Estonia election 2015

An election to the unicameral Estonian parliament, or the Riigikogu, took place on the 1st of March. Usually, electoral events in Estonia are affairs focused on local affairs. However, because of the recent events in the Ukraine, elections in Eastern Europe have become contests that are very relevant throughout Europe. The Estonian election results were considered a tilt towards Europe and the West, and a move away from Russia.

Estonia

Estonia has only become independent relatively recently. Until 1921, the country was under the control of Russia. From 1921 to 1939, the country was an independent republic. In 1939, Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union and incorporated into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by a rigged election, but this was short lived, as Nazi Germany defeated the Soviets and won control of Estonia in 1941. Again, in 1944, the Soviet Union regained control of Estonia. This time, it was for good.

Under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, Estonia became more open during the 1980s. However, many Estonians were still concerned about Russification, especially the teaching of the Russian language in Estonian schools.

In 1991, Estonia became independent. The Supreme Soviet, the rubber-stamp legislature of Communist-ruled Estonia, was democratically elected for the first time in 1990, and a pro-independence majority was elected. A Declaration of Independence and a Constitution were adopted by this parliament.

A democratic election was held in 1992, under this new constitution. Mart Laar was elected Prime Minister as leader of the conservative Fatherland Bloc. Laar's government fell as a result of a no-confidence motion two years later. He was replaced by Social Democrat Andres Tarand.

At the 1995 election, the right-wing liberal Coalition Party formed to government. The Coalition Party led the government for three years, but collapsed at the 1999 election, winning only 7 seats (out of 101, down from 41 in 1995). The pro-Russian Centre Party won the most seats, but did not form government. Instead, the conservative Pro Patria party formed a coalition with the Social Democrats and the liberal Reform Party, led by Mart Laar.

Laar was Prime Minister for three years. However, ahead of the 2003 elections, the Reform Party withdrew from government. They formed a coalition with the centre-left pro-Russian Centre Party, and Siim Kallas, the Reform leader, was elevated to the Prime Ministership.

In the 2003 elections, the Centre Party and the new right-wing Res Publica party won the equal most seats (28 out of 101). The Res Publica party formed a coalition with the Reform Party and the small centrist People's Union, and Res Publica leader Juhan Parts was elected Prime Minister.

Parts resigned in 2005, and was replaced by Reform Party member Andrus Ansip. Ansip led the Reform Party to victory in the 2007 and 2011 elections, before resigning ahead of the 2015 elections.

Why is this election important?

As we know, the Ukraine, another ex-Soviet country, is currently involved in a civil war between pro-EU government forces and pro-Russia rebel forces. Russia claims that they have no involvement with the war, but in any case, the Russian government seems to be increasing their political presence in Eastern European countries.

We saw this in Moldova, where the heavily pro-Russian Socialist Party came out of nowhere to become the largest party in the Moldovan Parliament in the 2014 elections. In Hungary, the ruling Fidesz party has become increasingly pro-Russia and anti-EU, while Czech Republic president Milos Zeman is an outspoken supporter of Vladimir Putin. Elections in Eastern Europe are increasingly becoming contests between pro-Russia and pro-EU forces.

This is where Estonia comes into the picture. Estonia has a significant Russian population, left over from attempts by the Soviets to populate it during the Communist period. This population are generally opposed to European integration, and support a stronger role for Russia in Estonia affairs. They generally support the Centre Party.

While Russia and the Soviet legacy have traditionally been significant topics in Russia, especially in the Bronze Soldier affair and questions around the teaching of Russian, the events in Ukraine and the atmosphere between the EU and Russia makes this an interesting and important election.

The results

Estonia uses a multi-tier system of party-list proportional representation, and has a 101 member parliament, which is relatively large for a country with a voting population under 1 million, compared to Australia. 

The results

As you can see from my not very good table (new office program), the Reform Party came out on top, with about 28% of the vote. Centre came second, with 25%. 

The results were a small drop for the Reform Party, which lost three seats. These losses were mostly at the expense of the new Free Party, a centre-right liberal conservative party, and the far-right Conservative People's Party. The Centre Party gained one seat, but stayed behind the Reform Party.

The Centre Party is extremely isolated in the new parliament. Before the troubles in Ukraine, other parties were willing to form coalitions with them. However, the close ties of the party and its leader Edgar Savisaar to Vladimir Putin and United Russia have created concern amongst ethnic Estonians that a Centre government will bring Estonia closer to Russia.

As a result, a Reform-led government was a certainty. The Conservative People's Party were out, because of their extremism, which left a coalition with two of the Free Party, Pro Patria-Res Publica and Social Democrats. For more information on the government formation process, here's an interesting Fruits and Votes post.

The eventual coalition was a Reform-Free Party-Social Democrat government. These parties are relatively pro-EU, and are likely to lead Estonia away from Russian influence, which seems to be the wish of the Estonian majority.

Vladimir Putin's new electoral law

Recently, the Russian Duma (parliament) approved a new, or rather old, electoral law. The law provides for a mixed-member majoritarian system, with half of the 450 seats being elected by single-member plurality, and half of the seats being elected by closed-list nationwide proportional representation with a 5% threshold. The system has not been widely discussed, but it has the potential to have a significant effect on Russia's political system.

The current system

Russia currently uses regional closed party list proportional representation with a 7% national threshold. This system was introduced in 2005 on the initiative of President Vladimir Putin. It was designed to give United Russia control over the Duma, and to remove independents. As United Russia was comfortably over 50% of the vote, proportionality was not an issue. 

