Käesolev artikkel on esmakordselt avaldatud 25. aprill 1998. a. ajalehes Eesti Päevaleht. Olin tollal vandeadvokaat ja Stocholmi Ülikoolis juurat õppiv magistrant. Artiklile oli lisatud ka asjakohane joonis, mida huvilised võivad raamatukogudes üle vaadata.
Siinkohal riputan üles tollase teksti ja ka vastava inglisekeelse teksti. Viimane pärineb minu magistritööst Stocholmi Ülikoolis aastast 1998 ja on oluliselt pikem ja sisukam, kuna ajalehe artikkel seadis omad piirid.
Head lugemist!
Uurides Eesti eksiilvalitsuse tegevuse õiguslikke aluseid sattusin õigusteadlase Artur Taska artiklile „Veel Eesti Vabariigi Presidendi ameti ülevõtmisest 1940. aastal“ („Tulimuld“, Lund 1977). Selles on huvitavaid fakte 1940. aasta juulisündmustest, mis võiksid pakkuda huvi laiemale lugejaskonnale.
Esimene lugu
Ajaloost teada õigusvastaste aktsioonide kõrval, mis viisid Eesti okupeerimisele ja okupatsiooni hilisemale kinnistamisele, on laiemale üldsusele ilmselt vähem teada presidendi ameti ülvõtmisega seonduvad üksikasjad. Nimelt on tolle aja presidendi kaskkirjadest nr 185, 186 ja 187 Riigi Teatajas (RT) ilmunud vaid nr 187. Kuhu kadusid ja mida sisaldasid käskkirjad nr 185 ja 186, oli kaua teadmata.
Esimesena ilmus kadunud käskkirjadest ametlikult päevavalgele käskkiri nr 186, mille ärakiri avaldati raamatus „1940. aasta Sotsialistlik Revolutsioon Eestis. Dokumente ja materjale.“ (ERK, Tln 1960). Käskkiri trükiti ära RT nr 75 artikli 742 all, kuid nagu hiljem selgus, ei jõudnud see variant avalikkuse ette.
Võrrelgem kahe samasisulise käskkirja tekste. Kk-s nr 186 teatab Johannes Vares: “Olen asunud Vabariigi Presidendi ülesandeisse 21. juulil kell 23.“. Kk-s nr 187: „Riigivolikogu 23. juuli 1940 otsuse kohaselt olen asunud Vabariigi Presidendi ülesandeisse 23. juulil 1940. a. kell 17.“ (RT nr 79 art 764).
Enna seda ilmus RT nr 77, mille art 746 sätestab: „Ära kuulanud Vabariigi Presidendi Konstantin Pätsi palve volituste mahapanemise kohta, otsustas Riigivolikogu palve rahuldada ja panna Vabariigi Presidendi kohuste täitmine Peaministrile dr. Johannes Varesele. Eelolev otsus on vastu võetud Riigivolikuga poolt 23, juulil kell 19.“
Presidendi ameti ülevõtmine (ehki ebaseaduslik) sai toimuda seega kõige varem 23. juulil kell 19. Kk nr 187 kohaselt toimus see aga kell 17 ehk kaks tundi enne Riigivolikuga vastavat otsust ning kk nr 186 kohaselt hoopis 44 tundi enne vastava otsuse tegemist Riigivolikogu poolt. Vastavalt sellele, kumba käskkirja aluseks võtta, oli Eesti Vabariigil ühel juhul 2 ja teisel juhul 44 tundi kaks presidenti – Eestil olevat aga kombeks üks president korraga!
Taska artikli abil saame teada ka kk nr 185 saatusest. Nimelt teatab EV peakonsul Ernst Jaakson Taskale kirjas 24. märtsist 1977 järgmist: „… Mõned aastad tagasi saime ühelt Eesti Riigi Trükikoja endiselt kaastööliselt Riigi Teataja Nr. 75, 22. juulil 1940. a. Meile antud seletuse kohaselt korjati see Riigi Teataja number enne laialisaatmist ära. Selle Riigi Teataja asemel lasti välja sama number teise sisuga. Nii on meie arhiivis kaks erineva sisuga Riigi Teatajat 22. juulist 1940. a.“
RT nr 75 22. juulist 1940 keelatud ja ärakorjatud variandist leiame mõlemad „kadunud“ käskkirjad, nr 185 ja 186.
Teine lugu
Ka eksiilis ei saadud kahe presidendita hakkama. Eksiilvalitsus on tões ja õiguses hoidnud Eesti riiklikku järjepidevust ja selle eest neile sügav lugupidamine. Vastavalt kehtinud põhiseaduse 46. paragrahvile, kui president ei saa ise oma ülesandeid täita, täitis tema kohustusi peaminister. Seega on eksiilvalitsuse peaminister olnud ka presidendi ülesandeis.
1.-3. märtsil 1953 tulid kokku Saksamaal Dotmoldi lähedal Augustdorfis Alfred Maurer, Timotheus Grünthal, Johan Holberg ja Johannes Soodla, kes nimetasid end EV presidendi asetäitja valimiskoguks ja valisid Maureri presidedndi asetäitjaks. 3. märtsist 1953 oli meil jälle kaks presidenti - sisuliselt isehakanud Maurer ja põhiseaduse alusel eksiilvalitsuse peaminister presidendi ülesandeis August Rei.
Kolmas Lugu
Vahetult enne eksivalitsuse tegevuse ametlikku lõpetamist ja volituste pidulikku üleandmist 7. oktoobril 1992 Eestis loodud seaduslikele võimuorganitele, tuli ilmsiks järgmine „kaksikvõimu“ lugu.
Nimelt oli viimase eksiilvalitsuse majandusminister Mihkel Mathiesen 15. septembril 1992 kuulutanud iseenda peaministriks ja presideddi asetäitjaks! Ühtlasi oli ta ametisse nimetanud ka uue eksiivalitsuse. Asja grotesksus seisneb selleski, et nn võimu ülevõtmine ja eksiilvalitsuse ametissenimetamine toimus Eestis, Tallinnas, Nõmmel.
6. oktoobril 1992 said eksiilvalitsuse liikmed teada isehakanud presidendi Mathieseni ja tema nimetatud Nõmme valitsuse olemasolust. Samal päeval vallandas Heinrich Mark, tollane eksivalitsuse peaminister presidendi ülesannetes, Mathieseni eksivalitsuse koosseisust. Seega, ebaseaduslikult või mitte, oli meil 21 päeva jälle kaks presidendi ja ka kaks valitsust.
Neljas lugu
Uue põhiseaduse aluse valiti 20. septembril 1992 VII Riigikogu, esimene põhiseaduslik parlament pärast Teist maailmasõda. 5. oktoobril valiti presidendiks Lennart Meri, kes andis ametivande 6. Oktoobril, astudes sellega ametisse. Ka põhiseaduslikku valitsust ei olnud - Mart Laat sai selle moodustamiseks volitused presidentilt 8. oktoobri õhtul. Eksiilvalitsus andis oma volitused Riigikogu ees pidulikult üle 7. oktoobril. Tekib aga küsimus, kellele.
Vähi valitsusele neid anda ei saanud, kuna see valitsus polnud põhiseaduslik. Laari valitsust veel ei olnud. Seega polnud eksiilvalitsuse deklaratsioon 16. juulist 1992 ametist lahkumise kohta kooskõlas uue põhiseadusega ja oli õigustühine. Eksiilvalitsus pidanuks tagasi astuma alles 5. oktoobril, mitte 16. juulil või 7. oktoobril.
Siin on vähemalt kolm küsimust, millele siinkohal mitmel põhjusel pikemalt vastata ei saa. Küsimused oleksid aga järgmised: 1) kas õigusliku järjepidevuse mõttes tekkis valitsuse liinil, esksiil- ja Laari valitsuse vahel, võimuvaakum; 2) kui president uue valitsuse ametisseastumisel tagasiastunud (eksiil)valitsust ei vabastanud, siis mida see riigiõiguslikult tähendab, 3) kui president Laari valitsuse ametissenimetamisel vabastas president ametlikult mittepõhiseadusliku Vähi valitsuse, kas ta siis lähtus või ei lähtunud õigusliku järjepidevuse prinsiibist.
8. oktoobril tegi Mark visiidi Meri juurde. Alles sel kohtumisel kirjutas ta alla dokumendile, millega astus presidendiametist tagasi. Kas ka siin tekkis tundidega mõõdetav presidentide konkurents? Vastus on „ei“ ja „jaa“. Margi volitused olid Meri ametisseastumisega lõppenud ja eksiilpresidendina ei olnud Margil 8. oktoobril Kadriorus enam midagi üle anda. Teisalt oli 6.-8. oktoobrini Eestis jälle kaks presidenti - seekord küll mitte sellepärast, et üks oleks ebaseaduslikult tahtnud võimu üle võtta või teine selle üleandmisest keelduda. See lihtsalt läks kogemata nii, sest Eestil on (aeg-ajalt) kombeks kaks presidendi korraga.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The Continuity through the institution of President
This text was first treated in my master thesis called “Developments of the Estonian Constitutional and Institutional law and It’s Perspective on the Road to European Union” at Stockholm University in 1997/98. Furthermore it was also published in Estonian periodical newspaper Päevaleht in the same year.
