Talk:Juhan Parts

Untitled

He resigned today.

new Res Publica party, an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

If the party is ideology-free, how can it be right/center? I think the characterizations are dubious. They should be more detailed to be verifiable. Anyway, I think their place is in the article about the party. Andres 09:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Parts and Res Publica are linked; it makes no sense to pretend institutionalization here. It is also key to characterize Parts as technocratic; incidentally, in political science and encyclopedia parlance, that is not a pejorative term. All reputable political scientists on Estonia (although there are very few around anyway, both inside and outside Estonia) agree that Res Publica does not have an ideology; if this is argued, it should be put forth what the ideology could possibly be. There is hardly any detailed study on the party, so it's difficult to be more detailed here at this moment. The current version states that Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Moodukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond), not that it is right/center in ideology. The latter fact has never been debated by a single political scientist discussing this matter. Thus, the criticism by Andres appears driven less by the wish for objectivization (to the extend that this is possible and/or desirable in such matters) than by dissatisfaction with an objective judgment. What is possible, of course, is to have an entry on Res Publica as soon as someone manages to write one. Clossius

an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

Clossius, I think that this is an issue of fact, and I don't think it takes a reputable political scientist to solve it. I don't criticize judgment, and my concern here is not objectivity of asssessment but factual correctness.

On June 1, 2003, the party had approximately 4 100 members, 10% of them were under 20, 34% were 20 to 29. I don't know how many of them were administrators [1]. My conclusion is that the statement in the article is false, at least for that date. Therefore, further evidence is needed if you dispute this data. Or else, if I misinterpreted you then probably a more precise formulation is needed. In the government there are some under 30 administrators. Maybe this is what is meant? Then this should be reformulated.

I am sorry that I misread your statement about the majority among the right/center parties. Perhaps it should be reformulated. Don't you think it's ambigous? That Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Mõõdukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond) is obvious enough for me. As to the ideology, see [2] for what the party presents as its ideology. Of course, political scientists may say that this is not to be taken seriously. I think that such opinions should be attributed. Anyway, I think it is important to make clear that the party itself doesn't hold it has no ideology.

As much as I understand, "technocratic" is a label for lack of ideology. I think Res Publica is not technocratic because it states its own ideology. In fact, there was a party in Estonianew Res Publica party, an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

If the party is ideology-free, how can it be right/center? I think the characterizations are dubious. They should be more detailed to be verifiable. Anyway, I think their place is in the article about the party. Andres 09:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Parts and Res Publica are linked; it makes no sense to pretend institutionalization here. It is also key to characterize Parts as technocratic; incidentally, in political science and encyclopedia parlance, that is not a pejorative term. All reputable political scientists on Estonia (although there are very few around anyway, both inside and outside Estonia) agree that Res Publica does not have an ideology; if this is argued, it should be put forth what the ideology could possibly be. There is hardly any detailed study on the party, so it's difficult to be more detailed here at this moment. The current version states that Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Moodukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond), not that it is right/center in ideology. The latter fact has never been debated by a single political scientist discussing this matter. Thus, the criticism by Andres appears driven less by the wish for objectivization (to the extend that this is possible and/or desirable in such matters) than by dissatisfaction with an objective judgment. What is possible, of course, is to have an entry on Res Publica as soon as someone manages to write one. Clossius

an ideology-free, technocratic party of mostly under-30 administrators, that party surprisingly gained a majority among the right/center parties,

Clossius, I think that this is an issue of fact, and I don't think it takes a reputable political scientist to solve it. I don't criticize judgment, and my concern here is not objectivity of asssessment but factual correctness.

On June 1, 2003, the party had approximately 4 100 members, 10% of them were under 20, 34% were 20 to 29. I don't know how many of them were administrators [3]. My conclusion is that the statement in the article is false, at least for that date. Therefore, further evidence is needed if you dispute this data. Or else, if I misinterpreted you then probably a more precise formulation is needed. In the government there are some under 30 administrators. Maybe this is what is meant? Then this should be reformulated.

I am sorry that I misread your statement about the majority among the right/center parties. Perhaps it should be reformulated. Don't you think it's ambigous? That Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Mõõdukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond) is obvious enough for me. As to the ideology, see [4] for what the party presents as its ideology. Of course, political scientists may say that this is not to be taken seriously. I think that such opinions should be attributed. Anyway, I think it is important to make clear that the party itself doesn't hold it has no ideology.

