EDITORIAL ⟩ Elephant in the Riigikogu

In the language of diplomacy, this meant putting the president in his place. However, the coalition cannot ignore the Supreme Court's decision, although it will probably take some time to digest what will happen next. On the one hand, the Constitution does not describe precisely when a bill can be linked to a vote of confidence. On the other hand, the missing instruction does not give the government free power to link bills with confidence votes without limit, the Supreme Court ruled.

The decision supports the president's reasoning and is logical. The government must not hijack the opportunity of the Riigikogu to discuss drafts as a legislative power. The opposite situation would be reminiscent of government rule by decree.

Unfortunately, there is no sense in assuming that the Supreme Court's decision will lead to an improvement in parliamentary culture. The decision is correct and necessary, but sadly useless. If the coalition cannot flatten the opposition through confidence votes, it will do so in the future through votes limiting obstruction.

This already happened on Wednesday of this week. With the votes of the coalition, the Riigikogu on Wednesday adopted the board's proposal to stop taking breaks ahead of the amendment proposals to bill 344 SE. By the way, this is no random bill, but a bill about e-voting.

This is a gun with a double-ended barrel. Today, it is being waved around by the Reform Party, tomorrow maybe EKRE.

Unfortunately, there does not currently seem to be a clear solution anywhere to the question of where the balance point should be between the rights of the opposition and the efficiency of the parliament's work.

So, no fuss and a quick procedure! Although the opposition points to a contradiction with the rules of procedure of the Riigikogu, the coalition relies on another decision of the Supreme Court from last summer. Namely, the Supreme Court decided at the time that obstruction must be tolerated only to a degree that does not completely paralyze the work of the Riigikogu. Consequently, limiting obstruction with coalition votes was justified during the spring term of parliament.

Unfortunately, there does not currently seem to be a clear solution anywhere to the question of where the balance point should be between the rights of the opposition and the efficiency of the parliament's work. Of course, the opposition should not paralyze the parliament for months, especially in the current security situation. But on the other hand, the coalition should not turn the parliament into a meaningless rubber stamp, where there is no criticism and discussion, and decisions are made by majority vote in a quick procedure. This is a gun with a double-ended barrel. Today, it is being waved around by the Reform Party, tomorrow maybe EKRE.

We need the whole picture for a solution. Currently, the Supreme Court has said what it thinks about the elephant's tail and what it thinks about the trunk. The elephant in its entirety continues to stand mutely in the middle of the parliament session hall. It is understandable that the Supreme Court in turn does not want to hijack the constitutional autonomy of the parliament, but something must be done about the elephant.