I researched the legal basis of the Government of Estonia in exile. I found an article written by an Estonian scholar of law in exile, Artur Taska, some more Words About the Takeover of the Office of the President of Estonia in 1940. The article gives interesting fact on certain events in July 1940 which the author has also studied and which might be of interest to a wider circle of readers.
To, start I would give a brief overview of the historical background as well as some facts. In the afternoon of June 16, 1940, the Soviet Union presented an ultimatum to Estonia in which it demanded formation of a new Soviet-friendly government and consent for the occupation of the country by the Red Army threatening, if the consent was refused, to start military action against Estonia within ten hours. From the early morning of the next day to a couple more days the Soviet troops occupied the whole territory of Estonia. Thus, the actual power passed over to the occupation troops of the Soviet Union, and the constitutional bodies of the Republic of Estonia could not exercise their constitutional power and all their subsequent resolutions dictated and forced by the occupation forces were thus legally void. On June 21, 1940 the President of the Republic issued a directive on the nomination to office of a new Government of the Republic – dictated and manned by the occupation forces. It was followed by the resolution no. 175 of July and resolution no. 205 of July 19 of the President of the Republic on the convention of a new membership of the Riigivolikogu. On July 6, the President of the Republic issued a decree under which the both houses of the Riigikogu, called „hostile to the people“, were dissolved. On July 14 and 15 the elections of the Riigivolikogu were staged which was to substitute for both houses under the effective Constitution while the Riiginõukogu was not convened at all (forgot to be convened). The government of Johannes Vares had amended the Election Act in order to conduct the elections and this was another violation of the Constitution as under it amendment as laws was in the competent of the Riigikogu.
Here I would like to list some remarkable legislation which I shall refer to later in the text:
Directive no. 185 of July 21 of the President of the Republic in which Konstantin Päts, „in connection with the transfer to a new order“ deemed necessary to waive his authority and transfer duties of the President of the Republic to the Prime Minister, Dr. Johannes Vares.
Directive no. 186 of July 21 of the President of the Trepublic in which the Prime Minister, Dr. Johannes Vares, announced that he had assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic.
On July 23 the „Riigivolikogu“ made a resolution by which it satisfied the „request“ of Konstantin Päts to relinquish his presidential authority and imposed the duties of the President of the Republic on the Prime Minister Dr. Johannes Vares.
Directive no. 187 of July 23 of the President of the Republic on that the Prime Minister, Dr.Johannes Vares, had assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic.
Strange tales in connection with the takeover of office of the President
Tale 1
Next to all of the illegal actions leading to Estonian’s occupation and later consolidation of the occupation which events are well known from history and were briefly discussed above, wider public is probably not so well informed about the details in connection with the takeover of office of the President and the final address of K. Päts to the people of Estonia. Namely, of the above directive no. 185, 186 and 187 of the President of the Republic only no. 187 has been published in the Riigiteataja (the state Gazette, hereinafter: RT). Where the other two directives lost and what were were their contents- this was not known for a long time.
The first of the lost directives to be officially unveiled was Directive no. 186 of the President of the Republic whose copy was published in 1960 in the book The 1940 Socialist Revolution in Estonia. Documents and Materials. Hurrying forward with events let me mention that the said directive was printed under article 742 of RT no. 75; however, as shown later, it actually did not see the light. As mentioned above, the directive is about the assuming of the capacity of the President b the Prime Minister, Dr. Joh. Vares. Here it is important to stress that the said book does not say the word about directive no. 185 and 187 of the President of the Republic. It would be appropriate to compare the texts of the two directives that had the same contents:
Directive 186 of the President of the Republic:
“I assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic at 23:00 on July 21.”
Directive 187 of the President of the Republic, RT no. 79 art. 764 provide;
“On the basis of the resolution of the Riigivolikogu of July 23, 1940 I assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic at 17:00 on July 23, 1940.”
“Having heard the Request of the President of the Republic, Konstantin Päts, to relinquish his authority, the Riigivolikogu decided to grant the request and impose the duties of the President of the Republic on the Prime Minister, Dr. Johannes Vares. The above resolution was adopted by the Riigivolokogu at 19:00 on July 23.”
It can be concluded from the above documents that the takeover of the office of the President (though illegal) could have occurred only after the latter resolution or at the earliest at 19:00 on July, 23, 1940. However according to directive no. 187 of the President of Republic this occurred at 17:00 or two hours before the corresponding resolution was made by the Riigivolikogu. This merely illustrates the fact that the whole takeovers of the power have been staged and the “comrades” just messed up some trifle things. It also illustrates vividly the fact that the Soviet power needed the people to be brainless mass and therefore the so called people’s duties were used just to put on a farce and a show of hands- the Party and the administrative authorities designated by it had the actual power and they ignored all the others. The Soviet style of the “stage production” is further confirmed by directive no 186 of the President of the Republic under which the office of President was taken over 44 hours before the corresponding resolution was made by Riigivolikogu. As a blunder of couple of hours was not deemed important, directive no. 187 was eligible to be printed in RT but it was deemed to be keep the document which reflected the actual situation, i.e. directive no 186, which according to the above mentioned book published in 1960 can be considered the document proving to be the takeover of the office of the President, secret by hiding it for twenty years in the Central Archive of the October Revolution and Socialist Rebuilding Work in the Estonian SSR. On the basis of previously reviewed it is clear that formally Konstantin Päts retained his office until 19:00 on July 23, 1940. Depending on which directive we use as the basis, the Republic of Estonia had two or 44 hours two Presidents at a time – and they say that Estonia has a tradition to have one president at a time.
On the basis of Artur Taska’s article we can trace another trick of the Communist in connection with the takeover of the office of the President as well as learn that fate of directive no 185 of the President of the Republic. Namely the Chief Council of the Republic of Estonia, Ernst Jaakson writes to Artur Taska from New York in his letter dated March 24, 1977
“ … Some years ago we received from a former worker of the Estonian National Publishing House a Riigi Teataja no. 75 of July 22, 1940. According to the explanation given to use, this issue of the Riigiteataja had been collected together before it was disseminated. The same issue with different contents was published. Thus our archive has two Riigi Teataja’s of July 2, 1940 with different contents…”
I also sent a letter to the Consulate of the Republic of Estonia in New York and asked explanation on the mentioned circumstance. The Consul, Maris Tippo, replied my letter immediately on November 12, 1997 and wrote that everything was true. She also sent the copies of the RT’s. In forbidden number RT no 75 of July 22 which was thus the one which was confiscated, we can fin tow directive of the President of the Republic: no 185 and 186- therefore both of the lost directives. According to forbidden RT. No 75 the wording of the ultimate directive no. 185 of Konstantin Päts as the President of the Republic of Estonia was as follows:
“741 Directive no. 185 of the President of the Republic
At 23:00 on July 21, 1940
The convention of the new membership of the Riigivolikogu which occurred in accordance with my resolution no. 175 of July 5, 1940 and no. 205 of July 19, 1940 marks a new era in the organization of the Estonian’s national issues.
As my duties of the President of Republic were determined in the hitherto existing Constitution of the Republics of Estonia, then, as it is being transited to a new constitution, I deem it necessary to relinquish my authority and transfer the duties of the President of the Republic to the Prime Minister, Dr. Joh. Vares.
At the same time I call all the citizens of the Republic of Estonia to show all trust and support to the acting president of the Republic in all the steps he deems necessary to take for the welfare of the Estonia State and people, and would like to thank Estonian people for trust that they had in me, during my term of office.
K, Päts President of the Republic.”
This was the last address of our President Konstantin Päts tour people of Estonia, which of the accord of the occupation powers, never reached the people. So here everyone can draw his or her own conclusions. Perhaps it is also something for the historians to be studied.
For th sake of clarity I would also like to print here directive no. 186 which was publishes in RT no 75 but saw the light, as explained before, only in 1960:
“742. Directive no. 186 of the President of the Republic July 21, 1940.
I assumed the capacity of the ‘President of the Republic at 23:00 on July 21.
Jon Vares
Prime Minister in capacity of the President of the Republic”
We should mention that the permitted and published issue of RT no. 75 printed under article 741 directive no. 179 of the President of the Republic by which K. Päts was forced, on Jult 20, to release from office the rector of the Tallinn Technical University, Professor Vladimir Pavel. J. Semper which gives rise to new questions. Under article 742 therein directive no. 180 of the President of the Republic with the same date by which K. Päts, Joh. Vares and the Minister of Foreign affairs substituting for the Minister of Economy release from office the Director of the Tax Board, Ants Kukk, as of July 19, 1940, i.e. retrospectively.
Tale 2
This is not the end of the problem encountered with the subject matter “Two Presidents at a Time”. In the exile there were two simultaneous presidents too. The Government of the Republic of Estonia In Exile has faithfully and truthfully maintained the legal continuity of the Estonian state for which they shall be deeply respected. Under Article 46 of the effective Estonian Constitution the duties of the President of Republic were performed by the Prime Minister if the President of Republic was incapable of performing them. Thus the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Estonia in Exile has also been in capacity of the President of the Government. Some outstanding Estonians in Exile, who gathered on March 1-3, 1953 near Dotmold in Augustdorf, Germany, did not want to accept this constitutional procedure. A. Acting President of the Republic of Estonia and decided to elect Alfred Maurer the Acting President of the Republic. It should be mentioned that pursuant to the Constitution, the institution of an acting President terminated powers of hitherto president. This action was clearly contrary to and material breach to an effective Constitution and other laws- and as such is legally void, Thus beginning March 3, 1953, we once again have two presidents – self constituted Alfred Maurer and August Rei, the constitutional Prime Minister of the Republic Of Estonia in Exile in capacity of the President of the Republic, We should also clarify the institutions of an acting resident), as presented by A. Rei , was provisional by character and hitherto President in the office. Without going too deep into history jurisprudence we just state here that the so-called “dual-power” lasted in essence for approximatelty18 months or at least September 20, 1954 when Alfred Maurer died. The ministry of Military Affairs Johan Holberg, who ho was the acting Prime Minister, did not actually start performing his duties in substituting for the deceased Prime Minister. Injustice was undone and the Government appointed to office by August Rei in Also on January 2, 1953 carried on the continuity abs remained in office albeit several changes, until the powers were transferred by Henrich Mark, the last Prime Minister in the capacity f the President of the Government in Exile, to the Constitutional state organs in Estonia 1992.
Tale 3
The story however did not end there. Immediately before the official termination of the activities of the Government in Exile and festive transfer of the power to the legal authorities created in Estonia as of October, 1992, another event of “dual power” came to light. Namely the Minister of Economy of the latest government in Exile, Mihkel Mathiesen, had declared himself Prime Minister and acting President on September 15, 1992. He had also appointed new Government in Exile to office composed of the persons who were unknown to the general public, such as Kalev Ots, the acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Education; Kalev Imala – the Minister of Courts and Interior Affairs; Paul Muuli- the Minister of Economy and Agriculture; Hanado Kruuv- the Minister of Social Affairs and Roads; and Harri Henn – the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The grotesque of the situation was enhances that the so –called line of the most senior member- which was a pure lie as at least two members of the Government in Exile were older than M. Mathiesen. Allegedly, the proposal of takeover was also made, to Jüri Toompuu who then lived in Estonia but he declined offer. Heinrich Mark, the Prime Minister in the capacity of the President of the Government in Exile has told the author that on October 5, 1992 he had met with the representative of the so called Nõmme Government to about continuation of the sitting Government in Exile and he had no idea of the existence of the Exile learned about the existence of self appointed President Mathiesen and the Nõmme Government appointed by him. On the very same day Henrich Mark dismissed Mikhel Mathisedn from the membership from the government in Exile, reasoning that the latter broke the oath of the member of the Government. Thus illegal or not, we once again had two Presidents and two Government during 21 days. We should mention here that in the time that the new Constitution was already in force in Estonia (!), having been adopted by the people of Estonia and the referendum of June 28, 1992. This revoked the formed Constitution which had come to the effect in 1938 and on the basis of Article 1 of which the people had adopted the new Constitution and M. Mathiesen has conducted his affairs. Thus we should take the standpoint that the beginning of adoption of new Constitution and based on the legal continuity, the Government in Exile and the President I Exile could act solely on the basis of the new Constitution during the last one hundred and two days of their office.
Tale 4
On the basis of new Constitution, the 7th Riigikogu was elected on ‘September- the first constitutional parliament after World War 2. The Estonia did not yet have the President. On October 5, 1992 Mr. Lennart Meri was elected President of the Republic. He took his oath of office on the following day, i.e. on Tuesday, October 6 ,1992 and thus assumed office. There still was not Constitutional Government – in the evening of October 8, 1992 the President authorized Mart Laar to form that Government, The Government of Laar, assumed office by taking oath of office before the Riigikogu. The Government in Exile transferred its powers festively before the Riigikogu on October 7, as already mentioned. However the question to whom arises. It could not transfer the powers to the Vähi’s Government as it was unconstitutional and this would have violated the principle of legal continuity. The Government of Laar did not exist yet.
We should take the standpoint, then, that the declaration of the Government in Exile of July 16, 1992 on the relinquishment of office was in conflict with the new Constitution and, as such, it was legally void. Under article 92of the new Constitution, the Government may resign upon several cases, however, in the given case we can speak about the resignation of the Prime Minister or convention of the new membership of the Riigikogu. The latter, as referred, occurred on October 5. Thus, the Government in Exile could and should have resigned on October 5and not on July 16 or October 7. One way or another, the resigned Government should have continued to perform duties until the President of the Government released the Government of the Republic (in Exile) upon the assumption of office of the new Government, There are no data indicating that President Lennart Meri released the preceding Government (in Exile) upon the assumption of office the Laar’s Government under article 92 of the Constitution. This would have been the correct thing to do according to the principle of legal continuity.
There are at least there questions which are not answered yet: 1. In terms of legal continuity was there a vacuum of power in the line of the government? 2. If the president of the Republic did not released the Government (in Exile upon the assumption of office of the new Government, then what does this mean in public law? 3. If the President of Republic officially released the unconstitutional Vähi’s Government upon the assumption of office of the Laar’s Government, did he or did he not proceed from the principle of legal continuity?
On the day that followed his address to the Riigikogu, i.e. on October 8, the President in Exile, Heinrich Mark, paid a visit to President of the Republic Lennart Meri. In conversation between H. Mark and the author Mr. Mark said it was only in this meeting with the president when he signed the document by which he resigned his office of President. Does this mean that here too there were two Presidents during a couple of hours? The answer is Yes and No. Under article 82(4) of the Constitution the powers of the President of the Republic shall terminate upon the assumption of office of new President of the Republic. Thus, the power of Mr. Heinrich Mark in the capacity of the President of Republic terminated as Lennart Meri assumed office, and in his capacity of the President in Exile, H. Mark had nothing to transfer in the Kadrioru Castle on October 8. On the other hand, it is still possible to claim that we had two Presidents between October 6 and 8- this time not because someone had wanted to usurp the power or refused to transfer it. It just accidentally happened so because Estonia has (from time to time) a tradition of two presidents!
I researched the legal basis of the Government of Estonia in exile. I found an article written by an Estonian scholar of law in exile, Artur Taska, some more Words About the Takeover of the Office of the President of Estonia in 1940. The article gives interesting fact on certain events in July 1940 which the author has also studied and which might be of interest to a wider circle of readers.
To, start I would give a brief overview of the historical background as well as some facts. In the afternoon of June 16, 1940, the Soviet Union presented an ultimatum to Estonia in which it demanded formation of a new Soviet-friendly government and consent for the occupation of the country by the Red Army threatening, if the consent was refused, to start military action against Estonia within ten hours. From the early morning of the next day to a couple more days the Soviet troops occupied the whole territory of Estonia. Thus, the actual power passed over to the occupation troops of the Soviet Union, and the constitutional bodies of the Republic of Estonia could not exercise their constitutional power and all their subsequent resolutions dictated and forced by the occupation forces were thus legally void. On June 21, 1940 the President of the Republic issued a directive on the nomination to office of a new Government of the Republic – dictated and manned by the occupation forces. It was followed by the resolution no. 175 of July and resolution no. 205 of July 19 of the President of the Republic on the convention of a new membership of the Riigivolikogu. On July 6, the President of the Republic issued a decree under which the both houses of the Riigikogu, called „hostile to the people“, were dissolved. On July 14 and 15 the elections of the Riigivolikogu were staged which was to substitute for both houses under the effective Constitution while the Riiginõukogu was not convened at all (forgot to be convened). The government of Johannes Vares had amended the Election Act in order to conduct the elections and this was another violation of the Constitution as under it amendment as laws was in the competent of the Riigikogu.
Here I would like to list some remarkable legislation which I shall refer to later in the text:
Directive no. 185 of July 21 of the President of the Republic in which Konstantin Päts, „in connection with the transfer to a new order“ deemed necessary to waive his authority and transfer duties of the President of the Republic to the Prime Minister, Dr. Johannes Vares.
Directive no. 186 of July 21 of the President of the Trepublic in which the Prime Minister, Dr. Johannes Vares, announced that he had assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic.
On July 23 the „Riigivolikogu“ made a resolution by which it satisfied the „request“ of Konstantin Päts to relinquish his presidential authority and imposed the duties of the President of the Republic on the Prime Minister Dr. Johannes Vares.
Directive no. 187 of July 23 of the President of the Republic on that the Prime Minister, Dr.Johannes Vares, had assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic.
Strange tales in connection with the takeover of office of the President
Tale 1
Next to all of the illegal actions leading to Estonian’s occupation and later consolidation of the occupation which events are well known from history and were briefly discussed above, wider public is probably not so well informed about the details in connection with the takeover of office of the President and the final address of K. Päts to the people of Estonia. Namely, of the above directive no. 185, 186 and 187 of the President of the Republic only no. 187 has been published in the Riigiteataja (the state Gazette, hereinafter: RT). Where the other two directives lost and what were were their contents- this was not known for a long time.
The first of the lost directives to be officially unveiled was Directive no. 186 of the President of the Republic whose copy was published in 1960 in the book The 1940 Socialist Revolution in Estonia. Documents and Materials. Hurrying forward with events let me mention that the said directive was printed under article 742 of RT no. 75; however, as shown later, it actually did not see the light. As mentioned above, the directive is about the assuming of the capacity of the President b the Prime Minister, Dr. Joh. Vares. Here it is important to stress that the said book does not say the word about directive no. 185 and 187 of the President of the Republic. It would be appropriate to compare the texts of the two directives that had the same contents:
Directive 186 of the President of the Republic:
“I assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic at 23:00 on July 21.”
Directive 187 of the President of the Republic, RT no. 79 art. 764 provide;
“On the basis of the resolution of the Riigivolikogu of July 23, 1940 I assumed the capacity of the President of the Republic at 17:00 on July 23, 1940.”
“Having heard the Request of the President of the Republic, Konstantin Päts, to relinquish his authority, the Riigivolikogu decided to grant the request and impose the duties of the President of the Republic on the Prime Minister, Dr. Johannes Vares. The above resolution was adopted by the Riigivolokogu at 19:00 on July 23.”
It can be concluded from the above documents that the takeover of the office of the President (though illegal) could have occurred only after the latter resolution or at the earliest at 19:00 on July, 23, 1940. However according to directive no. 187 of the President of Republic this occurred at 17:00 or two hours before the corresponding resolution was made by the Riigivolikogu. This merely illustrates the fact that the whole takeovers of the power have been staged and the “comrades” just messed up some trifle things. It also illustrates vividly the fact that the Soviet power needed the people to be brainless mass and therefore the so called people’s duties were used just to put on a farce and a show of hands- the Party and the administrative authorities designated by it had the actual power and they ignored all the others. The Soviet style of the “stage production” is further confirmed by directive no 186 of the President of the Republic under which the office of President was taken over 44 hours before the corresponding resolution was made by Riigivolikogu. As a blunder of couple of hours was not deemed important, directive no. 187 was eligible to be printed in RT but it was deemed to be keep the document which reflected the actual situation, i.e. directive no 186, which according to the above mentioned book published in 1960 can be considered the document proving to be the takeover of the office of the President, secret by hiding it for twenty years in the Central Archive of the October Revolution and Socialist Rebuilding Work in the Estonian SSR. On the basis of previously reviewed it is clear that formally Konstantin Päts retained his office until 19:00 on July 23, 1940. Depending on which directive we use as the basis, the Republic of Estonia had two or 44 hours two Presidents at a time – and they say that Estonia has a tradition to have one president at a time.
On the basis of Artur Taska’s article we can trace another trick of the Communist in connection with the takeover of the office of the President as well as learn that fate of directive no 185 of the President of the Republic. Namely the Chief Council of the Republic of Estonia, Ernst Jaakson writes to Artur Taska from New York in his letter dated March 24, 1977
“ … Some years ago we received from a former worker of the Estonian National Publishing House a Riigi Teataja no. 75 of July 22, 1940. According to the explanation given to use, this issue of the Riigiteataja had been collected together before it was disseminated. The same issue with different contents was published. Thus our archive has two Riigi Teataja’s of July 2, 1940 with different contents…”
I also sent a letter to the Consulate of the Republic of Estonia in New York and asked explanation on the mentioned circumstance. The Consul, Maris Tippo, replied my letter immediately on November 12, 1997 and wrote that everything was true. She also sent the copies of the RT’s. In forbidden number RT no 75 of July 22 which was thus the one which was confiscated, we can fin tow directive of the President of the Republic: no 185 and 186- therefore both of the lost directives. According to forbidden RT. No 75 the wording of the ultimate directive no. 185 of Konstantin Päts as the President of the Republic of Estonia was as follows:
“741 Directive no. 185 of the President of the Republic
At 23:00 on July 21, 1940
The convention of the new membership of the Riigivolikogu which occurred in accordance with my resolution no. 175 of July 5, 1940 and no. 205 of July 19, 1940 marks a new era in the organization of the Estonian’s national issues.
As my duties of the President of Republic were determined in the hitherto existing Constitution of the Republics of Estonia, then, as it is being transited to a new constitution, I deem it necessary to relinquish my authority and transfer the duties of the President of the Republic to the Prime Minister, Dr. Joh. Vares.
At the same time I call all the citizens of the Republic of Estonia to show all trust and support to the acting president of the Republic in all the steps he deems necessary to take for the welfare of the Estonia State and people, and would like to thank Estonian people for trust that they had in me, during my term of office.
K, Päts President of the Republic.”
This was the last address of our President Konstantin Päts tour people of Estonia, which of the accord of the occupation powers, never reached the people. So here everyone can draw his or her own conclusions. Perhaps it is also something for the historians to be studied.
For th sake of clarity I would also like to print here directive no. 186 which was publishes in RT no 75 but saw the light, as explained before, only in 1960:
“742. Directive no. 186 of the President of the Republic July 21, 1940.
I assumed the capacity of the ‘President of the Republic at 23:00 on July 21.
Jon Vares
Prime Minister in capacity of the President of the Republic”
We should mention that the permitted and published issue of RT no. 75 printed under article 741 directive no. 179 of the President of the Republic by which K. Päts was forced, on Jult 20, to release from office the rector of the Tallinn Technical University, Professor Vladimir Pavel. J. Semper which gives rise to new questions. Under article 742 therein directive no. 180 of the President of the Republic with the same date by which K. Päts, Joh. Vares and the Minister of Foreign affairs substituting for the Minister of Economy release from office the Director of the Tax Board, Ants Kukk, as of July 19, 1940, i.e. retrospectively.
Tale 2
This is not the end of the problem encountered with the subject matter “Two Presidents at a Time”. In the exile there were two simultaneous presidents too. The Government of the Republic of Estonia In Exile has faithfully and truthfully maintained the legal continuity of the Estonian state for which they shall be deeply respected. Under Article 46 of the effective Estonian Constitution the duties of the President of Republic were performed by the Prime Minister if the President of Republic was incapable of performing them. Thus the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Estonia in Exile has also been in capacity of the President of the Government. Some outstanding Estonians in Exile, who gathered on March 1-3, 1953 near Dotmold in Augustdorf, Germany, did not want to accept this constitutional procedure. A. Acting President of the Republic of Estonia and decided to elect Alfred Maurer the Acting President of the Republic. It should be mentioned that pursuant to the Constitution, the institution of an acting President terminated powers of hitherto president. This action was clearly contrary to and material breach to an effective Constitution and other laws- and as such is legally void, Thus beginning March 3, 1953, we once again have two presidents – self constituted Alfred Maurer and August Rei, the constitutional Prime Minister of the Republic Of Estonia in Exile in capacity of the President of the Republic, We should also clarify the institutions of an acting resident), as presented by A. Rei , was provisional by character and hitherto President in the office. Without going too deep into history jurisprudence we just state here that the so-called “dual-power” lasted in essence for approximatelty18 months or at least September 20, 1954 when Alfred Maurer died. The ministry of Military Affairs Johan Holberg, who ho was the acting Prime Minister, did not actually start performing his duties in substituting for the deceased Prime Minister. Injustice was undone and the Government appointed to office by August Rei in Also on January 2, 1953 carried on the continuity abs remained in office albeit several changes, until the powers were transferred by Henrich Mark, the last Prime Minister in the capacity f the President of the Government in Exile, to the Constitutional state organs in Estonia 1992.
Tale 3
The story however did not end there. Immediately before the official termination of the activities of the Government in Exile and festive transfer of the power to the legal authorities created in Estonia as of October, 1992, another event of “dual power” came to light. Namely the Minister of Economy of the latest government in Exile, Mihkel Mathiesen, had declared himself Prime Minister and acting President on September 15, 1992. He had also appointed new Government in Exile to office composed of the persons who were unknown to the general public, such as Kalev Ots, the acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Education; Kalev Imala – the Minister of Courts and Interior Affairs; Paul Muuli- the Minister of Economy and Agriculture; Hanado Kruuv- the Minister of Social Affairs and Roads; and Harri Henn – the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The grotesque of the situation was enhances that the so –called line of the most senior member- which was a pure lie as at least two members of the Government in Exile were older than M. Mathiesen. Allegedly, the proposal of takeover was also made, to Jüri Toompuu who then lived in Estonia but he declined offer. Heinrich Mark, the Prime Minister in the capacity of the President of the Government in Exile has told the author that on October 5, 1992 he had met with the representative of the so called Nõmme Government to about continuation of the sitting Government in Exile and he had no idea of the existence of the Exile learned about the existence of self appointed President Mathiesen and the Nõmme Government appointed by him. On the very same day Henrich Mark dismissed Mikhel Mathisedn from the membership from the government in Exile, reasoning that the latter broke the oath of the member of the Government. Thus illegal or not, we once again had two Presidents and two Government during 21 days. We should mention here that in the time that the new Constitution was already in force in Estonia (!), having been adopted by the people of Estonia and the referendum of June 28, 1992. This revoked the formed Constitution which had come to the effect in 1938 and on the basis of Article 1 of which the people had adopted the new Constitution and M. Mathiesen has conducted his affairs. Thus we should take the standpoint that the beginning of adoption of new Constitution and based on the legal continuity, the Government in Exile and the President I Exile could act solely on the basis of the new Constitution during the last one hundred and two days of their office.
