this year, one in Tartu and one in the vicinity of Tallinn. What have been the repercussions? A great number of letters to the media, emotional writing. The Parliament still enjoys undisturbed Olympian peace. It seems to me that comparing the ways different parliaments work could explain why the Estonians' opinion of their parliament is so regrettably low. We can take another example. The working schedule of the Parliament has been set down with accuracy, and the working days it includes are not too many. And yet not every member of the Parliament participates in its work every day. In the American Congress or the German Bundestag, a man not turning up for the session will lose his salary. This is considered self-evident.

In Russia, we can observe an opposite tendency. Members of parliament can obtain apartments cheaply and then privatise them. An MP is given a special licence plate, which he can also use when he no longer is an MP. From the Soviet ground, the old nomenclature tends to sprout again, the vulgar nobility of the Russian Empire, which could not possibly emerge in European countries. On the day following my state visit to Germany, the German Minister of Transport resigned when it appeared that criminal charges had been brought against him for overspeeding sixteen years earlier. Maybe here we could find the reasons for certain alienation we can see in the Estonian citizens.

You brought convincing examples about the work of the Parliament, but-

The same goes for all of us!

It seems to me as a bystander that this year, also you yourself at least once remained in debt to the electors, as you were unable to explain convincingly why Johannes Kert, the Commander of the Defence Forces, had to be released from his duties.

Yes, of course I was. Johannes Kert is a brave soldier, and we are all glad that four months later, he accepted the post of the Army Commander. At the beginning of the year, there was another case with a high state official, when I remained in debt to the electors. But I cannot violate the legislation of the Republic of Estonia. And simply stand before the cameras, spread my hands and say: ''Here I am, but I have nothing to say to you.'' What good would it do?

Are you referring to..

I am referring to something you're well aware of, and something we could also discuss in a different wording. Yet if I have remained true to a principle and if we both know what we're talking about anyway, why should we dot the i-s at the bottom, not at the top?

Due to your state visit to the Czech Republic, I had the chance to talk to Vaclav Havel. The Czech President was surprised that people tend to value those fellow countrymen who enjoy international renown as sportsmen or pop singers. Also Estonians elected Erki Nool the person of the year in 2000, and his victory on the Olympics was considered the event of the year. How do you explain this phenomenon?

I attended the Olympics in Berlin from the start to the closing. I received the Olympic team at the Embassy. I was about that height at the time (indicates a little above the writing desk). It was my task to see that every member of the team would enter his name to the guestbook. I still remember how I extended my hand to Kristjan Palusalu and said: ''Put your name here''. He took my small hand and shook it very gently. I also remember that the Estonian community in Berlin was not very large, but that our voices resounded quite powerfully: ''Palusalu, anna valu, riigivanem kingib talu!'' (Do it, Palusalu, and the Elder of State will give you a farm!)

I think that such days when a state realises itself through one sportsman, are as important as the battle of Waterloo. This is a lame comparison, it sounds as if I wanted to give the battle as an example, but I do not want to do this. The example I wish to bring is that every state, every nation, wants to be recognised. And when, at the time of the Olympics, it can realise itself through one successful sportsman, then - look how happy all the people of Estonia were.

I can say the same about the pre-war Estonia. The arrival of our Olympics team, or our shooters, the world champions, it was - it was like the homecoming of a son in each family. The Estonian propaganda was lame in both feet, no processions or masquerades were organised, but the streets were full of people.

These are the nerve ends, this is the skeleton that keeps a nation together. A nation always needs someone to be proud of and someone to identify with.

Fortunately, you have been one of the people that Estonians have been able to be proud of and identify with

You are putting it very nicely, but let us look at this from another angle. We have had about ten Ministers of Internal Affairs, about ten Ministers of Defence; within ten years, we have had five governments. And the reasons for this first and foremost lie in our Constitution. It is impossible to feel friendly towards a Minister of Internal Affairs who only keeps his post for three months!

I was indeed going to reach the matters of Constitution with my questions. You have a unique experience of the presidential elections. In 1992, the people elected the President in the first round, although the Riigikogu made the final decision in your favour. Proceeding from that experience, do you support the idea of several influential parties to change the Constitution so that the people on direct elections would elect the President?

Well, this is not a matter to be compared to a lady's choice of a new hat. In my opinion, we should first answer the question whether Estonian political parties are fully developed. Could you tell me precisely the difference between the political programmes of the Centre party and the Moderates, or whether this is simply a question of different individuals? As long as we have difficulties with shaping our political parties, we must be practical and think that the election of the Head of State should rather happen as it did for a long period of time in Finland. This means that the electoral college is elected, and that they elect the Head of State. It is possible that we only need this system for the next five or ten years. Later on, let us say from the year 2012, I would prefer direct elections of the Head of State.

By that time, we will hopefully have three strong political parties. We cannot have less, and it is difficult to have more with such a small population.

You mean a strong leftist, a strong centrist and a strong rightist party?

Yes. And once more I take the example from Germany, the country that is closest to us constitutionally.

Next year's presidential elections have been preceded by a widespread opinion that Lennart Meri is such a strong President that it would be impossible to find a worthy successor for him. Can you yourself see anyone who would be able to do your job with the same dignity and as good results?

