There are several approaches to the study of socio-economic problems of societal development. We can speak about macroeconomic analysis that looks at the society through the prism of global processes. We can speak about concrete economic models that look at these or other aspects of socio-economic life. We can speak about traditional forms of management diagnosis that focus on the level of a concrete collective or a firm and so on. On the whole, there is something common that unites these approaches: they are quantitative methods built on the law of large numbers. These methods make it possible to study tendencies and ways of development at different levels of society. It has been argued that one cannot understand the reasons for socio-economic problems in all their depth using these methods since there is no qualitative analysis of cause and effect connections. In our opinion, the method of "Oral Histories" helps us to fill this gap and gives a fuller idea of a phenomenon or problem through subjective perceptions of people who are participants in or witnesses of definite socio-economic processes.

Here we can single out two approaches:

(a) "Oral Histories" as a method of problem statement; that is, a method used when the phenomenon is not well studied and there is a need to determine a strategy of investigation under the guidance of the opinions of competent persons.

(b) "Oral Histories" as a method to analyze already known and revealed problems from previous investigations in order to try to define their causal connections.

In addition, it should be noted that "Oral Histories" can be used effectively in combination with such methods of studying collective opinion as "Focus-Group Discussions." Opinions of small groups (Focus Groups) and individuals (Oral Histories) together make it possible to look at different sides of the problem being investigated and to do this from a new point of view.

All these approaches were taken into account in working out a method to study socio-economic changes in Estonia with the help of "Oral Histories." Proceeding from the above mentioned variant (b), we used "Oral Histories" because we saw this as a way to do a qualitative study of well-known social and economic problems of the republic's development. There has been much written and spoken about these problems. Generally speaking, these are problems of a society passing from the Soviet administrative system of management to a market model of development and the problems connected with this transition. These changes are as follows:

• introduction of a national currency
• processes of privatization of state property
• economic overstructuralization and its over-orientation to the West
• introduction of citizenship and state language institutions
• changing of the orientation in foreign policy (rapprochement with NATO and the countries of the European Union).

• new socio-economic and psychological attitudes regarding the "master-worker" relationship, in particular
• sharp social differentiation of society
• aggravation of attitudes between nations in conditions of a multinational state
• problems with the "eastern border" and related political attitudes with Russia.

The present work using the "Oral Histories" method to explore socio-economic problems involved a paired comparison of representatives of the native population and newcomers. That is, as is well known, the current socio-demographic structure of the republic's population consists of representatives of two ethnic communities: Estonian and Russian. Each has its own leaders -- prominent persons who to a certain extent form its ideology, reflect necessities of development, and take part in solving the problems of certain socio-economic circles. That is why the opinions of these people and their appraisal of socio-economic processes and ways of problem-solving were of interest to us and why these people were selected to be interviewed. With this purpose in mind, ten interviews were conducted with prominent representatives from the above-mentioned ethnic communities. In this paper, I report on interviews with six of these oral history narrators: Mikhail Bronshtein, a specialist in macroeconomics and member of the Academy of Sciences in Estonia; Sergei Sovetnikov, member of the Narva city government; Nikolai Jugantsev, a businessman and president of SVL BOTRANS, a company dealing with oil-products; Tunne Kelam, Vice-Speaker of the Estonian Parliament; Siim Kallas, Member of Parliament and Chair of the Reform Party; Andra Veidemann, Minister of European Affairs and Chair of the Development Party. Thus, the destinies of a scientist, a public figure, a businessman, and politicians became the subjects of our "Oral Histories."

Before turning to analysis of the "Oral Histories," it would seem useful to provide some general biographic data about these people.

M. Bronshtein -- Born in 1923 in Petrograd, Russia; graduated from Leningrad University; worked as a professor at Tartu State University; a former member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, a former counselor on economic problems at the Estonian Embassy in Moscow; professor emeritus at Tartu University.

S. Sovetnikov -- Born in 1931 in Narva Region, graduated from Tartu State University, Director of Narva Technical College for 26 years; a former member of the Supreme Soviet of Soviet Estonia; now a pension recipient and member of the Narva city government.

N. Jugantsev -- Born in 1949 in Estonia, graduated from Tallinn Technical University with a degree in electromechanical engineering, worked in the directors' staffs of several State Industry Enterprises; since 1986, he has worked in private business; one of the founders of the Russian-speaking People's Assembly.

