8 May 2021, 03:52

Postimees: Kerel overthrew the Social Democratic hegemony, but is unwilling to remove its influence

On the 18th of April, Ilest Kerel effectively overthrew the government of Beate Meinl-Reisinger, bringing to an end almost 19 years of disastrous and authoritarian rule by the Social Democratic Party. His ability to remove the last of the excrement that it has strewn across almost everything in Istkalen, however, appears to be less than stellar.

In stark contrast to the image of the country presented by the Istkalen Information Service, his declaration of 18th April, which served to announce the overthrow and death of Beate Meinl-Reisinger, an encapsulation of the position of the so-called 'technocratic' wing of the Social Democratic Party, has been followed almost perfectly. The activity of political parties is severely restricted, separated from all important organs of state entirely. Political, economic, and cultural activity is still channeled entirely through the state occupational unions and state chambers; outside of them, all three are discouraged if not penalized outright by the so-called ASPIS, which remains in operation. The former divisions, renamed regions in the parlance of Kerel's republic, remain entirely powerless. They do not even exist save on paper; they have no institutions, nor any power. Kerel has remained faithful to his promise of centralization; most of their powers now lie with the central government, with some now devolved to newly created 'municipal' governments.

On all levels, true to the Social-Democratic roots from which he springs, he has enforced a corporatist system of governance. Even the people's committees, which have largely been relegated to governing so-called 'communes' - divisions within larger 'municipalities' that are better reflective of actual cities - have been made to adopt a seven-chamber system and election from occupational unions.

Yes, it is true that corporatism - that is, occupational representation - is a political mainstay of Istkalen, as a result of political maneuvering in the 1940s - but that does not divorce it from its beyond odious origins. Although it is true that these origins have been quite heavily covered up ever since Tiraki, who led a destructive campaign in an attempt to rewrite Istkalen's history in her favor, they remain, in reality, the same - that is, in authoritarianism and quasi-fascism, beginning with the Lirisian state and its 'occupational instruments' to the 'national republic' of Tiraki and its state occupational unions - a tradition reaching its final realization and climax in the Social Democratic Party.

To cement it further, as such, would be to continue in the tradition of that odious Party. To abolish the unions and the chambers would, of course, be political suicide at this point - but it is beyond all doubt necessary if one wants to create a genuinely democratic Istkalen free of the influence of the SDP.

It does not seem, however, that Kerel actually wants a democratic Istkalen, or even one free of the SDP. If anything, he remains, quite thoroughly, the sort of technocrat that the SDP liked to recruit - someone competent, patriotic, and above all entirely disloyal to democracy. In essence, the archetype of Tiraki.

It must be made clear, however: Kerel is extraordinarily popular. Istkalen's experience with liberal democracy has generally been quite poor; Kerel's attempt to remove it and replace it with a national, technocratic, and corporatist system is thus well-received. At the same time, despite the 'show' he appears to be putting on for the West, he is competent and efficient - a further bonus in the eyes of a regular Istkalener. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, despite his apparent courting of socialism, he has proven himself to be working in the interests of Istkalen's middle class of artisans, trade-workers, and professionals, which have long dominated politics and acted as king-makers for all of Istkalen's rulers since the 1700s. He is going to remain in power for quite a long time; to remove him would be death for whomsoever attempts to do so.

He is certainly a liberator; regardless, he is certainly not a saint.