By Plenary Sessions: Züleyxa Izmailova

Total Sessions: 5

Fully Profiled: 5

2025-10-16
XV Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The style is analytical and argumentative, balancing explanations based on economic theory with an emphasis on social and economic consequences. The tone is occasionally sharp toward opponents (e.g., criticism of the Centre Party and Eesti 200), but is generally solution-focused and urgent. Formal language is used, addressing both those present in the hall and the Estonian people.
2025-10-13
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and concerned, expressing frustration over the government's inaction and the poor preparation of the minister's responses. It utilizes both emotional appeals (sadness regarding the unprotected state of Estonian nature) and logical argumentation, referencing studies and previous promises. The minister's answers are described as vague and non-specific.
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is persuasive and forceful, combining emotional appeals (the decline in purchasing power, food security) with comprehensive data and facts. Sharp questions are posed regarding the fairness of government policy, and the public is addressed directly ("Dear people of Estonia, if you are still awake"). The tone is critical yet goal-oriented, offering concrete solutions for stabilizing the economy.
2025-10-07
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is critical and accusatory, but it opens with a personal appeal to the minister's prior reputation and patriotism. Strong emotional arguments are employed (conscience, a lesson to be learned), combined with logical arguments concerning fiscal risks. The tone is formal and direct, posing sharp questions to the opposition.
2025-10-06
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and sharp, especially when addressing the government, employing the expression "one mess chases the other with an axe." Both logical arguments (budget data) and emotional contrasts are utilized (empty prisons juxtaposed against empty maternity wards). The speaker poses numerous rhetorical questions to highlight the absurdity and injustice of the government's priorities, such as on the issue of food quality for children.