Tunne Kelam -- Born in 1937 in Tallinn, graduated from Tartu State University, worked both as a scientist and a lecturer; he is one of the founders of the Estonian Party of National Independence; at the time of the interview, he was the Parliament's Vice-Speaker.

Andra Veidemann -- Born in 1955 in Tallinn, graduated from Tartu State University, worked as a scientist; at the time of the interview, she was Minister of European Affairs; she is the founder and Chair of the Development Party; at the time of the interview, she was Minister of Estonian Population.

Siim Kallas -- Born in 1948 in Tallinn, graduated from Tartu State University; he worked for the press and was one of the authors of the IME concept (self development); a former president of the Estonian Bank and Minister of Foreign Affairs; at the time of the interview, he was a Member of Parliament and Chair of the Reform Party.

As we can see from these biographical sketches, these are people from the middle and senior generations who have extensive experience with participation in public life. They were identified by participants in ten focus groups conducted in Estonia in an earlier part of this project as people who are influential in public life and had the possibility to solve socio-economic and political problems. That is why their personal vision and analysis of socio-economic development in the republic and their attitudes towards and influence over the changes of the last several years are of great interest. These are the people upon whom both public identification and solution of socio-economic problems depend. That is why a prominent person is always in a position of conflict. This person makes conflicts public; at the same time, he or she has the possibility to resolve these conflicts if, of course, he or she comes to power. That is why the question arises: what are the roots of behavior leading to recognition and expression of public problems? Obviously one of the answers can be found in personal life circumstances. That is why we began all oral histories by asking interviewees to tell about themselves, their families, and their life paths.

As was shown in our "Oral Histories," this question is the main one; indeed, answers to it take up to half of all collected data. When a person sheds light on the history of his or her life and, at the same time, analyzes it, he or she reevaluates it from the perspective of the present day. This leaves an imprint on the answers. In particular, a chronicle of autobiographical events was supplemented with unsolicited examples of how this particular prominent person acted in ways that contradicted the socialist rules of public life. Each of them had his or her own examples of socio-economic and political problems that were inherent in socialism.

To illustrate, such a contradiction between official, "for-show" proletarian internationalism and hidden anti-Semitism can be shown in the following example. Mikhail Bronshtein, who had taken part in World War II, tried to find a job at the end of forties after graduating from Leningrad University with a university certificate with highest marks. He tells us: "That time I looked like a real Aryan: gray and blue eyes, golden hair, but when I filled in applications and they became aware of my nationality, I always got turned down." That wasn't a unique experience. From our history we know those years to be a time of a campaign against cosmopolitanism in the Soviet Union, and Jews were supposed to be its bearers.

The story of Sergei Sovetnikov's entering Leningrad University in 1950 is also typical. He tells: "Already in my school years I began to work in the Narva newspaper Narvsky rabochy, and my colleagues advised me to enter the Journalism Department of Leningrad University. I had a recommendation letter from Narvsky rabochy. The admissions commission looked into it and said that they didn't know such a newspaper." But that wasn't the reason. The reason was that during the war he had lived in a territory occupied by German troops and that was enough to be accused in betrayal.

Tunne Kelam, whom we also can call a man of the pre-war generation, was shown his place in life when after World War II he tried to enter the Academy of Sciences. "It appeared that my father's social origin and his work activities were one of the obstacles to my entering the Academy. My father was a clerical figure and, although the Church was officially separated from the government during socialism, the real influence of the government on the Church was great."

Nikolai Jugantsev, Andra Veidemann, and Siim Kallas may be called representatives of the post-war generation.

As Nikolai Jugantsev recalls, his doubts about the expediency of the existing system began when he, a young specialist, was appointed chief engineer at a woodworking factory at the age of 27. From this position as a manager, he ran across senseless problems, including the absurd situation when an unprofitable enterprise would receive great sums of money from the government, when the post of director would not be held by a specialist, but by a person who was on good terms with management. That is why at the beginning of the seventies practical acquaintance with such sides of the socialist model of management could bring only disappointment to young specialist Jugantsev. "...[N]obody was interested in the results for which I struggled." And Jugantsev explains: "That time nobody really relied upon concrete workers and all the power mechanism was vertical." It was obvious that the principles of strict centralization and depersonalization of people didn't work.

