Session Profile: Züleyxa Izmailova
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
2024-06-12
Political Position
The political stance is strongly opposed to the preparations for constructing a nuclear power plant, stressing its lack of necessity, economic non-viability, and the significant cost it would impose on the state. The speaker sharply criticizes the quality of the legislative procedure, the level of public engagement, and the ethical issues within parliament, particularly concerning the potential influence of lobbying on decision-making. This position is firmly policy- and results-driven, demanding responsible governance.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge of the operational procedures of the Riigikogu committees and the rights of the members of parliament, while criticizing the restriction of speaking rights when acting as a non-committee member. In the substantive debate concerning the nuclear power plant, the speaker relies on a scientifically grounded conviction and references the positions of Estonian scientists and experts, arguing that the project is neither economically viable nor strictly necessary. He emphasizes the significant ongoing costs that the state would incur.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is critical, demanding, and procedural, posing sharp questions to both the session chair and the committee head. The speaker employs both ethical appeals (lobbying, integrity) and logical arguments (costs, scientific justification), and urges colleagues to honestly admit mistakes and redo what was done incorrectly. The tone is formal, but confrontational in substance.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active during the plenary session, repeatedly posing questions to both the session chair and the committee head concerning procedural and ethical matters. He/She actively participates in the debate on the nuclear power plant bill, presenting both questions and the final statement, which indicates a concentration on that specific agenda item.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the leadership of the Environment Committee and the supporters of the draft bill, who are being criticized both for procedural shortcomings and for ethical concerns (decision-making resulting from lobbying). The criticism is intense and is also aimed at the quality of the legislative process (lack of inclusion, dissemination of false information). The speaker encourages colleagues not to support the draft bill.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker expresses agreement with the shortcomings raised by other colleagues, signaling an alliance with the bill's critics. Nevertheless, the primary mode of communication is confrontational, demanding accountability and assessment from both the session chair and the committee head. The text does not reveal any direct cooperation or readiness for compromise.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Insufficient data.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
He advocates for strict fiscal discipline and criticizes the state’s large fixed costs at a time when the government is actively searching for areas to cut spending. The speaker stresses that the country is struggling to meet basic needs, making the preparation for a nuclear power plant an irresponsible expenditure. The draft bill is considered economically unviable.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Insufficient data. Although the speaker mentions the problem of meeting basic needs, they do not specify the concrete social issues.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the opposition to the bill concerning preparations for the construction of a nuclear power plant. The speaker is a strong opponent, criticizing the quality of the bill's handling (specifically, stakeholder involvement and the consideration of amendments) and demanding that errors be acknowledged and the process be redone.
5 Speeches Analyzed