I was just reading this interview with Dominic Klenski on Postimees, and I am surprised that I understood most of what he wrote. I guess my Estonian is getting better. One thing you have to admit about Klenksi is that it is nice when the greatest "shock factor" in Estonian politics is a guy who is capable of conversing in Estonian. Things have come a long way since 1991. And why is that? I believe because parties like Isamaaliit set the tone for the restored Estonian state. And so the Klenski animal was born of the will of the Estonian nationalists. Who would have guessed?
Anyway, one part that struck me was Klenski's belief that Estonia was somehow NOT occupied by the Soviet Union (not Russia, of course, Russia was vacationing in the Crimea at the time) in 1940. His example, the fact that Estonian communists collaborated in the overthrow of the Estonian state.
Ja peale selle eitama fakti, et sm.Lauristin käis 1940.a. Moskvas, kus 6.augustil kirjutas alla lepingule, mis nägi ette Eesti astumise NSVL koosseisu.
Estonian communists were complicit in the takeover of the Estonian state in 1940, this much is true. But from the perspective of the state, shared by the Tief government in 1944, the exile government in the years 1945 - 1991, and the restored government, all who have spoken for and have been recognized as the voice of the Estonian state, the NSV government was an illegitimate government on the same footing as the Terijoki government in Finland, led by Otto Kuusinen (pictured).
In 1939, the Soviet government was telling the world that the Kuusinen government was the only legitimate government in Finland. Obviously, Mannerheim had the last say there, and Kuusinen died a traitor's death in Moscow in 1964. So there you have it, the victors write the history books, and in Estonia, the Estonian state, as established in 1918, is the victor here. They really are. And they wrote the history as they saw fit. Moscow calls it historical revisionism. Estonia doesn't care.
As for Klenksi, he sees himself as some kind of Martin Luther King Jr. for the quarter of the Estonian population that allegedly doesn't have it as good as the rest. His examples why? Greater unemployment, along with the accompanying ills of AIDS and drug use. He blames Estonia's lack of love for its minorities. I personally might blame Soviet-era population transfer for creating communities (Paldiski, for example) that were never meant to be.
It is interesting that he, whose Constitution Party probably won't win one seat in March, gets so much press attention. Yet there are opportunities here for mainstream Estonian parties in the issues Klenski raises. Minority issues aren't only game for the Keskid. The thing is that Estonia's major parties have their home bases in parts of Estonia where minority issues don't matter so much. Isamaaliit is a Viljandi party, while Reform has a hold in Tartumaa and Eestimaa Rahvaliit has strong support in Võru and Lääne-Virumaa. The Keskid are promising you a larger salary this year. What could the other parties be offering this often ignored section of the electorate?