Tale 4
On the basis of new Constitution, the 7th Riigikogu was elected on ‘September- the first constitutional parliament after World War 2. The Estonia did not yet have the President. On October 5, 1992 Mr. Lennart Meri was elected President of the Republic. He took his oath of office on the following day, i.e. on Tuesday, October 6 ,1992 and thus assumed office. There still was not Constitutional Government – in the evening of October 8, 1992 the President authorized Mart Laar to form that Government, The Government of Laar, assumed office by taking oath of office before the Riigikogu. The Government in Exile transferred its powers festively before the Riigikogu on October 7, as already mentioned. However the question to whom arises. It could not transfer the powers to the Vähi’s Government as it was unconstitutional and this would have violated the principle of legal continuity. The Government of Laar did not exist yet.
We should take the standpoint, then, that the declaration of the Government in Exile of July 16, 1992 on the relinquishment of office was in conflict with the new Constitution and, as such, it was legally void. Under article 92of the new Constitution, the Government may resign upon several cases, however, in the given case we can speak about the resignation of the Prime Minister or convention of the new membership of the Riigikogu. The latter, as referred, occurred on October 5. Thus, the Government in Exile could and should have resigned on October 5and not on July 16 or October 7. One way or another, the resigned Government should have continued to perform duties until the President of the Government released the Government of the Republic (in Exile) upon the assumption of office of the new Government, There are no data indicating that President Lennart Meri released the preceding Government (in Exile) upon the assumption of office the Laar’s Government under article 92 of the Constitution. This would have been the correct thing to do according to the principle of legal continuity.
There are at least there questions which are not answered yet: 1. In terms of legal continuity was there a vacuum of power in the line of the government? 2. If the president of the Republic did not released the Government (in Exile upon the assumption of office of the new Government, then what does this mean in public law? 3. If the President of Republic officially released the unconstitutional Vähi’s Government upon the assumption of office of the Laar’s Government, did he or did he not proceed from the principle of legal continuity?
On the day that followed his address to the Riigikogu, i.e. on October 8, the President in Exile, Heinrich Mark, paid a visit to President of the Republic Lennart Meri. In conversation between H. Mark and the author Mr. Mark said it was only in this meeting with the president when he signed the document by which he resigned his office of President. Does this mean that here too there were two Presidents during a couple of hours? The answer is Yes and No. Under article 82(4) of the Constitution the powers of the President of the Republic shall terminate upon the assumption of office of new President of the Republic. Thus, the power of Mr. Heinrich Mark in the capacity of the President of Republic terminated as Lennart Meri assumed office, and in his capacity of the President in Exile, H. Mark had nothing to transfer in the Kadrioru Castle on October 8. On the other hand, it is still possible to claim that we had two Presidents between October 6 and 8- this time not because someone had wanted to usurp the power or refused to transfer it. It just accidentally happened so because Estonia has (from time to time) a tradition of two presidents!
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Kolm peotäit liiva kapitalismile
Alljärgnevalt mõned sissejuhatavad mõtted kapitalismi kui mudeli käsitlemise kohta. Kahjuks Wordi teksti joonealused viited allikatele kaovad teksti ülekandmisel ära, mistõttu lisan need suvalises järjestuses teksti lõppu. Kirjutatud 12.07.2011.
Kapitalismi pahe on hüvede ebavõrdne jaotus. Sotsialismi pahe on häda võrdne jaotus.
Winston Churchill
Kui Prantsusmaa ja Navarra kuningas Louis XIV, Päikesekuningas, 1715. aasta 1. septembril suri, astus tema ülemkammerhärra kuninga magamistoa rõdule, peas kübar musta sulega, ja hüüdis: “Le Roi est mort”. Seepeale läks ülemkammerhärra tuppa tagasi. Naastes rõdule kandis ta kübara küljes valget sulege. Nüüd hüüdis ta kolm korda: “Vive le Roi Louis XV”. Sellest ajast on saanud kuulsaks hüüdlause: "Kuningas on surnud, elagu kuningas!".
On hulganisti märke sellest, et kapitalistlik süsteem on iseenda hävitamisega lõpusirgele jõudmas. Kes võiks olla see kammerhärra, kes kapitalismi surma kuulutaks ja millise majandussüsteemi sünnist ta teada annaks? Kas tõesti saame kuninga rõdul näha Karl Marxi, kes on osundanud vastuolule ületootmise ja turukriisi vahel ja kuulutanud kapitalismi hävingut klassivõitluse ja revolutsiooni tulemusena? Või lehvitavad meile vastu näiteks Adam Smith, John M. Keynes või Milton Friedman ja tunnistavad, et tahtsime parimat, aga välja kukkus nagu alati? Tõeliseks rebimiseks läheks neokapitalismi või postkapitalismi teooriate või mudelite, aga ka futuroloogide tulevikustsenaariumide apologeetide vahel.
Tänases maailmas tundub n-ö Lääne tüüpi kapitalismile väljakutset pakkuvat Hiinas, Venezuelas ja Venemaal harrastatav ’autoritaarne kapitalism’. Kas see ka pikemas perspektiivis õnne õuele toob, on iseasi. Liberaalsele turumajandusele alusepanija Adam Smith hoiatust, et eesmärgiks ei tule seada mitte riigi tugevust, vaid üksikisiku heaolu, ei paista autoritaarse kapitalismi edendajad arvesse võtvat. Üldisel kõrbestumise taustal paistab oaasina Põhja-Euroopa (Rootsi, Soome, Norra, Taani), kus sotsiaaldemokraatial on õnnestunud kapitalismi teatud määral ohjeldada. Kui jätkusuutlik selline ’ohjeldatud kapitalismi’ mudel on, saame edaspidi teada.
Käes on kapitalismi agoonia. Kui selles faasis abi ei saa, järgneb meditsiinilises mõttes kliiniline surm, kust tagasitee on võimalik vaid teatud ajaühiku jooksul. Vastasel juhul saabub bioloogiline surm – aju lakkab toimimast.
Kapitalistid ise kapitalismi reformida ei suuda, nagu haige ei suuda ennast ise opereerida. Poliitikud tegelevad tagajärgede likvideerimisega, mitte põhjustega, üritades nii agooniat tulevikku lükata. Kuidas teisiti nimetada riigiosaluse hankimisi suuremates pankades, autotööstuse doteerimisi või tervete riikide priipajukile võtmisi. Arvatakse, et sellised lääneriikide drastilised ja tavaolukorras mõeldamatud otsused on tehtud selleks, et kapitalistlikku liberaalset majandussüsteemi kaitsta ja elus hoida, mitte selleks, et seda lammutada. Arvatakse ka seda, et riigi osalus pankades on ilmselt ajutine ja peab vältima süsteemset kriisi, mis viiks suurte sotsiaalsete vapustusteni. Siinkirjutaja nii ei arva – pigem on siin tegemist McKinsey tegevjuhi Dominic Bartoni kritiseeritud ’kvartalikapitalismiga’ (quarterly capitalism), mis tekkis juba aastakümneid tagasi ja mille läbi kapitalism kaotab oma tegevuses pikaajalist perspektiivi ja elab järjest enam lühiajalises maailmas. Barton kohtus 18 kuu jooksul üle 400 äri ja valitsusjuhiga üle kogu maailma ning veendus, et maailm on viimase kolme aastaga muutunud määral, mis ei võimalda enam vana moodi jätkata. Tõusva Ida ja arenenud Lääne jõudude vahekorras on juba toimunud dramaatiline nihe, paljudes riikides tungib peale populistlik poliitika, kasvab sotsiaalne stress, globaalse governance (rahvusvaheliste institutsioonide nagu WTO ja IMF) süsteemis suurenevad pinged. Bartoni arvates on tõenäoline, et kui kapitalistid ise midagi ette ei võta, võivad valitsused hakata avalikkuse rahustamiseks ja püüdes ära hoida järgmist kriisi liigselt majandusse sekkuma.
