Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi came up to Kaja Kallas and said that it seems she used to be a damn good lawyer.


"I wasn't exactly bad," Kallas laughed back, "but I'm not sure I'm as good a politician."

Last night, Kallas had spent hours at a marathon European Council meeting arguing against a plan by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron to hold a European Union-Russia summit. While Estonia had supporters in this opposition, they were mostly silent or left the room at the crucial moment. The debate was passionate.

Kallas stood her ground. Merkel and Macron gave in.

Draghi's statement was meant as a sincere acknowledgement of a courageous, tenacious and reasoned performance. It was shared by several other heads of state.

In Estonia, however, more and more people tend to agree with the other side of the Kallas argument. There is widespread criticism of the government and of Kallas's leadership skills and abilities. There is outrage among those who have not vaccinated themselves against the coronavirus, but also among those who believe that the former have been treated unacceptably leniently, allowed to sit on the government's head.

The biggest cudgel was pulled by Kallas's predecessor and party colleague, Andrus Ansip, who essentially called for Kaja Kallas to be replaced as leader of the party and the government.


The discontent shows how the corona crisis completely defines the assessment of the government. If the corona situation gets worse, the resentment will be high. If it gets better, the government will have breathing space.

There are three major lines of criticism that shape the reputation of the government and its leader.

Firstly, vaccination has failed badly. Although in half a year nearly 830 000 people in Estonia have received injections, which is probably more than anyone would have dared to predict a year ago, we are among the last in the European Union. It is hard to argue with that.

The other main criticism is the meme 'the government has twice in one year put Estonia at the top of the world in terms of infection rates'. It was repeated by Ansip, it was emphasised by Kristen Michal, who has positioned herself as an internal critic within the party, it is repeated at every opportunity by opposition politicians and the press. This criticism is cutting, because it feeds Estonians' eternal fear of their own reputation, their fear of disgrace. "The 'blot' is said to be attached.


A bit of context would be useful here.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the world's absolute number one spot for coronavirus infection has passed from one country to another 89 times. In total, 36 countries have had the world's highest incidence at different points in time. These include 11 EU countries, from both the East and the West: Belgium, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Slovakia, Ireland, Portugal, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Slovenia. Do they all now have a "stain on their reputation"?

Many European countries have been in first place 3, 4 or 5 times. Slovakia, which still tops the world's infection 'league table' today, is there for the sixth time.

There are 27 countries that have been at the top of this gloomy table at least twice! Of these, 7 are from the European Union.

Indeed, for a few days three weeks ago, Estonia was back on top. Today we are in 28th place, with 16 EU countries ahead of us.

So there's nothing special about a big outbreak - especially for a small country - taking you to the top of the table for a while. What clearly distinguishes Estonia is the very modest restrictions that have been in place throughout the pandemic. Certainly among the most relaxed in Europe.

The third major criticism cuts deeply into Reform Party support because, as Kristen Michal said recently, the image of the squirrels as decision-makers and capable managers has been lost in the crisis. This, however, is an important part of the brand of the party that leads the government.

What is at the root of this criticism that gives rise to it?

The Ekspress started writing about the government's leadership a month and a half ago, when the black chorus indicators were skyrocketing and there was not a glimmer of light in the tunnel.

In the run-up to the local elections, the government's substantive decision-making was locked. Tanel Kiik, the Minister of Health and Labour, who has become a symbol of government ineptitude, ignored warning trends and the Scientific Advisory Council's assessment, and declared publicly: we are heading for the end of the pandemic.

The Ekspress accompanied Kaja Kallas as a working guest on an unusually busy Tuesday. We spoke to a large number of people who see first-hand the work of the government and how Prime Minister Kaja Kallas's government works. We sought out sources who have seen the work of several governments up close.


We interviewed Kallas herself and her closest team members several times.

HOW DOES KALLAS RUN ESTONIA?
The Prime Minister's day usually starts at 5.30. Then she starts reading the materials prepared for the day. Kallas is a paper woman, a woman of the written word. That's where she grabs information.