These contradictions were also experienced in the sphere of education, in this case by then-schoolboy Siim Kallas. Describing his school years, the leader of the Reform Party mentions his literature teacher: "...I had a real conflict with him. He was our tutor. He always kept to schemes; in other words, you couldn't analyze works of literature in your own way, only according to a scheme. And when he asked me to name the most beautiful image in Russian literature I answered, 'Korobochka!'" Of course, such an answer could be viewed only as a challenge. We know that the image of Tatjana Larina from Eugene Onegin is declared to be the most beautiful, but here the teacher got such an answer. And such free-thinking wasn't approved. The socialist system understood very well that any deviation from officially dictated standards was dangerous for it.

A young person's membership in Komsomol was also an indispensable condition for showing loyalty to the system. As Andra Veidemann recounts, her ignoring of that condition could have been the largest obstacle to entering Tartu State University. She recalls: "I was given a good recommendation to enter the University, but there was such a phrase, 'she was suggested to join Komsomol but she always refused without any obvious reason.'" Such a phrase could have spoiled her fate forever in any other higher educational establishment of the former USSR, but Tartu University was always famous for its liberalism. If we return to the memories of Academic Bronshtein, we see that it was Tartu University that gave him work during the "cosmopolitan" persecutions in 1949.

We have used only six small episodes from the lives of these prominent persons. Each of them is like part of a mosaic which gives us the whole picture of the society and its existing problems. The attitudes towards these problems varies. There are three types of responses: to be at peace with the existing system; to step aside and keep following one's chosen principles in a new place; or to fight against the system, a response which is fraught with serious consequences.

For example, Jugantsev voluntarily left the director's chair as a form of protest, though he himself evaluated that step to be very painful. "I had to step back. I think that it helped me in my life because I learned my own price. Because if you scrawl in life and somebody gives you protection and helps you to find a warm place you immediately get into a flow and drift. But when you get out of the flow you begin to cost as much as you cost really."

It is a well-known problem: the conflict between the system and the individual. When you leave the system, especially the system of socialist management, it is very difficult to return back. Loyalty to the system put a person into the ranks of the "nomenclature," making one someone above the others. That made the person faithful and reliable; voluntary departure from the ranks of the system or refusal to rise up in its structure were defined as a sin and a sign of infidelity and unreliability. Be like everyone else -- that is the principle of the existing system. Nevertheless the destinies of the interviewees suggest that it is against human nature to think as everybody else. Ignoring this, the system undermines itself from within. Perhaps one of its deepest self-delusions was a slogan about Soviet people as a unified community. For as soon as the system began to unravel, it was the national factor that became a powerful weapon in the system's destruction.

If we analyze the texts of Russian and Estonian interviewees, we can note two words that are often used by prominent Estonian persons but are not used by Russians. These are: "occupation" and "muulased" (others). It is the attitude towards these meanings that creates a barrier between Russian and Estonian prominenci. Analyzing the texts of Siim Kallas, Andra Veidemann, Tunne Kelam, we see that all socio-economic problems of development in Soviet Estonia are basically explained through the prism of these meanings.

Andra Veidemann recalls: "There were such parents who thought that it would traumatize a child's soul if children were hearing about the great achievements of Soviet Power at school and at home they heard that Estonia was an occupied country and there were no real achievements. That is why parents should say at home the same that is said at school. My parents didn't share that point of view. They had been living in Estonia when it was an independent country and were adults before World War II. They remembered that life and believed it to be necessary to tell me about it." On the whole, this was typical for many Estonian families. Everything that was identified with independent Estonia was prohibited on the level of official ideology, but it was kept alive in families. It is a problem of multiple standards when a person thinks in one way, speaks in another one, and acts in the third one.

It was also peculiar for Russian families, though it had another character: it was called "kitchen philosophy," when intelligent persons would gather in the kitchen and discuss the questions of social order. It is reflected clearly in the movements of the "sixties." Academic Bronshtein recalls: "That was an inner state. The 'sixties,' as they were called in the Soviet Union, appeared at the end of fifties and at the beginning of sixties. You see a rather bright representative of the 'sixties' in front of you. By that time we made sure that the Soviet Union was losing among equals. The 'sixties' were reformers of socialism. The 'sixties' urged towards socialism with a human face, to the socialism which would provide a system of economic stimuli, a true wage for work, self-dependence of the enterprises, self-independence of the regions and state regulation on all levels. That was the economic side of the 'sixties.' Already then we understood clearly that there was nothing better than market regulation, which would induce each enterprise to produce what is necessary for the society, diminish spending, modernize technology...."

The key phrase is the phrase "to perfect socialism." The way to a better life is seen in the liquidation of contradictions in the existing system, including the contradiction between "we" and "they," i.e., common people and the party "nomenclature," so that social characteristics are on the basis of everything. If we return to the position of the Estonian prominent persons, we see that here "we" means Estonians or bearers of Estonian culture, and "they" means "muulased," i.e., others who are collectively associated with Russians and bearers of Russian culture -- from here the world "Russian-speaking" originates. As we see the ethnic-cultural factor is one basis for separating people. It was widely used in solving socio-economic problems of Estonian society, first of all, with regard to the ways of achieving independence. Estonian promenenci spoke not about improving the system but about its destruction. This is seen in the slogan "Plats Puhtaks" ("Let's clean the place"). Such an action could be justified as part of a tactical plan from the point of view of achieving a quick result. In many cases social changes took on a national color. This opposition between "we" and "they" was the easiest way to unite the nation. When the culprit was personified -- the Soviet Union as a system of occupation and Russians as the bearers of this system -- it became easier to rule masses and to bring them together for achieving the goal of independence. An attempt to go another way through a popular movement, a "People's front" drawing in representatives of other national groups, had no success; they were simply not accepted by the Estonian national movement. The ideological basis of the movement for independence became the principle of restitution. Tunne Kelam, one of the restitution ideologists, describes its core and goal very briefly: "Restitution ideology, in my opinion, is the only possible thing. It let us evade the so called 'zero variant' of citizenship..., which meant practically political independence from Russia, also the possibility that non-Estonian citizens would have a majority in Estonia and that meant the official status of bilingualism and a step back from the principles of a national country...I suppose that our main state goal is a defense of reservation and development of our traditions." It is obvious that in such a conception, which de facto became the official state doctrine, there is a place only for the Estonian population. It is very interesting, however, that during the interview Mr. Kelam several times underlined that he himself is a cosmopolitan; i.e., absolutely indifferent to any national identification.

This conception of state structure was accepted very painfully by non Estonians, especially by those who had been born in Estonia and who over time had adopted much for themselves from the Estonian mode of life and culture. This status was noted by N. Jugantsev: "That is a way with no prospects, a way of constant quarries... In the nineteenth century Russians suppressed the Estonians but where is my guilt?! Only because I am Russian? Maybe I am a former Estonian. Or maybe 100,000 Russians here are more patriots and Estonians than Estonians themselves." Here we hear a feeling of offense and humiliated dignity expressed.

Another similarity found through analysis of the life stories of these six prominent persons is that changes were necessary.

We see that the model of "socialism with human face" as the way to reform the system was most acceptable for Academic Bronshtein. As a human being he understands the aspirations of former Soviet republics for independence, but as an economist he sees the dangers and socio-economic after-effects of the destruction of one economic area. He recalls: "...my last speech in the Supreme Soviet sounded like that: 'As a People's Deputy of Estonia I must support my electors' will for independence. As a professional economist I must warn that the break-up of our common market area will take us to a full and deep economic crisis, which is inevitable.'" Regretfully all happened as it had been predicted.

When a group of young Isamaa (Fatherland) representatives with Mart Laar at the head came to power, the conception of a tough monetary approach to economic rebuilding after the model of Milton Friedman prevailed in Estonia. Now more than five years have passed since this policy was put into practice and it is reasonable to ask: what has been done and what not?

Common problems that appeared when transferring to a market economy are mentioned in the introductory part of our work. We are interested in exploring what our "Oral Histories" participants themselves see as priorities on this list. It would also be quite appropriate to ask: "What do the interviewees view to be the most important achievements in the Republic during the last ten years?"

It is striking that there are two basic approaches to the evaluation of reality. Estonian prominent persons speak about Estonian economic problems, Estonian internal and external policy, Estonian culture, Estonian poor and rich people, and so on. By contrast, Russian prominent persons prefer to speak about economics in Estonia, internal and external policy in Estonia, culture in Estonia, poor and rich people in Estonia. In the first case, the stress is on national things and all that is above this doesn't matter much for state life. The existence of another, Russian-speaking group, is not taken into account. The attitudes of Russian-speaking prominent persons towards socio-economic problems bears a consultative character. "I would do it in such a way...," because they are put aside from real power in many positions. When reading their interviews, one gets the feeling that they are not on the inside of these processes but are simply witnesses of the processes. That is, they are on the side, and it appears that such a feeling has its historical premises.

Recalling his family tree Nikolai Jugantsev, whose ancestors lived in a Russian settlement near Lake Chudskoje, highlights a peculiarity: "The population is very interesting there and so is their world outlook. Old people never thought of themselves as Soviets. They could not give a straight answer about who they were. But, for example, they would say 'Soviets' about those who came from Pskov. If from Pechory -- they were as if close to them. These old people lived nearby Estonia. They did not enter any power structures but had self-organization in the frame of their territory." Such a mode of life derived from the first independent Estonia into Soviet Estonia and over time began to disappear because in the middle of fifties young people started leaving for towns and cities. Nevertheless it seems that this phenomenon of "nearby Estonia" re-appears with the restored independence of Estonia. As was already said, the Russian-speaking prominenci evaluate the events taking place in Estonia much from this same position.

Jugantsev thinks that the currency reform was one of the most positive events in the economics of Estonia: "Currency reform is the most significant success. Here we must take off our hats...but I will take my hat off because I think they played from the score, which was written for them, and did it perfectly right." Thus the businessman assesses the action of his colleagues who could use a favorable moment to strike a bargain successfully: "Just look what they have done. They simply robbed all the people, that was full expropriation, as a matter of fact, made with a smile..., people parted with their money simply without thinking and thus laid a big piece of fat under the Estonia crown."

In spite of his ironic tone, Jugantsev views that all that has been done in economics since 1991 was correct. Here his position coincides with that of Siim Kallas, who also believes that there were no other alternatives. Siim Kallas also adds tax policy and the following of an open, liberal economic course to the list of achievements of the last ten years.

In Tunne Kelam's opinion, the main Estonian achievements of the last ten years are in the political sphere. In the first place he puts the formation of a legitimate body of Estonian citizens -- the Congress of Estonia. "Estonia was the first country in the Soviet totalitarian system where it became possible to create or elect a Parliament -- the Congress of Estonia -- for a transitional period...It became clear that development of democracy is impossible through the body of Soviets; bodies of management created on an alternative basis were necessary." Since all of this happened without any violence, he puts the way in which Estonian independence was restored on the list of undoubted achievements. It should be noted that Tunne Kelam tells us about his passion for Oriental, particularly Indian, philosophy during his study at the University. The views of philosopher Svami Vivekanada about non-violent societal development and about a leader's possibility to unite old traditions, standards, and values with the demands of societal reformation -- all these views are very important to him.

Sergei Sovetnikov continues this idea, but makes it from another standpoint. He explains the non-violent way of rebuilding society not only through the solidarity and spirit of the Estonian people, as does Tunne Kelam, but also through support which was given by the non-aboriginal population, people whom Siim Kallas calls "muulased" (others).

Remembering the events of August, 19, 1991, S. Sovetnikov comments: "...when they evaluate the events of, say so, the bloodless revolution in Estonia we must take off our hats before military deputies in the Supreme Soviet of Estonia....Because only owing to the efforts of these deputies, especially to General Abdurakhmanov, who together with Savisaar went to stop the tanks (we speak about the Pskov tank-borne infantry cross-country track which was going to Tallinn)."

Participation of the non-aboriginal population in the restoration of Estonian independence is another subject, but it cannot be denied. Also, we cannot avoid highlighting the role of military deputies (from the Soviet Army) in the events of May 15 in Toompea during the meeting organized by the International Movement. "When I am asked why there was such a situation in Estonia when we bloodlessly passed -- and I agree -- to a wild-market capitalism. Here we must pay justice both to Savisaar and the group of Russian-speaking deputies, though they would say that we did nothing...no, we were 26 and we had votes...and I think that the main thing was that military deputies persuaded everybody (all participants in the International Movement meeting). They persuaded them not to break inside the rooms of the Estonian Parliament. That would have been terrible...." Thus, Sovetnikov recalls the silent and waiting position of the non-aboriginal population which also must be taken into account when we analyze the reasons for success in restoring Estonian independence. How could it be explained?