At the first election under party-list PR in 2007, the system had its desired effects. United Russia won 64% of the vote and 315 out of 450 seats. The far-left nationalist Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) won 11.6% of the vote and 57 seats. The far-right nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) won 8.1% of the vote and 40 seats, while the pro-Putin (at that point) centre-left Fair Russia party won 7.7% of the seats and 38 seats. The Agrarian Party (left-wing socialist) won 2.3% of the vote and no seats, while the centre-left liberal Yabloko party won 1.6% and no seats.

The result was excellent for Putin. There was no serious opposition to his government, with the CPRF and LDPR both being fringe parties and Fair Russia being controlled by the Kremlin. A bit of political posturing could give United Russia the Duma support of the LDPR, and some populist-left posturing could do the same for the CPRF.

However, under the presidency of Putin acolyte Dmitry Medvedev, United Russia lost support. The 2011 election (an election widely considered to be unfair) was relatively bad for United Russia, despite alleged fraud. United Russia fell to 49.32% of the vote, which gave them 238 seats. They narrowly won a majority thanks to Yabloko (who had won 4%) falling below the threshold, which meant that United Russia won 52.8% of the effective vote, and a majority of the seats.

All the opposition parties had a vote increase. The CPRF won 19.2% of the vote and 92 seats. Fair Russia won 13.2% and 64 seats, beating the LDPR, which won 11.7% and 56 seats.

This created a headache for Putin. At this point, the CPRF and LDPR were anti-Putin, while Fair Russia were growing more independent. A minority for United Russia would doom Putin to at least five years of horse-trading to pass his agenda.

In 2013, Putin decided to change the law. A new electoral law was introduced into the Duma, providing for 50% of seats to be elected by party-list proportional representation with a 5% threshold and 50% of seats elected by single-member plurality.

This law passed the Duma with wide support, with only the CPRF voting against. It is hard to pick any particular motivation for this vote other than blind Putin-hate on the part of the CPRF or Putinophilia (is that a word?) on the part of Fair Russia and LDPR, or both.

Possible Effects of the new law

The mixed-member majoritarian system has been used before in Russia. It was used for the first democratic election in 1993, and was used for the 1995, 1999, and 2003 Duma elections. As a result, there is some historical evidence for any claims.

For a start, more parties will be represented in the Duma. Yabloko's vote has probably been depressed by liberals tactically voting for other parties rather than wasting their vote on a party with no chance of getting 7%. 5% is much more reasonable, and it is probable that Yabloko will re-enter the Duma, with approximately 20 members. 

There is room for other parties as well, and a liberalisation of the party registration law (passed concurrently with the electoral system change) may mean a wider variety of other opposition voices are represented. On the other hand, it could well mean that the liberal vote would become split, meaning that few liberals make it into the Duma.

It will be good for United Russia. The divided opposition will be easily defeated in the single-member electorates, and they will win enough party-list seats to comfortably control the Duma. 

A widely reported characteristic of this system is its tendency to elect independents. And, as an independent candidacy is currently impossible in Russia, it is certain that we will see more independent members of the Duma. 

However, the high numbers of independents will not be repeated under the first mixed-member majoritarian election. This is because Russia's party system has developed significantly. In 1993, independents won 48.7% of the district vote and 30 seats. This was due to the complete lack of any large political parties. A local independent could  win a seat and beat a candidate of a large party based on name recognition. 

Even in 1995, political parties were still weak. The CPRF was the largest party in both the list and constituency contests, which could be put down to good organisation left over from the Soviet era. The LDPR was the second largest party, but was far stronger in the lists which could be attributed to the vote-pulling power of leader Vladimir Zhirnovsky. The Kremlin-backed Our Home is Russia party (one of the predecessors of United Russia) won 45 seats on the list, but only 10 constituencies. Yabloko was the only reasonably balanced party, with 31 list and 10 district. Independents won 77 seats, all in districts.

Independents reached their zenith in 1999, when 105 were elected. This could be attributed to a poor result for the Communists, who lost some district seats despite their national party vote rising. The Unity party, which was endorsed by then-Prime Minister Putin, was strong in the list but weak in the districts, while the only other party to do well in the districts was left-nationalist party Fatherland-All Russia, which won 31 seats.

Much changed in the period leading up to the 2003 election. United Russia was formed from a merger of Unity and Fatherland-All Russia, while the new Rodina party was formed (left-nationalist). United Russia had the full backing of the Kremlin, and won comfortably, with 223 seats. With only 3 seats short of a majority, Putin had control (more or less) of the Duma during the 2003-2007 term, thanks to friendly minor parties and independents. However, the need for firmer control, and the irritant of having to negotiate with pesky independents, meant that Putin switched to party-list PR.

While history shows that independents have done well under mixed-member majoritarian, Russians are now more used to powerful political parties. The existence of an obvious 'party of power' will help guide the voting intentions of Russians towards party-nominated candidates. Still, independents could be something of a pain for Putin if they get the balance of power.

A better system for Putin

Okay, let's say that you are a civil servant in the Central Electoral Comission, and you have been asked to design an electoral system for Russia designed to be the best for United Russia. 

My personal proposal would be to introduce a proportional representation system, but with a fixed 60% majority for the largest party. This would be the best of both worlds: full control over Duma members, and a guaranteed majority for United Russia, as none of the split opposition parties could win. You could even lower the threshold to 5%, and it would make no difference to the United Russia majority. The results of the Duma elections using this system are below.

Your suggestions below!