As much as I understand, "technocratic" is a label for lack of ideology. I think Res Publica is not technocratic because it states its own ideology. In fact, there was a party in Estonia that could be labeled as technocratic: Koonderakond. Res Publica could probably with some justice called populist, but not technocratic (this is just my opinion).

For whom was the victory of Res Publica a surprise? I think not for its voters. For political scientists? Then perhaps their theories were inadequate? Or did it contradict the polls? I don't think so but this can be checked. This seems to be a point of view. If you insist that this was a surprise then please make it clearer. Still, probably you mean that it was a surprise that a party without ideology took the votes that used to go to parties with ideologies.

There is a (stub) entry on Res Publica, as you state in your first sentence (if I don't misinterpret it). Or I don't understand your last sentence. I don't want to write much because it takes too much research to get an objective assessment. I don't understand what do you mean by institutionalization.

You are probably right that the stuff on the party belongs here.

Who are the reputable political scientists on Estonia? Can you quote them? Andres 02:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some answers, although I do not know how much this makes sense:

On June 1, 2003, the party had approximately 4 100 members, 10% of them were under 20, 34% were 20 to 29. I don't know how many of them were administrators [5]. My conclusion is that the statement in the article is false, at least for that date. Therefore, further evidence is needed if you dispute this data. Or else, if I misinterpreted you then probably a more precise formulation is needed. In the government there are some under 30 administrators. Maybe this is what is meant? Then this should be reformulated.

A party has members, but it is of course made up by another group. In the case of Res Publica, it is fairly clear who the 4-5, or if you will 10-12, leading figures who founded the party and still continue to dominate it. I think that of these, at least 75% are under-30 administrators (or were the latter until they got into political office proper).

In the board (eestseisus) 7 members of 23 are under 30. My personal opinion is that party's dominant members are Juhan Parts, Urmas Reinsalu, Ken-Marti Vaher, Olari Taal and Tõnis Palts. Reinsalu and Vaher are under 30 administrators (not for long anyway). Among other prominent members Indrek Raudne and Taavi Veskimägi could be cited. I know no more. My proposal is something like that: the key figures of the party conspicuously include under 30 administrators. I suspect the real power is represented by Olari Taal and partly Tõnis Palts. This seems to be the reason why the party has changed.

By the way, Res Publica was attractive for very idealistic people too (Anzari Barkalaja, Ülo Vooglaid, Avo Üprus). Barkalaja and Vooglaid have expressed their discontent. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry that I misread your statement about the majority among the right/center parties. Perhaps it should be reformulated. Don't you think it's ambigous? That Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block (Mõõdukad, Isamaaliit, Reformierakond) is obvious enough for me.

I don't think the statement is ambiguous in the current context, but it can of course be improved. In the Wikipedia, much can be improved and fleshed out. My proposal is to write like that: Res Publica took its votes from the right/center block.

As to the ideology, see [6] for what the party presents as its ideology. Of course, political scientists may say that this is not to be taken seriously. I think that such opinions should be attributed. Anyway, I think it is important to make clear that the party itself doesn't hold it has no ideology.

This is actually indeed a famous and fascinating resource, because it is probably the only governing party in Europe that uses the word "ideology" about itself, as in the general discourse, that is a pejorative term. But indeed, what is listed here are non-ideological features. In an encyclopedia, one has to hold to certain technical-professional standards, and as regards parties, that would obviously be political science. In this context (as well as in history as a scholarly discipline), ideology has a very clear meaning - it means a certain world view, not some points of principle. I would be interested to hear what substantive ideology Res Publica actually does have.

As much as I understand, "technocratic" is a label for lack of ideology. I think Res Publica is not technocratic because it states its own ideology. In fact, there was a party in Estonia that could be labeled as technocratic: Koonderakond. Res Publica could probably with some justice called populist, but not technocratic (this is just my opinion).

Several issues here. Again, for short statements for an encyclopedia in the making like this, short statements are fine. I don't think attribution to political scientists is needed or indeed common, even with finished ones; there is a communis opinio, and clearly footnotery is for scientific articles and not for this space. Then, technocratic means problem-solving; that is clearly focus and aim of Res Publica. Further, to some extent Res Publica is indeed populist, but the really populist party in Estonia is of course Keskerakond. Finally, it is not up to a party to say whether they are ideological or not; this is why it needs the outside perspective. In a scholarly article, or a longer one in such an encyclopedia, it might be worth pointing out that the website referred to above does exist.

