The Ripper
02-21-2011, 02:34 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Estonian_League_of_Freedom_Fighters_-_Vaps_Movement_-_Roman_salute_1.jpg
I'll attempt to briefly but accurately paint the background of the political situation in Estonia leading up to Päts' "authoritarian democracy," while using the Finnish situation, which I'm more familiar with, as a comparison. Just in case people not so familiar with Estonian history want to take part in the ensuing speculation. ;)
The Estonian Vaps Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaps_Movement) was a 'fascistoid' and authoritarian movement in Estonia during the interbellum period. It shared many aspects with other similar European movements, even if it had developed in a specifically Estonian context. It had close contacts with a similar political movement in Finland, the Lapua movement, which became the political party IKL.
However, unlike the Lapua movement and IKL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_People%27s_Movement_(Finland)), who became sidelined after a failed attempt at a coup and the 'normalization' of Finnish politics (the social democrats and the agrarian party began to co-operate, forming stable governments), Estonian politics continued to be charactized by short-lived governments, political scandals and weakening trust in the political system.
Also, unlike Finland, the Estonian democracy was far more parliamentarian while in Finland the powers of the parliament were balanced by a strong presidential institution. This difference is largely due to the different paths the two countries took in the years leading up to independence. While Estonian socialist revolutionaries had been expelled by the Germans before the War of Independence started, diminishing the civil war aspect of the conflict, in Finland the opposite was true: the revolutionaries began their mutiny against the owning class at the same time as the nationally minded activists were beginning their uprising against the Russian troops stationed in Finland. The White victors in Finland felt they had been betrayed by the social-radical forces and thus democracy was viewed somewhat suspiciously. In Estonia this was not the case. Not to mention that the political field was far more fluent in Estonia, for example the communists lost most of their support to the 'fascistoid' Vaps in 1934 municipal elections, especially in the cities, where they received 41% of all votes (48,6% in Tallinn, 47,8% in Tartu)
Disappointed with the chaotic political system and the short-lived governments, an authoritarian movement developed among the veterans of the War of Independence. They became organized and attracted much support. Their first main objective was to enact a new, far more authoritarian constitution that would give the head of state more power in relation to parliament, to halve the number of members of parliament and to remove party-politics by a first-past-the-post type of system. In the 1933 referendum, the Vaps proposal for a new constitution received overwhelimg approval, with 72,7% of the votes in favour, and with 77,9% of the electorate taking part in the referendum - despite the Vaps movement being officially banned by the government at the time. After the referendum, the Vaps began to take part in every election and to prepare for the first presidential elections that followed the new constitution, which were to be held in 1934. The Vaps presidential candidate was Andres Larka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Larka), although the intention among the leading circles of the Vaps movement was that Artur Sirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Sirk), who was to become prime minister, would become the true leader of the nation. In order for candidates to be approved, they had to gather the signatures of 10 000 supporters. In the end, the Vaps managed to collect more names in support of their candidate than the other parties and candidates combined.
However, Konstantin Päts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_P%C3%A4ts), a politician and a businessman (it is not always easy to seperate the two in the case of Päts), and leader of the temporary government, seized power by declaring a state of emergency and having the leaders of the Vaps movement arrested. He did this with the aid of General Laidoner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Laidoner), who would ensure the loyalty of the military, which was by no means beyond doubt. The state of emergency and the political suppression was justified with the protection of democracy, and allegations of an authoritarian take-over by the Vaps. However, there is no proof of such plans and the existence of such seems unlikely as they were about to achieve, if not an absolute majority in parliament, then at least a leading role in the formation of the government coupled with the possession of a strong presidential institution.
Now, the question we must ask ourselves is this: what would the Vapsid have done with their power? Would they have done what Päts accused them of planning to do, and then did himself? How would their potential take-over have affected the course of events in the following 10 years? Had they held on to power up to 1939/40, can we be certain that they would have rejected Soviet demands of military bases and "military co-operation" treaties? Does it seem likely that after having assumed power democratically, they would have established an authoritarian (if not totalitarian) state apparatus?