The top government official approves: In Kallas's case, you can be sure she has read all the memos. In meetings, she can therefore get down to business immediately. By way of comparison: under Jüri Ratas, meetings often had to start from scratch because the prime minister had not had time to prepare.


SITDOWN WITH PRESIDENT BIDEN: Only 3 heads of state - organiser Boris Johnson (UK), President Emmanuel Macron (France) and Prime Minister Kaja Kallas (Estonia) - had a formal four-way meeting with US President Joe Biden. After that, the rush was on for Kaja Kallas, with everyone also wanting to meet her. But the life of a superstar is not easy. Kallas had to ask her team to quickly google the people to make sure they weren't war criminals or corrupt.
The Prime Minister will go to work at the Stenbock House at around 7.30am, where she will continue reading until the morning meetings.
The Prime Minister has a busy day, filled to the minute. Time to switch from one subject to another is extremely short, usually a few minutes. Even then, Kallas mostly spends reading.

Ratas, by way of comparison, used this time to talk to people. His uninterrupted pace of work gave birth to legends.

In theory, of course, you know all this, but it is only when you look at it from the sidelines that you really realise how fast and intense it all is. The answer to simple questions like when does the Prime Minister eat is: how ever. When that moment of a few minutes arises, maybe you go and grab something. If not, you don't.

There's no time to read the news during the day. What the Prime Minister needs to know is briefly briefed on the run.

The Prime Minister does not have time to read the papers. Only a little and on Saturdays (she reads the Express and the LP).

Virtual meetings have made things a bit easier. There is less rushing from one place to another. Kaja Kallas tucks a few thick books under her laptop, so the camera is at eye level, and starts the meeting.

A journalist watches the prime minister's posture during meetings. Kallas is focused, never once swaying, never leaning back.

Even if some meetings - such as the one that day with the heads of the municipalities of South Estonia - drive the journalist crazy. During the meeting, the mayors praise and thank their team, their helpers, their crisis workers, their doctors. There is no discussion, no new information.


Kallas listens intently. However, her speech is too rounded for a journalist's ear. Kallas talks around the corner about how they can do more themselves. There will be no nationwide closures because of local indicators, as the mayor of the municipality of Põlva, Georg Pelisaar, has publicly called for.

Why so cautiously, we'll ask later.

"Kaja had already spoken to Pelisaari in a sharper tone a couple of days earlier, apparently not wanting to start criticising again in front of others," explains the Prime Minister's office.

CHANGED GOVERNMENT MEETINGS
All sources confirm: Under Kallas, government meetings are very concrete, businesslike. Kallas's meetings are much more concrete, concrete, concrete and much shorter than under Ratas or Ansip, for example.

Under Taavi Rõivas, the sessions were also shorter, but less substantive. Rõivas seemed to be superficial, he was up to his nose in his phone and seemed to be in a hurry to leave. The impression was that he wanted to go home or for a run.

Kallas, on the other hand, is methodical, thoroughly clear on the issues and carefully focused. There is no other way to talk. At times, it has even seemed like over-stretching to an onlooker.

For example, in the debate on corporate tax, the outgoing Environment Minister Tõnis Mölder wanted to talk about taxes in a broader sense. Kallas stopped him: "We're not discussing it now! We are not talking about it!" Mölder: "But I ..." Kallas: "We are not discussing it!" Mölder then complained that if you can't talk about taxes in government, where else can you talk about it.

When Ansip was in office, the sessions were very long. As an official, you could sometimes wait for hours at the door when your point came up. During his time, there were also general political and ideological debates and disputes in the cabinet. These have largely disappeared under later governments.

When Ansip needed to push something through, he would take off his jacket in the tiny cabinet room and simply 'talk people to death'. A pinch of oxygen in the stuffy cabinet helped break the last resistance. It was characteristic of Ansip that he had a decision ready before he tried to push it through.

Other prime ministers have allowed decisions to emerge more in debate.

