Can't spell freedom without 'huge imposing monument'.

If the decision of the European Commission to give almost 6 million Euros to a project for cultural exchange is an example of good public funding for the development of cultural heritage, then the decision of the Estonian government to allocate over 100 million kroons (approx. 10 million dollars) to the construction of a phallic monument of liberty at a time of economic recession, is a textbook example of wasting taxpayer's money on a very questionable definition of patrimony.

The Monument of Liberty is an old idea, dating back to the 1920-s and is supposed to commemorate the Estonian victory in the War of Independence (1918-1919). In principle this would fit well into the framework of cultural heritage if not for the inadequate execution of the plan over the past year.

First, instead of being a bottom-up project, guaranteeing it popular support and unifying the people, which any piece of cultural heritage should ostensibly aspire to, the monument was commissioned by the Estonian Government, the final design approved by a jury with a majority of politicians and seen through with remarkable persistence, despite protests from the international community (the cross on top of the monument resembles a German Iron Cross), the Estonian artistic community (who have declared it "literal" and "naive"), the fact that it's being built on a nature protection area, that the chairman leading the construction is facing corruption charges, the monument will not be completed in time, and so on.

The result is, that according to a recent poll, over 40% of the country's population opposes the construction of the monument. Instead of a unifying piece of cultural heritage, the statue has become a symbol of division.

The difference in conduct between the Commission case and this one could not be more obvious. If the Commission's allocation of nearly 6 million Euros meant giving funding to a bottom-up initiative, with minimal governmental input, except for financial oversight (a necessity in any sort public spending), the Monument of Liberty project is very clearly a political project first, with all of the major decisions being made on the highest level, with almost complete disregard for the opinions of interest groups and the general populace. Of course, politicizing cultural heritage is nothing new, in fact, it is quite common in non-democratic governments who recognize well the influence patrimony can have over people. From the appropriation of monumental architecture by the likes of Albert Speer and Marcello Piacentini to the ridiculous fantasy projects of the Soviet Union, grand structures designed to unite the people under a "cultural heritage" umbrella are both common and almost exclusively unsuccessful.

There is little hope for Estonia - in all likelyhood, the freedom-touting phallus will grace the mounds of Harju hill next year, but hopefully a lesson about the public funding of cultural heritage objects will be learned from this - a liberal approach to public funding will result in better art and actual cultural heritage.