Also, somewhat related: how probable do you think it is that Sirk (who managed to escape arrest and flee to Finland) was murdered by agents of Päts' in Luxembourg?
I'll attempt to briefly but accurately paint the background of the political situation in Estonia leading up to Päts' "authoritarian democracy," while using the Finnish situation, which I'm more familiar with, as a comparison. Just in case people not so familiar with Estonian history want to take part in the ensuing speculation. ;)
The Estonian Vaps Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaps_Movement) was a 'fascistoid' and authoritarian movement in Estonia during the interbellum period. It shared many aspects with other similar European movements, even if it had developed in a specifically Estonian context. It had close contacts with a similar political movement in Finland, the Lapua movement, which became the political party IKL.
However, unlike the Lapua movement and IKL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_People%27s_Movement_(Finland)), who became sidelined after a failed attempt at a coup and the 'normalization' of Finnish politics (the social democrats and the agrarian party began to co-operate, forming stable governments), Estonian politics continued to be charactized by short-lived governments, political scandals and weakening trust in the political system.
Also, unlike Finland, the Estonian democracy was far more parliamentarian while in Finland the powers of the parliament were balanced by a strong presidential institution. This difference is largely due to the different paths the two countries took in the years leading up to independence. While Estonian socialist revolutionaries had been expelled by the Germans before the War of Independence started, diminishing the civil war aspect of the conflict, in Finland the opposite was true: the revolutionaries began their mutiny against the owning class at the same time as the nationally minded activists were beginning their uprising against the Russian troops stationed in Finland. The White victors in Finland felt they had been betrayed by the social-radical forces and thus democracy was viewed somewhat suspiciously. In Estonia this was not the case. Not to mention that the political field was far more fluent in Estonia, for example the communists lost most of their support to the 'fascistoid' Vaps in 1934 municipal elections, especially in the cities, where they received 41% of all votes (48,6% in Tallinn, 47,8% in Tartu)
Disappointed with the chaotic political system and the short-lived governments, an authoritarian movement developed among the veterans of the War of Independence. They became organized and attracted much support. Their first main objective was to enact a new, far more authoritarian constitution that would give the head of state more power in relation to parliament, to halve the number of members of parliament and to remove party-politics by a first-past-the-post type of system. In the 1933 referendum, the Vaps proposal for a new constitution received overwhelimg approval, with 72,7% of the votes in favour, and with 77,9% of the electorate taking part in the referendum - despite the Vaps movement being officially banned by the government at the time. After the referendum, the Vaps began to take part in every election and to prepare for the first presidential elections that followed the new constitution, which were to be held in 1934. The Vaps presidential candidate was Andres Larka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Larka), although the intention among the leading circles of the Vaps movement was that Artur Sirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Sirk), who was to become prime minister, would become the true leader of the nation. In order for candidates to be approved, they had to gather the signatures of 10 000 supporters. In the end, the Vaps managed to collect more names in support of their candidate than the other parties and candidates combined.
However, Konstantin Päts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_P%C3%A4ts), a politician and a businessman (it is not always easy to seperate the two in the case of Päts), and leader of the temporary government, seized power by declaring a state of emergency and having the leaders of the Vaps movement arrested. He did this with the aid of General Laidoner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Laidoner), who would ensure the loyalty of the military, which was by no means beyond doubt. The state of emergency and the political suppression was justified with the protection of democracy, and allegations of an authoritarian take-over by the Vaps. However, there is no proof of such plans and the existence of such seems unlikely as they were about to achieve, if not an absolute majority in parliament, then at least a leading role in the formation of the government coupled with the possession of a strong presidential institution.
Now, the question we must ask ourselves is this: what would the Vapsid have done with their power? Would they have done what Päts accused them of planning to do, and then did himself? How would their potential take-over have affected the course of events in the following 10 years? Had they held on to power up to 1939/40, can we be certain that they would have rejected Soviet demands of military bases and "military co-operation" treaties? Does it seem likely that after having assumed power democratically, they would have established an authoritarian (if not totalitarian) state apparatus?
Also, somewhat related: how probable do you think it is that Sirk (who managed to escape arrest and flee to Finland) was murdered by agents of Päts' in Luxembourg?