Under Mr Ratas, the sittings became mega-long again. There was a great deal of detail, everyone had their say. To onlookers it often seemed that the government was going micro and not dealing with strategic issues as it should.

It was the level of operational management that interested and attracted Ratas. That's why, when speaking to the Ekspress, he offered that vaccination might have progressed faster under his leadership - the task of where the vaccine doses are, who moves them to another place, who lifts them into the car, who injects, would have sat with Ratas.

One of the differences between Kallas and Ratas is that in the cabinet disputes, Kallas participates in substance, she has his own preference, which she argues and argues with others fiercely in support of. Ratas didn't do that, he was an independent arbiter. He gave everyone a say and listened.

Kallas's sessions are emphatically businesslike. The members of the government we spoke to could not recall any jokes being made.

TREATMENT OF OFFICIALS
Prime Minister Ratas may have had bad things to say to officials at a cabinet meeting. This was particularly the case during his second government. An official who had visited the government frequently under four different prime ministers recalls that he sometimes had a 'shit taste in his mouth when he had to go to the cabinet, because you knew in advance that you were going to be told bad things'.

Kallas has never done that. She has been sharp or abrupt with members of the government in some cases, but never with government officials. But that does not mean, according to top officials, that Kallas is not demanding in terms of preparation. She does not tolerate a lazy "it's OK" attitude.

Ratas once expelled Kaur Kajaku, head of the Consumer Protection and Technical Supervision Authority, from a government meeting because he could not explain to the government how exactly to sew a protective mask at home. Ratas expelled Kajaku and demanded that he get this "important" information within two hours. And it was, i.e. googled and demonstrated.

At the same time, Ratas communicated a great deal with officials, often over ministers' heads. He did not like intermediaries and called directly the officials in charge in the various ministries. When the budget was being prepared, Ratas called the Deputy Chancellor for Budget Policy, not Minister Martin Helme.

Kaja Kallas is more systematic on this issue, delegates much more, and uses formal channels of communication.


Which style is better? A matter of taste. Short-term success, especially in a crisis, can probably be achieved in the Ratas way, by putting the authority of the prime minister at stake and communicating directly with those who do the doing. In the long term, the Kallas method is more effective: everyone feels responsible for their own area and is encouraged to think for themselves.

SELF-ASSERTION
The government has been criticised for not being able to decide, but for always debating. And for Kallas not imposing himself on Centre Party ministers by allowing herself to be ridiculed in public.

On the day, when Ekspress follows the government session, another dynamic is apparent, confirmed in background interviews by both Reform and Centre Party ministers - there is a good atmosphere of cooperation in the government, solutions are being sought together.

The Reform Party members praise several ministers of the coalition partner, especially Jaak Aab, who is doing a very hard and effective job in uniting the government and the Centre Party (read: Jüri Ratas).

Perhaps the government's mood was also influenced by the fact that our observation coincided with a day when the curve of coronagraphs that had been swooping into the Estonian sky was turning sharply downwards and when the more difficult decisions on restrictions had been made and were starting to work?

As one senior Estonian official points out, the government has even been unfairly criticised because they now have a pretty clear-cut corona policy that works. And many of the solutions that have worked - actually requiring a vaccine passport, enforcing existing restrictions, focusing on supporting the medical system, keeping schools open and testing, motivational interviewing of vaccine hesitants - Kaja Kallas has played a very big role in putting them in place.

Another top independent official stresses: Kallas's view on the corona crisis is clear and correct. However, it has sometimes taken her too long to establish herself in government parties (including her own) and in disputes with the Scientific Council.

The way to impose is mostly for Kallas to insist on arguments or a workable plan. Demands that the arguments be based on something. And does so as long as it is clear to all whether the dissenter has or does not have those arguments.


For example, this became apparent when the Centre Party wanted to distribute money to elderly vaccinators. Counsellor Ardo Hansson had found several studies confirming that this measure would not work. The Lithuanian Prime Minister warned against the same. The Centre Party's argument - we will try it because we have a feeling that it could work - did not hold water in this context.


