Autoritaarrežiimi areng Eestis aastatel 1934–1940: põhiseaduse ja kaitseseisukorra roll
Date
2024-05-27
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
1934. aastal toimus Eestis riigipea Konstantin Pätsi juhtimisel riigipööre, mille käigus lükati edasi valimised, peatati kodanike põhisõiguste kehtimine ning likvideeriti Eesti Vabadussõjalaste Liit.
Käesolev doktoritöö uurib, milliste seaduste alusel viidi riigipööre läbi ning funktsioneeris selle tulemusena loodud ebademokraatlik valitsemiskorraldus. Samuti uuritakse siin resideerinud välisriikide diplomaatide seisukohti alates 1934. aastast Eestis toimunud pöördeliste sündmuste kohta ja sedagi, kuidas kirjeldati 1930. aastate sündmusi paguluses.
Kuigi vabadussõjalasi on süüdistatud selles, et nende koostatud 1933. aasta põhiseadus, millega loodi väga suure võimuga riigivanema ametikoht, võimaldas Pätsil teostada riigipöörde ja valitseda autoritaarselt, ei ole see korrektne. Nagu doktoritöös selgitatakse, oleks samasuguse pöörde saanud läbi viia ka 1920. aasta põhiseaduse alusel. Kuigi kaitseseisukord kehtestati vabadussõjalaste ohuga hirmutades, ei ole ajaloolased seni leidnud selle kohta tõendeid. Seega teostas Päts mitmeid seadusi rikkudes riigipöörde ja likvideeris demokraatia kartusest kaotada demokraatlike valimiste tagajärjel võimu. Eestis resideerinud välisriikide diplomaadid said sellest samamoodi aru.
1936.-1937. aastal võeti Pätsi initsiatiivil ette järjekordne põhiseaduse muutmine, mille käigus rikuti oluliselt kehtivaid seadusi. Uue põhiseaduse kehtima hakkamise järel 1. jaanuaril 1938 demokraatiat ei taastatud: kuni Nõukogude okupatsiooni alguseni kehtis kaitseseisukord, erakondade tegevus oli keelatud ning ajakirjandus vaigistatud. Kaitseseisukord tegi Nõukogude Liidu survel 1940. aasta juunis ametisse nimetatud Johannes Varese nukuvalitsusel kergemaks Eesti iseseisvuse likvideerimise.
Paguluses valitses suhtumises kirjeldatud sündmustesse kaks vastandlikku seisukohta. Ajakirjanduses ja populaarteaduslikes töödes kiideti Pätsi tegevus heaks ning süüdistati teisiti arvajaid vabadusvõitluse huvide eiramises. Alates 1960. aastatest avaldatud teaduslike käsitluste seisukohad ühtivad suuresti käesoleva doktoritöö järeldustega.
A coup d’état led by Konstantin Päts, the head of state, was launched in Estonia in 1934, during which elections were postponed, fundamental rights were suspended and the League of Veterans of the War of Independence was disbanded. This doctoral thesis examines the laws underlying the coup and the resulting undemocratic system of governance. It also studies the views of resident foreign diplomats on the pivotal events in Estonia from 1934 onwards, and how these events were later described in exile. Although the League of Veterans has been accused that the 1933 Constitution drafted by them, creating the powerful position of the State Elder, enabled Päts to stage the coup and rule in an authoritarian manner, these claims are incorrect. As explained in the thesis, a similar coup could have been carried out under the 1920 Constitution. The state of emergency was declared on the pretext of a threat posed by the League of Veterans but no evidence about such threat has been found. Thus, Päts carried out the coup in violation of several laws and shut down democracy in fear of losing power as a result of democratic elections. On Päts’s initiative, another process of amending the Constitution was launched in 1936–1937, with substantial violations of the applicable laws. Democracy was not restored after the new Constitution took force on 1 January 1938: the state of emergency continued until the Soviet occupation; the activities of political parties were prohibited, and the press was silenced. The state of emergency facilitated the liquidation of Estonia’s independence by Johannes Vares’s puppet government, inaugurated in June 1940 under pressure from the Soviet Union. Two opposing views on those events prevailed among Estonians in exile. Päts’s actions were approved by the press and in popular scientific works, accusing dissenters of ignoring the interests of the struggle for Estonia’s independence. Views expressed in scholarly accounts published since the 1960s largely coincide with the conclusions of this thesis.
A coup d’état led by Konstantin Päts, the head of state, was launched in Estonia in 1934, during which elections were postponed, fundamental rights were suspended and the League of Veterans of the War of Independence was disbanded. This doctoral thesis examines the laws underlying the coup and the resulting undemocratic system of governance. It also studies the views of resident foreign diplomats on the pivotal events in Estonia from 1934 onwards, and how these events were later described in exile. Although the League of Veterans has been accused that the 1933 Constitution drafted by them, creating the powerful position of the State Elder, enabled Päts to stage the coup and rule in an authoritarian manner, these claims are incorrect. As explained in the thesis, a similar coup could have been carried out under the 1920 Constitution. The state of emergency was declared on the pretext of a threat posed by the League of Veterans but no evidence about such threat has been found. Thus, Päts carried out the coup in violation of several laws and shut down democracy in fear of losing power as a result of democratic elections. On Päts’s initiative, another process of amending the Constitution was launched in 1936–1937, with substantial violations of the applicable laws. Democracy was not restored after the new Constitution took force on 1 January 1938: the state of emergency continued until the Soviet occupation; the activities of political parties were prohibited, and the press was silenced. The state of emergency facilitated the liquidation of Estonia’s independence by Johannes Vares’s puppet government, inaugurated in June 1940 under pressure from the Soviet Union. Two opposing views on those events prevailed among Estonians in exile. Päts’s actions were approved by the press and in popular scientific works, accusing dissenters of ignoring the interests of the struggle for Estonia’s independence. Views expressed in scholarly accounts published since the 1960s largely coincide with the conclusions of this thesis.
Description
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone