Agenda Profile: Mart Helme

The political position centers on strong opposition to e-voting and its expansion (m-voting), thereby calling into question the constitutionality and legitimacy of the elections. The primary emphasis is placed on the inadequacy of the legislation, given that election procedures have been delegated to the election service rather than being precisely outlined in the law. The speaker argues that until the Supreme Court provides a comprehensive assessment of the constitutionality of e-voting, Estonia cannot have legitimate governments. The framework is strongly value-based, emphasizing the reliability of democratic processes and adherence to the constitution.

The speaker demonstrates a profound knowledge of election legislation and constitutional law, repeatedly referencing Supreme Court materials, particularly the dissenting opinion of Villu Kõve. They employ technical terminology such as ballot secrecy, holistic assessment, and deadlines for contesting results, in order to substantiate the claim that e-voting is incompatible with the constitution. Furthermore, reference is made to a Norstat survey indicating that nearly 40% of the Estonian population distrusts the system.

The speaker's style is sharp, confrontational, and insistent, utilizing both logical arguments (references to Supreme Court materials and Villu Kõve’s dissenting opinion) and emotional appeals (public distrust, lack of legitimacy). Legally complex language is employed to highlight procedural and constitutional issues, but the overall tone remains accusatory and critical. The speech concludes with the faction’s collective walkout from the session as an act of protest, citing the arbitrary actions of the board/presidium and the coalition.

The pattern of activity is limited to participation in the Riigikogu session during the debate on the draft law, repeatedly asking questions and providing lengthy explanations. The speaker actively participated in the debate, demanding additional time and citing the Norstat survey regarding public trust. The address concludes with the faction's joint protest, which involves walking out of the session.

The confrontation is directed against the coalition and the Riigikogu board, who stand accused of violating laws and abusing their authority. Criticism is also leveled at the political bias of the Election Service and the Election Commission, implying that their composition is acceptable to the leadership of the Reform Party. The opposition is intense and uncompromising, culminating in a joint protest action by the faction.

Cooperation is completely lacking; the focus is entirely on opposition and protest. The only cooperation noted is internal to the faction, which results in them jointly walking out of the session as a sign of protest against the high-handedness of the board and the coalition.

The focus is exclusively on state matters, addressing the conformity of the Republic of Estonia's election law and constitution. A brief reference to the manner of speech of South and North Estonians is merely a rhetorical digression and holds no political substance.

Not enough data

Not enough data

The legislative focus is on opposing Bill 344 SE (amendment to the Riigikogu Election Act), as it expands the inconsistencies and lack of oversight inherent in e-voting. The speaker is a staunch opponent, demanding that the rules governing e-elections must be precisely established by the legislature and confirmed by the Supreme Court as being in compliance with the constitution. The primary problems cited are the lack of ballot secrecy and the substantive impossibility of challenging the results.