Let me try out a theory on you. Those who support populist movements (including EKRE) seem to be the shrinking lot of mainly aging white males fearing that their time is over and that they have to give up power to a partially immigrant younger generation replacing them. Would you agree?

You ask: “At the heart of the problem are the rigid ideological differences between parties. Why else is EKRE maligned in Estonia,…”

EKRE disappoints me because:

1 Jaak Madison has been quoted in the media as basically saying that the Nazis in Germany did some things right, that it was not all bad … Why is he even entertaining thoughts of Nazi Germany being a place from which to take lessons? What does this say about the man and his vision for Estonia?

2 Martin Helme has said “kui on must, näita ust” … so your super-Estonian friends who may be half-Estonian and half of another race living in Canada may not be Estonian enough for Martin and the EKRE party ….

3 Mart Helme has said on several occasions that he emulates Trump and would follow Trump’s example if he had power in Estonia. Is this the democracy you want?

4 I do not get the vibe that EKRE will be supporting the advancement of women in society. Monika Helme had more voter support than several of her EKRE colleagues during the previous election, but the EKRE brass chose a male-only team for Riigikogu. I sense from the interview (link below) that Monika may have been perplexed by this fact. What does this say about women’s role in society in an EKRE world? The lesson I take from EKRE's actions is that women are to be treated as second-class citizens who have less to contribute to society than the male population, a step back in my opinion. See interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

5 In this same set of interviews we hear Mart Helme talk in negative terms about a “homo-agenda” and “homo-lembus”. Our beloved Harri Mürk, who flourished and gave much to the Canadian-Estonian community, would have not felt comfortable in an EKRE Estonia. Are you okay with this for other talented Harri Mürks in Estonia?

You write that “the party that made the largest gains was EKRE”, yet they are basically “pulling the short stick” in the power structure in Estonia. I’m sorry, but that pales in comparison to the fact that the party which received the most votes was Reform, not EKRE. Because of backroom bargaining between EKRE-Keskerkond-Isamaa, Reform will likely not be leading Riigikogu. More people voted for Reform, but the will of the people will not prevail. What will prevail is power-hungry deal making with unlikely partners. What is EKRE willing to give up in a deal with Keskerakond to gain a slice of power in Riigikogu?

Food for thought.

I could go on and on about the dangers posed by EKRE but I'll just mention a couple of things. First, EKRE has openly stated that they want government "control" over the courts. Not sure if that first reminds me of Hitler or Stalin but either way, this is pretty mind blowing stuff. I wonder how the author if this article feels about this (or perhaps this is news to him), does the word democracy come to mind? And then of course there is the more recent threat to "toss the match into the tinderbox" implying that if EKRE is left out of the coalition, it would be for nefarious reasons (no reason whatsoever to make this provocative assumption) leading to public unrest on a scale that would make what happened in places such as Marrakech seem like childs play. Implying this violent action would take place is bad enough but threatening to be the ones to spark the flame to start it all frankly makes me more than comfortable saying that these people are beneath contempt. When the leaders of political parties are able to get away with threatening with violence should they not get their way, democracy is in indeed in danger.

Today, Martin Helme sent a letter to the National Press Council with a list of journalists he thinks should be fired because of their “biased representation of the party line”. This still does not ring any bells?

When wolves and sheep assemble to vote on the lunch menu, we're not witnessing "inclusivity" or democracy in action because a majority vote, outside the context of a constitution and bill of rights, doesn't render justice. Moreover, "inclusivity" is a buzzword for injustice by giving less qualified individuals access to favoured positions by excluding the more qualified.
When Levitsky and Ziblatt, a pair of windbags at prestigeous university, mouth off authoritatively on something they don't understand, the rest of us should laugh.