If we appraise the last ten years and also analyze the "Oral Histories" of Russian prominent persons from this standpoint, we can reveal the following circumstances. The possibility for transition to elementary forms of market economics appeared after the beginning of perestroika and the policy of glasnost. As Jugantsev recalls, it was in 1986 that he went into business. This led to the creation of new orientations about people's place in society that differed from the situation under socialism. It was here that the foundation for people's stratification on the basis of social inequality was built. The monolithic view of society as "united Soviet people" began to break down. These processes took place rather quickly in Estonia, where new forms of property cooperatives and joint-stock began to develop. In the Russian-speaking parts of the society, this process was more active than in the Estonian parts because here economic and personal relations with partners in the republics of the USSR were widely used. A new psychological line was being formed. Its orientation even among the Russian-speaking population very much depended upon the length of time one had lived in Estonia. Migration of the non-Estonian population can be divided into the following groups:

a) The descendants of Russians who lived in Estonia since Tsarist Russia and also the descendants of the white immigration after the October Revolution in 1917.

b) People of Estonia who came here at the end of the forties and beginning of the fifties because of the development of heavy industry.

c) People who came here at the end of seventies to work in construction because of preparation for the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games.

Of course, such a division is very relative, but it helps in understanding the reasons for people's attitudes about the changes taking place in society. Mr. Jugantsev gives an interesting example. When asked about the reasons which drove him into business, he answered: "It's all because of my Granny. I owe her my education to a big extent. If we speak in words of today, she had a 'right' world-view; i.e., reliance upon yourself as the main principle. It was shameful for her to confess that she couldn't do something. And I inherited this 'shame.'" People with such a mentality were the first to go into business, and they supported the socio-economic changes.

The mostly Russian-speaking workers of former USSR enterprises were a little bit more guarded about the changes. On the one hand, they felt all the absurdity of governmental regulation of economics and its non-effectiveness; on the other hand, their membership in a state enterprise ensured them a feeling of defense in the face of the rising market element. This was a double condition and in social life it made a situation in which people took a wait-and-see position; at the same time, a minority of these collectives tried to stand actively against the wave of Estonian national self-consciousness with the help of the International Movement. But they remembered the experience of bloody events in Tbilisi, Vilnius, and Riga.

In addition, the ethnic-cultural factor should also be mentioned: non-Estonians who learned the Estonian language regarded the will of Estonians to independence with more understanding, supposing that they would live better in an independent Estonia and these were mostly intelligent people. That is why a small number of non-Estonians took part in the People's Front Movement in which there was a Russian section. This Russian section ceased to exist rather soon, because the slogan, "Together to freedom," was changed to, "Estonians to freedom," the slogan that became the ideological platform for Isamaa (Fatherland) Union to attain political power.

As we see, at the moment of transition to independence the non-Estonian population was far from united and was subject to the interests of different groups and movements which provided its patient and loyal attitude towards changes; the thought that in independent Estonia their life would be better lay somewhere in their subconscious. Nevertheless the course of historical events has shown that this hope was naive.

These thoughts appear indirectly in the speculations of Sergei Sovetnikov, Mikhail Bronshtein, and Nikolai Jugantsev -- thoughts about missed opportunities in the development of Estonia and its use of human potential, and regret that the national appeared to be stronger than the rational. We can understand such an evaluation subjectively, though we must recognize objectively that obviously the transition from one model of management to another at the socio-economic level always takes national forms, because it is much easier to unite people under national slogans and to direct their efforts towards destruction of an old management mechanism and it is much easier for a new elite to come to power on that new wave. This postulate seems to be eternal and Estonian experience confirms it. It also confirms that over-exploitation of the national idea as a method of solving all socio-economic problems eventually leads to a certain self-isolation of the society and to limitations in its developmental possibilities. The most long-sighted politicians in society understand this. For example, when answering the question about what negative features she sees in the development of Estonia during these ten years, Andra Veidemann argues that the restitution principle and the rejection of the past 50 years are not the best strategy when the future of Estonia is being built. She says: "I suppose there were subjective omissions. And here I would mark the restitution ideology where the corner-stone was imagining that we should cross out 50 years of our life, the years between 1939 and 1989 or 1990, and we should return again to the forties and restore the independent Republic of Estonia proceeding from the values of those years. I suppose that it's basically an erroneous decision. We have forgotten that all the world and Europe, in particular, have gone far ahead during that time. At long last during the Soviet times something was done." And she sees the destruction of the rural economy as a consequence of such a politics. The refusal of big farms to return to the principle of small farms led to theft of the former collective ownership under the image of its 'privatization,' but there was not enough strength to create real farming. Mrs. Veidemann views these steps not as achievements but as failures of economic policy. Also, she regards the return of properties to their owners or heirs as a failure that has split Estonian society. "We were the reason that brother and sister would sit with their backs to each other and speak through a regional secretary, quarreling for a piece of land or some other property."