Samas on vaba turumajanduse põhimõtetest taganemisele hakatud otsima teoreetilisi õigustusi. Nii on Nobeli majanduspreemia laureaat Paul Krugman hakanud kahtlema, kas vabakaubanduspoliitika on ikka igal pool ning kõigile kasulik. Mööngem sedagi, et 1930-ndatel John M. Keynesi väljapakutud teooria riigi rollist majanduse reguleerimisel, mida 1970-ndatel kritiseeris näiteks Friedman, on 2007. aastal alanud globaalse finantskriisi tulemusel nautimas renessanssi. Nii on keinsism, mis lähtub eeldusest, et kapitalistlikku majandust peab stabiilsuse tagamiseks riiklikult juhtima, olnud/saanud Georg W. Bushi, Barack Obama, Gordon Browni, Angela Merkeli ja teiste globaalsete liidrite majanduspoliitika nurgakiviks. Majanduse riikliku juhtimise kontekstis tuleb meenutada, et Enroni, WorldComi, Adelphia, Harkini ning teiste suurte ettevõtete ning siseringi mängurite riisumisi ei paljastanud ja selle eest ei karistanud mitte kapitalismi läbipaistvus või vastutusvõime vaid demokraatia tööriistad. Viimatiöelduga ei soovi autor väita, et demokraatia ise on veatu…
Kas demokraatia, mida kapitalistid ei ole kunagi armastanud, osutubki selleks vahendiks, mille abil riikide rahvad kehtivat majandussüsteemi muutma hakkavad ja kas keinsism saab selle teoreetiliseks aluseks?
Kapitalismi ja demokraatia antagonistlikule suhtele osundas Ameerika Ühendriikide Ülemkohtu kohtunik Louis Brandeis juba umbes kaheksakümmend aastat tagasi: “Meil saab olla siin maal demokraatia või siis saab meil olla suur jõukus, mis on koondunud väheste kätte, aga meil ei saa olla mõlemad.” Seni on nad kassi ja koerana koos eksisteerinud, kuid kapitalismi agoonia kohustab demokraatliku valitsemisvormi kõrgeima võimu kandjat otsustama, mis on see uus majandussüsteem, mis aitab elu edasi viia.
Keinsismil on juba teie kord kriisi tagajärgede ravimiseks kuningas kapitalismi rõdule astuda. Esimest korda oli see teooria tekkimisel reaktsioonina 1930-ndate Suurele depressioonile. Siis kujunesid keskseks Keynesi soovitused majanduskriisi kahe peamise tulemuse (majanduslangus ja suur tööpuudus) lahendamiseks. Keynesi retsepti järgi pidi valitsus suurendama nõudmist läbi kulutuste suurendamise ja madalamate maksude, rikkudes seejuures vajadusel eelarvetasakaalu (ehk siis kulutaks rohkem kui tulud võimaldavad). Selline riigipoolne sekkumine ei olnud siis ega ole ka kaasajal kooskõlas kapitalismi põhipostulaatidega, mis põhistavad rikkuste loomise ja majanduse arengu vabale turumajandusele (laissez-faire printsiibile) ja konkurentsile, kus riigi osa majanduse reguleerimisel on piiratud. Paradoks ongi selles, et kapitalismi advokaatide vihatud keinsismi arsenal on juba kahel korral kapitalismi august välja upitanud. Seega on keinsismil märkimisväärne koht päikese all kätte võideldud.
Täiesti puhast kapitalismi kaasajal maailmas nagunii ei eksiteeri. Maad ongi võtmas keinsismi ja kapitalismi sümbioos, aga välistada ei saa ka muid segasüsteeme, kus riigi rolli majanduse reguleerimisel väärtustatakse.
Teooriaid ja praktikaid (nagu eespool viidatud autoritaarne- ja ohjeldatud kapitalism) on mitmeid, mistõttu on valikute tegemine raske. Välistada ei saa ka uute ideede esilekerkimist, ehkki põhimõtteliselt uue ja senitundmatu majandusmudeli väljapakkumine, eriti aga selle omaksvõtmine lähiperspektiivis tundub vähetõenäoline. Pigem võime kuulda konvergentsist, elik seniste majandusmudelite konkureerivate käsitluste kui protsesside teatud kokkulangemisest.
Usun, et tuleviku majandusmudel on rohkem inimese nägu, midagi Põhjamaade ’ohjeldatud kapitalismi’ sarnast, aga selle jätkusuutlikum versioon.
Üsna uudne käsitlus on ’sotsiaalne kapitalism’(socio-capitalism), mille kohaselt muuhulgas saab turud paremini tööle panna ja tulemit maksimiseerida kui see toimub olulisel määral makroökonoomika sotsiaalse juhtimise kaudu. Vaesuse vähendamine toob kaasa kapitaliturul osalejate arvu suurenemise. Riigi reguleeriv roll ja isegi turgude toetamine võib viia märkimisväärsete majanduslike tulemusteni, nagu seda on praktikas tõestanud näiteks internetiseerimise toetamine riikide poolt. ’Sotsiaalsele kapitalismile’ kui uuele majanduslikule lähenemisele kutsus kaks aastat tagasi (aasta 2009 alguses) üles Austraalia peaminister Kevin Rudd . Siiski tuleb ’sotsiaalse kapitalismi’ teaduslikke juuri otsida Hollandi poliitikateaduste professori Kees van Kersbergeni 1995. aasta tööst ”Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State. Van Kersbergen määratles ‘sotsiaalset kapitalismi’ kui Euroopa heaoluriigi ühtset tuuma (common kernel) ja seadis selle keskteeks (middle way) sotsialistliku kollektivismi ja neo-liberaalse indivisualismi vahele. Ruddit võis inspireerida ka Robert Corfe 2008. aastal ilmunud kolmeosaline töö “Social Capitalism: In Theory and Practice” . Corfe nägemus ’sotsiaalsest kapitalismist’ langeb täielikult kokku Van Kersbergeniga. Ta mõistis hukka mittekammitsetud kapitalismi (untrammelled capitalism), kutsus üles ideoloogilise spekulatsiooni asemel empiirilistele tõenditele põhinevale poliitikale ja visandas sotsiaalse kapitalismi põhiväärtusena võimet realiseerida igaühe potentsiaali tulenevalt tema võimetest ja inklinatsioonist. Sellega välistas ta kõik klassieelarvamustest mõjutatud meetmed.
Varasemast ajast on käsitlusena tuntud ’neokapitalism’, kui taotlus uuendada kapitalismi majandusmudelit, mis toetuks kolme vaala: suurettevõtete, rahvusvaheliste korporatsioonide ja riigi domineerimisele.
’Postkapitalism’ aga seab eesmärgiks asendada kapitalismi majandusmudel tuleviku hüpoteetiliste majandusmudelitega. Neist tuntumate käsitluste ja/või majandusmudelitena tasub nimetada ’sotsialistlikku majandust’, mis meil Eestis tuli ebaõnnestunud eksperimendi korras üle elada kahe kapitalismiperioodi vahel. ’Ühistuline majandus’, mis põhineb tööühistutel (Eestis on selle vasteks tulundusühistu), tähendab ettevõtte juhtimist demokraatia printsiibil ettevõtte töötajate poolt, kes on ühtlasi ka tööühistu omanikud. Nii soovitakse muuhulgas luua ja säilitada töökohti, tõsta töötajate elukvaliteeti läbi rikkuse loomise, edendada kogukonda ja soodustada selle arengut. Väidetakse, et maailmas töötab tööühistutes kokku umbes 100 miljonit inimest. ’Osalusmajandus’ pakub võimaluse tootmisressursside ja tarbimise planeerimise otsustamisse kaasata kõiki asjaosalisi. ’Otsese- ja konsensuslik demokraatia’ või nende segu ei tundu väga praktilise lahendusena suuremate kogukondade puhul, kuna võimaldab kõigil inimestel hääletada iga majandusliku küsimuse asjus. Samas tänapäevased tehnoloogilised lahendused ei sea enam piire kogukonna liikmete arvu osas. ’Turusotsialism’ näeb ette tootmisvahendite riikliku omandi või siis nende kuulumise näiteks tööühistutele ning ei soovi praegusele sarnanev rahandussüsteem ja turumajanduse kaotamist. Samas ’majandusdemokraatlik’ lähenemine küll säilitab turumajanduse, kuid ettevõtete juhtimine soovitakse üle anda töötajate demokraatlikele juhtimisorganitele ning kontroll investeeringute üle läheks riigile koos avalike pankade võrgustikuga. ’Kommunism’ ja ’anarhism’ või ka nende hübriid ei leia ega vaja siinkohal pikemat käsitlemist. Nagu ka nn ’kinkimismajandus’, milles peamisi teenuseid ja tooteid lihtsalt jagatakse, ilma et sõlmitaks konkreetseid leppeid või et saadu eest tasutaks. Veel võib nimetada kontseptsiooni ’ärivabast ühistulisest ühiskonnast’, kus ettevõtlus usaldatakse mittetulunduslike organisatsioonide kätte. Kontseptsioon näeb sellisele süsteemile üleminekut järk-järguliselt. Seega poleks valdaval enamusel ettevõtetest omanikke, mis tooks kaasa börside kokkuvarisemise. ’Binaarökonoomika’ pooldab küll eraomandit ja turumajandust kuid soovib muuta kehtivat pangandussüsteemi. ’Tehnokraatlik majandussüsteem’ pakub välja juhtimissüsteemi muutmise, lubades juhtimise juurde vaid selleks vajalikke teadmisi ja kogemust omavad isikud (ekspertide võim), tõrjudes samas kõrvale poliitilise võimu esindajad. Teadlastele kätte soovitab majandusotsuste langetamise anda ’ressursipõhine majandus’. Kontseptsiooni kohaselt kuulutatakse kõik maised ressursid inimkonna ühisvaraks ja nende tarbimise planeerimise üle otsustatakse lähtuvalt teaduslikust meetodist. Lisagem siia lõpetuseks ka sotsiaaldemokraatide n-ö uustsentristliku ideoloogia ja praktika ’kolmas tee’, mida on rakendanud ka Tony Blair ja Gerhard Schröder. Tegemist on muuhulgas ideedega võrdsete võimaluste, ettevõtlikkuse ning õiguste ja vastutuse tasakaalu kohta. Aktuaalseteks teemadeks on tööhõive, avaliku sektori kulude kokkuhoid ja suund heaoluriigi investeeringutele. Mööngem, et sotsiaaldemokraatidel ei ole nendel teemadel siiski monopoli, sest ka konservatiividel ja kristlikel demokraatidel on nendes küsimustes sarnased vaated. Seda ideoloogiat ja praktikat saadab majandusfilosoofiana ’distributism’, mis väärtustab väike- ja pereettevõtlust ja soovitab tootmisvahendite maksimaalselt laia jaotamist kõigi ettevõtlusest huvitunud inimeste vahel. Suurkorporatsioonid ja suur valitsuse bürokraatia ei ole soosingus.