Officials recall to Ekspress how Kallas has several times sent back the management of Eesti Energia, because they have, in his opinion, come poorly prepared, with old data or tried to talk about something else than what was agreed in advance.

"I am so terribly disturbed by how they underestimate the government," says Kallas.

A PROBLEM CALLED TANEL KIIK
Ekspress is told how Tanel Kiige's resignation letter was written long ago, he just hasn't taken it to Kadriorg yet. Kallas refutes this story.

When Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš finally replaced his health minister after a long period of hesitation, things in Latvia did not improve. It soon got much worse.

Kaja Kallas fears the same and stresses: "Tanel as a member of the cabinet is very valuable. He thinks for himself, he is very substantive and constructive on all issues, he is reasonable, thorough, works through the material. I certainly wouldn't want to lose him as a member of the cabinet."

As a leader, however, Kiik has proved to be a micro-manager. Everything is concentrated in his hands and stands there. However, those who have witnessed the management of the coronary crisis confirm that the new leadership of the Ministry of Social Affairs is much freer from the previous attitude that nothing can be done because ... it just can't be done.

An anecdote is circulating in the crisis cabinet: "What was the previous Chancellor Marika Priske fired for?". She didn't do anything!"

Anyway, the voices critical of Kiige in the Reform Party also say: it's already too late to fire anyone. The government's only hope now is that we don't get a fourth wave coming our way, otherwise the government won't be able to do anything of substance.


WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT'S BIG POLICY?
Liina Kersna, Minister of Education and Research, recalls: "You understand, it was like a kind of therapy!" The story is about how, in the midst of the crisis, Liina Kersna brought a draft reform of doctoral studies to the Riigikogu. "I was able to deal with the real substance, otherwise 98% of the time you have to deal with the crisis and the logistics of tests."

Gerrit Mäesalu, head of the Prime Minister's Office, says the same. The whole government's mandate has been a permanent crisis.

"Things that once seemed important seem completely insignificant in these crises. For example, we put together the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Defense fleets, an issue that had been stagnant for ten years. In normal times it would have been a big deal, but now it's more a question of whether it will get more attention than a press release."

Against this backdrop, however, the government fails to show that they are somehow moving Estonian life forward. Perhaps there are very few substantive policy decisions and, what's more, they are not talked about publicly at all.

Toomas Mattson, a journalist and adviser to the Auditor General, recently pointed out that one of the government's most weighty decisions - the government's response to the European Commission's 'Fit for 55' green turnaround plan - was discussed for exactly 10 seconds at a government press conference. "Among other things, we decided Estonia's position on the 'Fit for 55' climate package," were the Prime Minister's words. All.

Although the decision, as has been said, was a very weighty one. The supplementary budget for the spring, the smooth and timely preparation of next year's national budget, the decision to use the nearly one billion euros of the European Restoration Fund, the future of the green turnaround - all these fly under the public radar.

What are the various ministers in government doing, apart from attending coronary debates and press conferences? What do they think about the issues that matter to people? What are they fighting for? We don't know.

NO POLITICAL WOLVES IN GOVERNMENT
Many conversations confirm that the image of Kaja Kallas as a weak, indecisive leader is not true. Even her rivals do not hold this against her.


Kaja Kallas has still not become a politician at heart, despite years at the top of the party. She has a weak political instinct or sense of a certain kind. Or is she ashamed to use it?

When we finally meet her in her office in Stenbock House after weeks of fitting in schedules, it is a strange journalistic experience.

Kallas talks about her thoughts, her dealings, her difficulties, her quarrels and her successes with a completely open mind. In today's media space, which feeds on contradictions and squeezes you like the last lemon in the world with the help of mutual invective, Kallas is taking a big risk.

She speaks frankly about what he thinks of the background to Andrus Ansip's criticism, how government ministers get on and work, how the leaders of Eesti Energia belittle the government, her international experiences and meetings, the internal problems of the Reform Party, her own great success at the Glasgow climate conference, how hard it has been to find a speechwriter who captures her style and mindset, how she has sometimes had to break ranks with the scientific advisory council.

You could make a whole heap of 'news' (and real news too) out of his talk, ask for impassioned reactions from those involved, feed a fiery click-fire.

After 40 minutes or so, she realises he's been very frank and asks what we're doing this story about. Worries briefly that she might get into a lot of trouble for this. And then goes on in exactly the same way.

By way of comparison, the same sofa in the same cabinet reminds me of a sofa on which Prime Minister Jüri Ratas was once asked a lot of questions about the Centre Party and the internal life of the government. Without a single soundbite that could be even partially called a concrete answer. Ratas was cautious, ironic, trying to twist every question into a pretext for putting on his usual political record.

The difference is that Ratas is first and foremost a politician and a strong political technologist who only delivers calculated messages. Kallas is not at all. She answers - dangerously for herself - directly to the question that is asked. Hence the searching and sometimes seemingly uncertain tone of his interviews.


This is confirmed by many top officials and government colleagues - Kallas is herself in public. She has the same style in the office, on TV, in interviews. By way of comparison, Ratas constantly changed his mannerisms and speaking style according to the context.

Liina Kersna says that Kaja Kallas's feet never "get off the ground" and that she does not manipulate politically, citing this as Kallas's great strength. Remaining human in the midst of politics is very rare.

At the same time, it is also her main weakness. In terms of political technology, or in terms of framing the public debate to suit themselves, Kallas, the Reform Party and now the government are clearly below their competitors. Not in the content of policy, not in the speed of decision-making, but in the way it is made to appear.

It is an open secret, admitted by many in the Centre Party, that Jüri Ratas is not necessarily interested in the success of this government. This means that there is not much support to be expected from there in the future.

THE PARTY DOES NOT SUPPORT
The Reform Party's former and some of its current leading figures admit: exactly one minister - Keit Pentus-Rosimannus - has a strong political instinct and a capacity for political thinking. The others have zero.

Andres Sutt, Maris Lauri, Signe Riisalo - none of them work intensively to raise their own or their party's visibility and bring their major decisions to the public. Although they are highly respected. Liina Kersna knows how to be personally visible and convincing, but this does not translate into the party and the government.

Ekspress is reminded of how, during the first government of Taavi Rõivas, Michal used to call new ministers and shout in their faces when nothing was heard from them every week. Even tearful ministers have been seen "on the house" because of this. Time went by, and things got done - gradually their work started to be talked about.

There is very little party support for the government's substantive work and messaging, with a large part of the parliamentary group either busy running their own committees or just holed up in a nice spot.

NO BACKROOM!
Erkki Keldo, General Secretary of the Reform Party, admits that many in the party are still not used to Kaja Kallas' style of wanting to discuss the substance of policies and important decisions with them and expecting them to come up with solutions. Rather, they expect ready-made decisions.


In the past, this work was done by the 'backbenchers' supporting the party leaders. This is where key decisions were agreed, coordination with coalition partners, communication agreed, public debate channelled. Sometimes extremely cynically. It cannot be denied that at one point, it seriously got on many people's nerves.

Estonian politics no longer has the strong backbenches - the politically-minded support teams for party leaders - that it had 7-8 years ago.

If the party leaders themselves live and breathe the political fray, if they see politics as a battlefield, then they have no great shortage of back rooms.

But Kaja Kallas, who is a different kind of leader, is unable to dominate in today's very fierce public space.

She is very strong and shines on the international stage. She also enjoys it herself, making Estonia visible, she has very good and high-level contacts in countries and organisations that are important for us.

Shortly after the June European Council, Angela Merkel phoned and apologised to Kallas and to Estonia - Kallas was right. Coming up with such a plan without consulting her allies first was a mistake, Merkel admitted.

In Estonia, however, Kallas hasn't been hit so hard. It is harder at home. And yet the changes needed to do so are entirely up to him.