We cannot but agree with Andra Veidemann that "we have been too much glorifying the past. People cannot live constantly in the past; they must live in the future." Nevertheless Tunne Kelam, one of the restitution ideologists, opposes her. In his opinion the split in society is not the result of restitution principles but a condition of minds in society, one part of which is still under the strong influence of the former Soviet mode of life and the other is looking forward to keeping Western democratic mentality. In contrast to Mrs. Veidemann, he supposes restitution problems to be objective. "Sure, one side will suffer. That's the objective problem which is almost impossible to solve (to everybody's satisfaction), because it is connected with a long occupation period and changes which took place." The other problem, which Tunne Kelam thinks has been solved, is the moral state of the society generally. "That vigour which united the society with a powerful and positive direction several years ago now disappeared with the coming of independence. People's energy appeared to be exhausted." Mr. Kelam marks precisely that the reason is that the ideal of the state which had been created over the course of time parted with the reality. He says that people hope for help from the West instead of relying on themselves and do not try their own efforts. "That's why I believe this is one of the objective psychological problems to strengthen oneself to build one's own state."

Nikolai Jugantsev highlights the same problem but from a slightly different angle. In this meaning the retelling of his dialogue with President Mery about national priorities in politics is rather significant. Jugantsev's prognosis is as follows: "In the strategic plan you (Estonian society) will come to be a greenhouse nation, but we'll have the guys who in the morning run with naked bodies, experience bodybuilding, study English and German in the evening and less Estonian. Because they think that priorities are distributed in such a way." Jugantsev does not see Estonian or Russian capital as the master of the Estonian market, but the West instead. And from his point of view, western capital pays no attention to the national idea; the main thing for it is to earn money. Here it is not nationality but the quality of the worker -- his professional skill -- that will be the deciding factor. In its own way this point of view somehow supplements the validity of Mr. Kelam's fears.

Here we see an interesting social phenomenon: Mr. Kelam, in contrast to the other prominent persons, took an active part in the reconstruction of Estonian independence during Soviet times and once was even jailed. His consequent adherence to the idea of independence and restitution ideology brought him to the powerful Olympus. Here the man who had suffered for his ideas forgets and loses sight of the problems of concrete men. That is always what happens to dogmatic ideas. That is why he is the only one among the above mentioned prominent persons who hypothesizes that one of the serious omissions in the internal politics was the failure to bring the principle "Plats puhtaks" ("Let's clean the place") to the end; i.e., the failure to get rid of men who collaborated with the Communist system. Tunne Kelam thinks that "this means not only social but also moral injustice. Those who were in power during Soviet times now could keep their positions in some cases and there was no complete condemnation of the former system. I also think that here the problem is in the people who had lived in unnormal conditions for no less than two generations. Following this logic it is possible to say that the majority of the people were Sovietized and, as a result, a typical nostalgia for the Soviet rules exists."

Mikhail Bronshtein opposes this position. He says that to be in power during Soviet time does not make one an enemy as Mr. Kelam thinks. As a specialist in macroeconomics and agricultural management, he notes "...from the beginning of the sixties up to the nineties Estonia was the only republic where the farmer's labour was paid higher and, as a result, agriculture in Estonia was the most productive and effective among the other republics. We provided the cheapest meat and milk." When asked why it was possible in Estonia to make such a step in spite of the bureaucratic Soviet system, he answers that we were lucky with management. He notes the abilities of the former managers and first of all Kabin, Tynurist, and Rutel to defend their positions and the republic's interests with the central management. And he adds: "When I'm reading Laar's stories that in fifties jestonians came to power and brought jestonians along with them (he writes "je"), it is a full lie. We now have agriculture, where the wages are the lowest, where the farmer has no support and receives money three to four times less than a girl in a bank. Forty percent of our agricultural production we brought into the former Union market. Now you see what was done during the period."

These thoughts about the role and responsibility of political figures in history and evaluation of their activity are recalled by Sergei Sovetnikov: "If I were an historian first I would set priorities. So I would put Vaino Valjas in the first place as a most significant figure. Some of us are those who do not know their genealogy. They do not recognize the merits of Vaino Valjas, who took us from the crisis of 1988. Estonia was near catastrophe... In the second place I would put Savisaar. It was he who spent days and nights in Moscow so that the independence of Estonia would be recognized and he did it."

It is easier for politicians to act according to an ideological plan when they manage to persuade the people that all that was before them is simply previous history. That leads to new myths and their destruction that politicians explain to be the result of the people's imperfection, their nostalgia for the past, and their inability to look and think in a global scale, as, for example, Mr. Kelam knows how to do.