I certainly do. They are different from me, and this is where their true value lies. It would be strange, wouldn't it, if a single violin kept playing throughout the concert of a symphony orchestra.

As a President, you have mostly avoided meddling with daily politics. Yet in 1994 you warned that the Pro Patria Union had to be protected from the Pro Patria Union itself. Did you not have the temptation to repeat this warning this autumn, when Jüri Mõis, the Mayor of Tallinn from the Pro Patria Union, retained his power by several tricks that, in the opinion of many electors, can not coexist with democratic principles?

I have a humanly twofold relationship with Jüri Mõis. He is nice to talk to. He is curious, and if you tell him something he has not heard before, he never has any inhibitions. ''This is really interesting!'' he says.

We must always remember that in old democracies, the education of future politicians starts at school, in the fifth or even third grade. It starts for instance with elocution contest, with the ability to relate an event or a problem to fellow students. Then, they finish school and develop their skills at university, and after that, a young politician will still be a young politician for quite a long time. Take the biography of (Gerhard) Schröder! Or even better, take (Joschka) Fischer!

If we compare all this to Estonia, we must, in my opinion, admit that the Estonian politicians have much less life experience.

But if you ask whether I wish to protect a political party and its programme goals from its own tactics - I find this wish perfectly natural. Also this autumn. This concerns the Pro Patria Union. And the Centre Party. And the Moderates, and the Reform Party.

With the Prime Minister, we meet once a week. This mode of work begun in the last months of Laar's first Government, and has functioned quite well so far. Although it has not always been fruitful. It is easy to give me promises, and then not to fulfil them. I do not want to reprimand, because the leader of a political party may on intellectual plane agree with my comments, but in political reality, he is bound to consider above all his coalition partners.

One of the matters that got the full support of the Prime Ministers but was delayed due to the opposition from the Ministries, was the Young Family Home project. On the other hand, the idea of cheap construction was taken over by Jüri Mõis, whose hands are free, and who was able to do exactly what the Government had not been able to do - to invest the money of Tallinn to buy construction sites, and to guarantee that the buildings constructed there would be cheap. I praise him for that!

But his (Jüri Mõis's - editor's note) plan to get rid of trams, trolleybuses and omnibuses (I like this old word) in Tallinn, reminds me of Khruschev's dream about everybody driving around in state-owned cars that are not privately owned. You just take a car standing on the roadside and drive to the next corner or to the next town.

Small nations have always known the fear of extinction; for Estonians, this feeling was aggravated by this year's census, according to which the population had dropped below 1.4 million already. The demographers have claimed the reasons to be the difficult years of transition, the adoption of the Western family model, etc. Do you see a chance to change the curve of development?

Remember the phosphate war or the joint conference of creative unions, where I gave a presentation on the very same subject. And when you count 9 or 12 months from that date, you can see a small raise in the birth rate.
In general, it is impossible to change the demographic behaviour along the way. But at the time of the phosphate war, Estonia showed that words are very powerful. On the condition that the word touches something in the soul of the nation that is closely tied to self-preservation.

I did not get a very precise answer to my first question - how do you assess your closing year?

Are you asking me as the President or me as Lennart Meri?

You as Lennart Meri.

(A long pause.) It was a nice year because - although this was more due to chance than conscientious planning - I mostly rode on gravel-paved roads this year. It is always wonderful to discover Estonia. Even when it seems that we know each rural municipality, this is not so. I discovered an alley of larches, where the trees were 30 centimetres in diameter, although grown into brush. The alley should be cleared of brush, and it would be unique in all Europe! On every village road I saw something that was new, that spoke of initiative. It could be just a flagpole that had freshly been painted white. But it could also be the wonderful Soomaa centre - going there, I crossed a bridge under which the water level could rise 12 metres - can you imagine - when the snow is melting. So, Estonians are discovering Estonia. This, and other similar trifles speak of the growing self-reliance of the citizens, which may - although need not - exist hand in hand with increasing distrust of the politicians, the political parties, or the Government. Content or joy is usually silent, and therefore it is more difficult to describe joy than discontent.

Next year, your nine-year term as the President will be over.

Come on, there is still some time. Come back in summer, and let us draw the balance then.

But what was your mission or task when you assumed your office in 1992?

There was none. I just knew that no one will give time to Estonia, and that I could do the job.

When the boys came to ask me - I was the Ambassador in Helsinki at the time - I still remember in what order they sat. We talked, it was a smooth conversation, and I thought that they had just come to see me in Helsinki. And then, all of a sudden, they asked whether I would agree to be nominated a candidate for the President. Of course, I replied.

This conversation was quite similar to another, which had taken place in the Planning Committee of the time, when Edgar Savisaar had summoned me. He thought he was going to be the Prime Minister and asked whether I would agree to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Without a moment's hesitation, I said yes. But what it meant, I started slowly to realise at the end of my first day at work, when I had released the old staff and sat at my desk, holding in my hand the visiting card of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I had never in my life had a visiting card before. So I had called for one of the old staff, and he had promised to arrange the visiting cards for me within two weeks. You did not quite understand, I had said, I need the card for five o'clock. The cards were brought at five o'clock. I took the topmost from the stack of cards and read ''Minister of Foreign Affairs''. My head started to whirl.

My answer to your question: Estonia will always be short of time. If Estonia remembers that, she will not fail.

back | archive of interviews | main page