Viited:
Dominic Barton. Capitalism for the Long Term. Harvard Business Reviews, March 2011. http://hbr.org/2011/03/capitalism-for-the-long-term/ar/1.
“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
Kevin Rudd, The Global Financial Crisis, The Monthly, Feb. 2009 available at http://www.themonthly.com.au/node/1421: "a system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate."
Kees van Kersbergen, Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State (Routledge 1995) available at http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Social-Capitalism/Kees-Van-Kersbergen/e/9780415116701
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&__mk_en_GB=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&field-keywords=&field-author=corfe&field-title=social+capitalism&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-feature_browse-bin=&emi=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=48&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=5
Kapitalismi pahe on hüvede ebavõrdne jaotus. Sotsialismi pahe on häda võrdne jaotus.
Winston Churchill
Kui Prantsusmaa ja Navarra kuningas Louis XIV, Päikesekuningas, 1715. aasta 1. septembril suri, astus tema ülemkammerhärra kuninga magamistoa rõdule, peas kübar musta sulega, ja hüüdis: “Le Roi est mort”. Seepeale läks ülemkammerhärra tuppa tagasi. Naastes rõdule kandis ta kübara küljes valget sulege. Nüüd hüüdis ta kolm korda: “Vive le Roi Louis XV”. Sellest ajast on saanud kuulsaks hüüdlause: "Kuningas on surnud, elagu kuningas!".
On hulganisti märke sellest, et kapitalistlik süsteem on iseenda hävitamisega lõpusirgele jõudmas. Kes võiks olla see kammerhärra, kes kapitalismi surma kuulutaks ja millise majandussüsteemi sünnist ta teada annaks? Kas tõesti saame kuninga rõdul näha Karl Marxi, kes on osundanud vastuolule ületootmise ja turukriisi vahel ja kuulutanud kapitalismi hävingut klassivõitluse ja revolutsiooni tulemusena? Või lehvitavad meile vastu näiteks Adam Smith, John M. Keynes või Milton Friedman ja tunnistavad, et tahtsime parimat, aga välja kukkus nagu alati? Tõeliseks rebimiseks läheks neokapitalismi või postkapitalismi teooriate või mudelite, aga ka futuroloogide tulevikustsenaariumide apologeetide vahel.
Tänases maailmas tundub n-ö Lääne tüüpi kapitalismile väljakutset pakkuvat Hiinas, Venezuelas ja Venemaal harrastatav ’autoritaarne kapitalism’. Kas see ka pikemas perspektiivis õnne õuele toob, on iseasi. Liberaalsele turumajandusele alusepanija Adam Smith hoiatust, et eesmärgiks ei tule seada mitte riigi tugevust, vaid üksikisiku heaolu, ei paista autoritaarse kapitalismi edendajad arvesse võtvat. Üldisel kõrbestumise taustal paistab oaasina Põhja-Euroopa (Rootsi, Soome, Norra, Taani), kus sotsiaaldemokraatial on õnnestunud kapitalismi teatud määral ohjeldada. Kui jätkusuutlik selline ’ohjeldatud kapitalismi’ mudel on, saame edaspidi teada.
Käes on kapitalismi agoonia. Kui selles faasis abi ei saa, järgneb meditsiinilises mõttes kliiniline surm, kust tagasitee on võimalik vaid teatud ajaühiku jooksul. Vastasel juhul saabub bioloogiline surm – aju lakkab toimimast.
Kapitalistid ise kapitalismi reformida ei suuda, nagu haige ei suuda ennast ise opereerida. Poliitikud tegelevad tagajärgede likvideerimisega, mitte põhjustega, üritades nii agooniat tulevikku lükata. Kuidas teisiti nimetada riigiosaluse hankimisi suuremates pankades, autotööstuse doteerimisi või tervete riikide priipajukile võtmisi. Arvatakse, et sellised lääneriikide drastilised ja tavaolukorras mõeldamatud otsused on tehtud selleks, et kapitalistlikku liberaalset majandussüsteemi kaitsta ja elus hoida, mitte selleks, et seda lammutada. Arvatakse ka seda, et riigi osalus pankades on ilmselt ajutine ja peab vältima süsteemset kriisi, mis viiks suurte sotsiaalsete vapustusteni. Siinkirjutaja nii ei arva – pigem on siin tegemist McKinsey tegevjuhi Dominic Bartoni kritiseeritud ’kvartalikapitalismiga’ (quarterly capitalism), mis tekkis juba aastakümneid tagasi ja mille läbi kapitalism kaotab oma tegevuses pikaajalist perspektiivi ja elab järjest enam lühiajalises maailmas. Barton kohtus 18 kuu jooksul üle 400 äri ja valitsusjuhiga üle kogu maailma ning veendus, et maailm on viimase kolme aastaga muutunud määral, mis ei võimalda enam vana moodi jätkata. Tõusva Ida ja arenenud Lääne jõudude vahekorras on juba toimunud dramaatiline nihe, paljudes riikides tungib peale populistlik poliitika, kasvab sotsiaalne stress, globaalse governance (rahvusvaheliste institutsioonide nagu WTO ja IMF) süsteemis suurenevad pinged. Bartoni arvates on tõenäoline, et kui kapitalistid ise midagi ette ei võta, võivad valitsused hakata avalikkuse rahustamiseks ja püüdes ära hoida järgmist kriisi liigselt majandusse sekkuma.
Samas on vaba turumajanduse põhimõtetest taganemisele hakatud otsima teoreetilisi õigustusi. Nii on Nobeli majanduspreemia laureaat Paul Krugman hakanud kahtlema, kas vabakaubanduspoliitika on ikka igal pool ning kõigile kasulik. Mööngem sedagi, et 1930-ndatel John M. Keynesi väljapakutud teooria riigi rollist majanduse reguleerimisel, mida 1970-ndatel kritiseeris näiteks Friedman, on 2007. aastal alanud globaalse finantskriisi tulemusel nautimas renessanssi. Nii on keinsism, mis lähtub eeldusest, et kapitalistlikku majandust peab stabiilsuse tagamiseks riiklikult juhtima, olnud/saanud Georg W. Bushi, Barack Obama, Gordon Browni, Angela Merkeli ja teiste globaalsete liidrite majanduspoliitika nurgakiviks. Majanduse riikliku juhtimise kontekstis tuleb meenutada, et Enroni, WorldComi, Adelphia, Harkini ning teiste suurte ettevõtete ning siseringi mängurite riisumisi ei paljastanud ja selle eest ei karistanud mitte kapitalismi läbipaistvus või vastutusvõime vaid demokraatia tööriistad. Viimatiöelduga ei soovi autor väita, et demokraatia ise on veatu…
Kas demokraatia, mida kapitalistid ei ole kunagi armastanud, osutubki selleks vahendiks, mille abil riikide rahvad kehtivat majandussüsteemi muutma hakkavad ja kas keinsism saab selle teoreetiliseks aluseks?
Kapitalismi ja demokraatia antagonistlikule suhtele osundas Ameerika Ühendriikide Ülemkohtu kohtunik Louis Brandeis juba umbes kaheksakümmend aastat tagasi: “Meil saab olla siin maal demokraatia või siis saab meil olla suur jõukus, mis on koondunud väheste kätte, aga meil ei saa olla mõlemad.” Seni on nad kassi ja koerana koos eksisteerinud, kuid kapitalismi agoonia kohustab demokraatliku valitsemisvormi kõrgeima võimu kandjat otsustama, mis on see uus majandussüsteem, mis aitab elu edasi viia.