As has already been noted, a detailed analysis of the republic's socio-economic problems is given by Andra Veidemann. She sees the sharp social differentiation of the society according to income levels to be the consequence of restitution politics and property reform. "The biggest problem for me are the too big social 'scissors' in Estonian society. That means that we have a very small percent of rich people. And regretfully we have too many people who work hard every day only for food."

Where is the way out of this situation? Mrs. Veidemann suggests to turn to the values of the Lutheran faith, which sermonizes patience and love of labour. She is the only one among the interviewees who raises a question about ethics in politics, but not as an evaluation of the past but with respect to the present day. It is necessary to step aside from false pride and self-infallibility. She thinks: "...politicians and government leaders must have the courage to accept blame and say that they were mistaken and always have made mistakes. And if such a confession were to take place, there is always time to correct mistakes and make things better."

Academic Bronshtein's position is very close to that of Mrs. Veidemann. He adds here an attempt to return to the ethnic structure of 1933-40; i.e., a return to a monoethnic state which, in his opinion, has created an internal conflict situation. This point is hardly raised by Estonian prominent persons, as if it does not exist.

What are ways to solve this problem? Here are three ways: integration, assimilation, and segregation. Today integration is not spoken about, because there is no such conception on the governmental level. Also, as "Oral History" analysis shows, this problem is out of the scope of practical interests for Estonian prominent persons. As is known, integration is a mutual movement towards each other. Some tendencies to assimilation can be marked here, such as the changing of family names from Russian to Estonian, taking children to Estonian schools, and so on.

From Mr. Jugantsev's point of view, "We (Russians) will be bringing our children up in harder conditions, on the principles of Jewish or Armenian communities. Our approach to it would be secluded and segregated. But they would learn how to exist in this life earlier and in ten years they will have preference on the labour market," i.e., a perspective of segregation.

Russian-speaking prominenci see one of the basic economic reasons for the origin of many state social problems in the disturbance of the necessary balance of mutual relations between West and East. The necessity of turning to the West, because it gives new technologies and opportunities for market development, is not denied. However, as Mikhail Bronshtein thinks, Estonia is a natural bridge between East and West. With improvement in political relations with Russia, it will be possible to solve many serious economic problems of Estonia in the sphere of restoring production, development of trading, and widening of financial activity opportunities. But fear and prejudice prevent this from happening. Siim Kallas tells the core of them: "Yes, we were allies of Russia. But today we do not have opportunities to be a Russian ally; we only have an opportunity to be a Russian liegeman. And we don't want it. And we'll fight against it as much as possible. All the logic is here. All the rest comes out from this." Here is the strategy of entering the European Union and NATO as a guarantee for Estonian independence.

On the whole when analyzing "Oral Histories" as a method to study socio-economic problems of society, the English proverb comes to mind: "As many heads, as many wits." Let's close with some general conclusions.

The first is that the society is divided. If five years ago at the moment of restitution, it was a division mainly on ethnic principles between Estonians and non-Estonians; today the differentiation goes deeper. We see that the Estonian community itself, which several years ago appeared as a monolith, now is split by contradictions provoked by accepted methods of carrying out the policy of state building: restitution, form of property, and, as a consequence, a sharp social differentiation of society.

The same processes are going on in the Russian-speaking community. For example, businessman Jugantsev supposes that there is no alternative to the "right" policy in Estonia today, but, as Academic Bronshtein and municipal deputy Sovetnikov think, this policy has exhausted itself. Here are different attitudes about how to structure the non-Estonian population.

The societal division according to ethnic indicators does not have a bright character and appears in latent forms that are affirmed by a number of legislative acts. This led to feelings of segregation for a part of Russian-speaking population, as was expressed by Jugantsev. The phrase, "We are nearby Estonia," concisely describes the psychological state of the non-aboriginal part of the population.

There is a certain "deaf ear" in mutual understanding of the problems of the two communities: Estonian and non-Estonian. Overcoming this division is possible only through politics and through the actions of prominent persons who have real power. As "Oral History" analysis shows, however, there is still no such readiness for this kind of mutual understanding.

Although it may appear trivial, there is talk that it will take a change of generations before mutual offenses and pretensions will be forgotten. On the whole, then, we have a picture of a transitional society, the formation of which involves a painful and poignant search for its own way.