My proposal is to write like that: according to the consensus of reputable political scientists of Estonia Res Publica has no ideology though it states its "ideology" on its homepage [7]. Make sure that the article ideology means the same that you mean. Else you should explain. "Technocratic" too needs a link. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For whom was the victory of Res Publica a surprise? I think not for its voters. For political scientists? Then perhaps their theories were inadequate? Or did it contradict the polls? I don't think so but this can be checked. This seems to be a point of view. If you insist that this was a surprise then please make it clearer. Still, probably you mean that it was a surprise that a party without ideology took the votes that used to go to parties with ideologies.

It was not a surprise that Res Publica received fairly many votes as far as the polling was concerned, although this kind of polling has to be taken with a grain of salt in Estonia (EMOR, Saar etc. all have their problems). The surprise is that they were actually winning.

So, it must have been surprising under some presuppositions. Which ones? Perhaps: surprisingly this technocratic party tool its votes from the right/center party. Though it is not surprising that a party of the "unbribable" promising a "new politics" should win. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who are the reputable political scientists on Estonia? Can you quote them?

The leading one, Taagepera, is obviously biased, as he was used as the Res Publica figure-head in the party's beginning phase. I would assume, though, that he by now agrees with the "technocrat" label. If with "reputable" we mean people who publish in serious scientific journals about these matters, be it on the side or focussing on them, I would probably mention Vello Pettai, Wolfgang Drechsler, and Rainer Kattel (there are others of course as well). I think all three of them would agree with the "technocratic" label for Res Publica and/or have used it it writing. But for myself as well, I agree with you that the effort that has gone into this discussion is already unpoportional for the result and really a waste of efforts, so if you want to take the - in my opinion appropriate and necessary - descriptions of Res Publica and/or Parts out, so be it. It would be sad, though, inasmuch as bold, thumbnail-sketch like statements done with broad brush-strokes are the only way how non-experts can get a quick impression about an unknown party or political figure and place them in their context. Clossius

Taagepera has grown critical of the party, as much as I know.

I don't want to have your characterization of the party omitted, I just want it to be more detailed and less ambiguous. Formulations that might be clear enough for experts need not be so for the general reader. However, perhaps a more appropriate place for more detailed and substantiated characterization is the article about the party because here it is not proportinate (though of course much more could be written about him). Nevertheless, let me propose a new version of the passage (proposals see above, inserted in your text; I am not integrating them yet).

Would you add necessary corrections when I sketch an impressionistic overview of the party in its own article?

I don't think efforts are wasted if the result is good.

Wikipedia is still in its initial phase, and what is extant, is not the ideal. References are encouraged by WP's "official" policy. You could have the same article in different degrees of depth: with an overview at the beginning and a subsequent detailed account.

In Wiki much could be improved, but this does not mean that we shouldn't try our best.

For signing your user name and the date just use four times the sign ~. Andres 09:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry, I got in an edit conflict, and I didn't get what was your recent change. And some text is doubled now. Andres 09:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I really don't want to spend too much effort on characterizing Res Publica , seeing that the leaders (indeed Parts, Reinsalu, Veskimägi, Vaher; not Palts and certainly not Taal!) haven't even done this themselves. :-) Again, I really think short charcterizations are both necessary and appropriate, and I think in politics they necessarily entail judgments and/or generalizations. But do with it whatever you wish - I am not up for a fight here (nor for the famous discussion of the objectivization problem in Estonia, or the one on the problem with scientific representation of Estonian matters). Thanks for the quadruple tilde hint! Clossius 12:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to fight you, I just am aiming a consensus and collaboration with you as I think you are knowledgeable and can make very valuable contributions. This is why I didn't go on to edit. Andres 12:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All the better, as I'm at least intending to do a few more EE entries. But you are genuinely welcome to change the piece now as you see fit; if I would phrase it differently, I can amend (and if appropriate explain) it. I think this is what wiki is for, and I actually like that. Clossius

16:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for newbie formatting but I think this is important link about this man to be considered to be included.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/12/08/opinion/20041208_ESTONIA_VIDEO.html 

---

I changed some of the recent changes back. Res Publica is not conservative, and to call it anti-bureaucratic is completely wrong; this is (see above) largely a party of young buraucrats, and their reform initiatives are completely buraucratic and only geared against a certain school of public administration. Clossius 12:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)