Keinsismil on juba teie kord kriisi tagajärgede ravimiseks kuningas kapitalismi rõdule astuda. Esimest korda oli see teooria tekkimisel reaktsioonina 1930-ndate Suurele depressioonile. Siis kujunesid keskseks Keynesi soovitused majanduskriisi kahe peamise tulemuse (majanduslangus ja suur tööpuudus) lahendamiseks. Keynesi retsepti järgi pidi valitsus suurendama nõudmist läbi kulutuste suurendamise ja madalamate maksude, rikkudes seejuures vajadusel eelarvetasakaalu (ehk siis kulutaks rohkem kui tulud võimaldavad). Selline riigipoolne sekkumine ei olnud siis ega ole ka kaasajal kooskõlas kapitalismi põhipostulaatidega, mis põhistavad rikkuste loomise ja majanduse arengu vabale turumajandusele (laissez-faire printsiibile) ja konkurentsile, kus riigi osa majanduse reguleerimisel on piiratud. Paradoks ongi selles, et kapitalismi advokaatide vihatud keinsismi arsenal on juba kahel korral kapitalismi august välja upitanud. Seega on keinsismil märkimisväärne koht päikese all kätte võideldud.
Täiesti puhast kapitalismi kaasajal maailmas nagunii ei eksiteeri. Maad ongi võtmas keinsismi ja kapitalismi sümbioos, aga välistada ei saa ka muid segasüsteeme, kus riigi rolli majanduse reguleerimisel väärtustatakse.
Teooriaid ja praktikaid (nagu eespool viidatud autoritaarne- ja ohjeldatud kapitalism) on mitmeid, mistõttu on valikute tegemine raske. Välistada ei saa ka uute ideede esilekerkimist, ehkki põhimõtteliselt uue ja senitundmatu majandusmudeli väljapakkumine, eriti aga selle omaksvõtmine lähiperspektiivis tundub vähetõenäoline. Pigem võime kuulda konvergentsist, elik seniste majandusmudelite konkureerivate käsitluste kui protsesside teatud kokkulangemisest.
Usun, et tuleviku majandusmudel on rohkem inimese nägu, midagi Põhjamaade ’ohjeldatud kapitalismi’ sarnast, aga selle jätkusuutlikum versioon.
Üsna uudne käsitlus on ’sotsiaalne kapitalism’(socio-capitalism), mille kohaselt muuhulgas saab turud paremini tööle panna ja tulemit maksimiseerida kui see toimub olulisel määral makroökonoomika sotsiaalse juhtimise kaudu. Vaesuse vähendamine toob kaasa kapitaliturul osalejate arvu suurenemise. Riigi reguleeriv roll ja isegi turgude toetamine võib viia märkimisväärsete majanduslike tulemusteni, nagu seda on praktikas tõestanud näiteks internetiseerimise toetamine riikide poolt. ’Sotsiaalsele kapitalismile’ kui uuele majanduslikule lähenemisele kutsus kaks aastat tagasi (aasta 2009 alguses) üles Austraalia peaminister Kevin Rudd . Siiski tuleb ’sotsiaalse kapitalismi’ teaduslikke juuri otsida Hollandi poliitikateaduste professori Kees van Kersbergeni 1995. aasta tööst ”Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State. Van Kersbergen määratles ‘sotsiaalset kapitalismi’ kui Euroopa heaoluriigi ühtset tuuma (common kernel) ja seadis selle keskteeks (middle way) sotsialistliku kollektivismi ja neo-liberaalse indivisualismi vahele. Ruddit võis inspireerida ka Robert Corfe 2008. aastal ilmunud kolmeosaline töö “Social Capitalism: In Theory and Practice” . Corfe nägemus ’sotsiaalsest kapitalismist’ langeb täielikult kokku Van Kersbergeniga. Ta mõistis hukka mittekammitsetud kapitalismi (untrammelled capitalism), kutsus üles ideoloogilise spekulatsiooni asemel empiirilistele tõenditele põhinevale poliitikale ja visandas sotsiaalse kapitalismi põhiväärtusena võimet realiseerida igaühe potentsiaali tulenevalt tema võimetest ja inklinatsioonist. Sellega välistas ta kõik klassieelarvamustest mõjutatud meetmed.
Varasemast ajast on käsitlusena tuntud ’neokapitalism’, kui taotlus uuendada kapitalismi majandusmudelit, mis toetuks kolme vaala: suurettevõtete, rahvusvaheliste korporatsioonide ja riigi domineerimisele.
’Postkapitalism’ aga seab eesmärgiks asendada kapitalismi majandusmudel tuleviku hüpoteetiliste majandusmudelitega. Neist tuntumate käsitluste ja/või majandusmudelitena tasub nimetada ’sotsialistlikku majandust’, mis meil Eestis tuli ebaõnnestunud eksperimendi korras üle elada kahe kapitalismiperioodi vahel. ’Ühistuline majandus’, mis põhineb tööühistutel (Eestis on selle vasteks tulundusühistu), tähendab ettevõtte juhtimist demokraatia printsiibil ettevõtte töötajate poolt, kes on ühtlasi ka tööühistu omanikud. Nii soovitakse muuhulgas luua ja säilitada töökohti, tõsta töötajate elukvaliteeti läbi rikkuse loomise, edendada kogukonda ja soodustada selle arengut. Väidetakse, et maailmas töötab tööühistutes kokku umbes 100 miljonit inimest. ’Osalusmajandus’ pakub võimaluse tootmisressursside ja tarbimise planeerimise otsustamisse kaasata kõiki asjaosalisi. ’Otsese- ja konsensuslik demokraatia’ või nende segu ei tundu väga praktilise lahendusena suuremate kogukondade puhul, kuna võimaldab kõigil inimestel hääletada iga majandusliku küsimuse asjus. Samas tänapäevased tehnoloogilised lahendused ei sea enam piire kogukonna liikmete arvu osas. ’Turusotsialism’ näeb ette tootmisvahendite riikliku omandi või siis nende kuulumise näiteks tööühistutele ning ei soovi praegusele sarnanev rahandussüsteem ja turumajanduse kaotamist. Samas ’majandusdemokraatlik’ lähenemine küll säilitab turumajanduse, kuid ettevõtete juhtimine soovitakse üle anda töötajate demokraatlikele juhtimisorganitele ning kontroll investeeringute üle läheks riigile koos avalike pankade võrgustikuga. ’Kommunism’ ja ’anarhism’ või ka nende hübriid ei leia ega vaja siinkohal pikemat käsitlemist. Nagu ka nn ’kinkimismajandus’, milles peamisi teenuseid ja tooteid lihtsalt jagatakse, ilma et sõlmitaks konkreetseid leppeid või et saadu eest tasutaks. Veel võib nimetada kontseptsiooni ’ärivabast ühistulisest ühiskonnast’, kus ettevõtlus usaldatakse mittetulunduslike organisatsioonide kätte. Kontseptsioon näeb sellisele süsteemile üleminekut järk-järguliselt. Seega poleks valdaval enamusel ettevõtetest omanikke, mis tooks kaasa börside kokkuvarisemise. ’Binaarökonoomika’ pooldab küll eraomandit ja turumajandust kuid soovib muuta kehtivat pangandussüsteemi. ’Tehnokraatlik majandussüsteem’ pakub välja juhtimissüsteemi muutmise, lubades juhtimise juurde vaid selleks vajalikke teadmisi ja kogemust omavad isikud (ekspertide võim), tõrjudes samas kõrvale poliitilise võimu esindajad. Teadlastele kätte soovitab majandusotsuste langetamise anda ’ressursipõhine majandus’. Kontseptsiooni kohaselt kuulutatakse kõik maised ressursid inimkonna ühisvaraks ja nende tarbimise planeerimise üle otsustatakse lähtuvalt teaduslikust meetodist. Lisagem siia lõpetuseks ka sotsiaaldemokraatide n-ö uustsentristliku ideoloogia ja praktika ’kolmas tee’, mida on rakendanud ka Tony Blair ja Gerhard Schröder. Tegemist on muuhulgas ideedega võrdsete võimaluste, ettevõtlikkuse ning õiguste ja vastutuse tasakaalu kohta. Aktuaalseteks teemadeks on tööhõive, avaliku sektori kulude kokkuhoid ja suund heaoluriigi investeeringutele. Mööngem, et sotsiaaldemokraatidel ei ole nendel teemadel siiski monopoli, sest ka konservatiividel ja kristlikel demokraatidel on nendes küsimustes sarnased vaated. Seda ideoloogiat ja praktikat saadab majandusfilosoofiana ’distributism’, mis väärtustab väike- ja pereettevõtlust ja soovitab tootmisvahendite maksimaalselt laia jaotamist kõigi ettevõtlusest huvitunud inimeste vahel. Suurkorporatsioonid ja suur valitsuse bürokraatia ei ole soosingus.
Viited:
Dominic Barton. Capitalism for the Long Term. Harvard Business Reviews, March 2011. http://hbr.org/2011/03/capitalism-for-the-long-term/ar/1.
“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
Kevin Rudd, The Global Financial Crisis, The Monthly, Feb. 2009 available at http://www.themonthly.com.au/node/1421: "a system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate."
Kees van Kersbergen, Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State (Routledge 1995) available at http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Social-Capitalism/Kees-Van-Kersbergen/e/9780415116701
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&__mk_en_GB=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&field-keywords=&field-author=corfe&field-title=social+capitalism&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-feature_browse-bin=&emi=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=48&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)