Eavesdropping on the conversations that go on in the public arena, I often find myself wondering whether Estonians even know that social democracy exists. People let themselves be led astray by diametrically opposed distractions and the all too fashionable Right. The Left is frequently frowned upon because it means a more just distribution of wealth among citizens through the taxation system. This is thought to be bad because it means the rich would be less motivated to earn money, and thus it would be unfair to them. An understandable position to take perhaps, but also lacking, because it's a question of where you place the emphasis.
With social democracy the emphasis is on freedom, justice, solidarity and well-being – in a strange coincidence, the same values on which the likes of the Reform Party rest, although it is being nudged ever more to the Right. The difference lies in the fact that social democrats believe such values should be available to everyone in society, not just the chosen few; the Right is convinced that perks have to be earned. Social democracy views people and people's lives as values in themselves, not merely their ability to make money or promote enterprise. A bank teller is no more important to society than a school teacher, even if for some reason the former is better paid in Estonia than the latter.
The view that the state has the right to intervene in economic life is equally ripe for criticism. There is a widespread understanding in Estonia that the marketplace determines all and that this is good. I would agree, to a point. If people can get by amongst themselves without the state having to interfere, this is good. Unfortunately, this much vaunted freedom has brought about a situation in which one section of society finds itself trapped in conditions of poverty and ostracism. These people basically have no freedom – a position in which no rich person would ever want to find himself.
This is where the fundamental principal of solidarity comes into play. That is, by supporting each other we can create as good a life as possible for everyone. It is the principle on which the entire European Union is structured. It is the principle on which the welfare states of Scandinavia are structured. It is a position that by its very nature is socio-democratic.
In Estonia, poverty and wealth are something you are born into. The poor cannot overcome their poverty because they have no means to do so. Social democracy considers this to be unjust. People must be in a similar position if they are to fully realise their rights and freedoms. What is just is providing opportunities first and foremost to children, who have their whole lives ahead of them. They are not to blame for the conditions they find themselves in. Society will do better if the poor have the chance to become richer, i.e. break out of the cycle of poverty.
The imbalance in the positions that people are forced to start from was one of the catalysts for the rise of social democracy. However, the phenomena that gave rise to it have gone nowhere, so it can hardly be argued that the Left or social democracy have outlived their usefulness. Human values never do.
By no means am I propagating some ultimate truth here: I am merely trying to explain what I understand by social democracy and the Left. My advice: think critically. Think critically about what the centrists and the Right are saying to you. Consider whether the pacifist stance that the Left takes is actually as bad as it is made out to be, and whether militarism and aggression are more attractive options. Ask yourself if nationalism really rules out tolerance of other nationalities, and if running them down is what nationalism is in fact about. Does obstructing freedom of choice when it comes to family models or when to have children bring us any closer to the pipe dream of spreading as one great nation across the fatherland? Ask yourself too whether those people and groups that have become separated from society should be invited back into the fold or pushed even further away. Where is the value and dignity in forcing everything that is different deeper into the 'closet' – people from different racial backgrounds, the disabled, the elderly, the prisoners, the homosexuals, the young and poorly educated, the unemployed, the sick, the poor, the fat, the short, the lazy, the workaholics, the farmers?
The Left does not equate to naivety and pseudo-solidarity: it equates to assurance. Everybody has moments when they need the support of society. And that is exactly why we should treat each other with respect and solidarity. From the left.
_____
The article made me think of a conversation I once had with a private student of mine - a rich and successful and very nice woman whose job it was to make money from investing other people's - that cemented my own political views, such as they are. I have always voted social democrat, at least in positions where it counts (which is to say the upper house, in Australia), and assuming I ever get the residency status that allows me to vote in local government elections here in Estonia, I will continue to do so. Eiki Nestor, for one, makes a lot of sense. I know people who say that a vote for a party with no real chance of making a difference is a wasted vote, but I'm not one of them.
The Estonian government plans to raise taxes on alcohol next year as the small Baltic nation of 1.3 million is struggling with a drink problem. The BBC's Baltic correspondent Laura Sheeter examines the effects of heavy drinking in Estonia and neighbouring Finland, where Baltic booze cruises remain popular. 
Here's another photo of it. The photos are almost as beautiful as the thing itself. (Thank you Anu!)
And here's a picture of the gallery I bought it from.
