DEVELOPMENT

3. IEP (2011). Structures of Peace. Institute for Economics and Peace.
4. http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/
Structures-of-Peace.pdf
5. IEP (2012). Institute for Economics and Peace. Global Peace
Index 2012. http://www.visionofhumanity.org/globalpeaceindex/2012-gpi-findings/
6. The Military Balance 2012; Published by Routledge for The
International Institute for Strategic Studies. London 2012, 504 p
7. The Global Militarization Index (GMI), Bonn International
Centre for Conversion, Occasional Paper February 2011, http://
www.bicc.de/publications/publicationpage/publication/the-global-militarization-index-gmi-use-of-the-gmi-for-evaluating-the-development-orientation-of/
Summary
Marju Lauristin
In this chapter, with the help of international comparisons,
we have tried to clarify, how successful has been Estonia’s
national development looking from the international
perspective at the quality of its institutions which should
guarantee implementation of democratic rule of law, create
a secure living environment for the population and the
conditions for the free and active participation in public
life. To make sure that the assessment is realistic, it is necessary
to consider the achievements of the last twenty years
of independence as well as the problems that still await
solution. The achievements can be seen more clearly by
casting a glance at the past, when, together with the other
nations that were freed from the oppression of communist
regimes, we started to search for a path that would lead to
the establishment of a democratic and sustainable society.
In comparison to the parts of the former Soviet empire that
are located to the east and south of us, the new European
Union Member States have all been successful as transition
countries. It is gratifying that, when we compare ourselves
to them based on various indices, we receive confirmation
of the relatively high capability of the Estonian state to
ensure democracy, security and freedom.
As a result of our analysis, we can state that Estonian
society has reached a level of social development, where
the institutional mechanisms necessary for democratic rule
of law are sufficiently secure and function relatively well.
The comparison of Estonia with the reference states clearly
showed that Estonia is at the forefront in regard to many
areas of life and social organisation, but qualitatively, it is still
relegated to the second league, compared to the European
‘old democracies’ which had enjoyed more comprehensive
development. Estonia’s strengths include the stable functioning
of democratic institutions, relatively well-functioning rule
of law, and a fairly secure, non-violent and open environment,
which promotes individual self- realisation, as well as
the functioning of businesses and civil society organisations.
Estonia’s privilege is good access to public information and
unrestricted freedom of expression in both traditional and
new media. The signs of success in fields such as the containment
of corruption and crime, and an increased sense
of security are gratifying. However, the same worrying signs
are repeated in all the generalisations based on various indicators
that can summarised as follows: the legal, institutional
and technological infrastructure is strong and relatively
well-constructed, but the content that has developed in this
framework – the way these institutions function – does not
correspond to people’s expectations and demands. At the
same time, there is no reason to be satisfied with the level
of participation in public life, the activities of civil organisation,
or the level of tolerance concerning minorities and
their readiness to contribute to the quality of the society.
Therefore, the key issue is not the lack of institutions, but
their quality. Having formally exited the status of post-Communist
transition country, there is still plenty of room for
improvement in Estonia’s political culture, trustworthiness
of the state’s institutions, and the will of the citizens to participate
before we arrive in the leading group of the world’s
democratic states.
In the course of the global economic crisis, the ability
of the states to quickly and effectively find a way out of
critical situations and maintain social stability became very
important. The economic crisis put all the states – both
large and small – to the test. Many people assumed that
the new democracies, whose economies and organisation
of government are still on weak legs, would suffer the most.
It has now become clear that the resilience of the states
was not based on the length of their traditions, their affiliation
with Western or Eastern Europe, or the formal level
of wealth measured by GDP per capita. The ability of the
society to endure sudden changes and adapt quickly to the
requirements of a harsher environment are based on public
trust, on the belief of the legitimacy of the state’s institutions,
on acting in a way that considers the public interest,
on shared values and attitudes, and on common national
accountability. And there is more of this social capital in
a society that is cohesive, corruption-free and secure, and
takes the interests of all its members into account.
The resilience of Estonia society has stood up well
to the tribulations of the economic crisis, and proven the
advantages of small states to the world: greater tenacity
and the ability to react quickly. However, the crisis has
also shown how quickly the success stories of some countries
can turn into declines. The danger signs for Estonia
are the downward trend related to trust in the state’s
institutions, a perception of corruption and disagreement
with the state’s path of development, which has occurred
during the last two years.
Taking a comparative look at our neighbours in the
west and north, and matching our development opportunities
with their templates, we see that Estonia is gradually
approaching the balanced development model of the Nordic
countries. However, we lag just as far behind when it
comes to the fundamental functioning of the democratic
rule of law, as we do in the level of our material wellbeing.
Still, there is reason to state that the accomplishments
realised during the building of the Estonian state and the
increased will of the people to participate have created
rather good preconditions for reducing this gap.
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
103