Agenda Profile: Aleksei Jevgrafov
First Reading of the Riigikogu Draft Statement (420 AE) "On Declaring the Moscow Patriarchate an Institution Supporting the Military Aggression of the Russian Federation"
2024-05-02
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
Political Position
The speaker is questioning the draft statement that proposes declaring the Moscow Patriarchate an institution supporting aggression, calling the initiator's message "completely incomprehensible." This is a moderately opposing stance, which stresses the necessity of understanding the position of the local church (MPEÕK) and acknowledges the church leadership's prior denials of supporting Kirill's public statements. The overall viewpoint is based more on values and procedure, requiring that due diligence be exercised.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates awareness of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (MPEÕK) leadership's previous statements concerning their denial of support for Patriarch Kirill's holy war. The expert assessment focuses on the procedural necessity of consulting with local church representatives and on familiarity with the local context.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is formal and interrogative, employing direct and simple questions regarding the initiators' preparation and adherence to due diligence. The tone is critical and skeptical, particularly concerning the lack of clarity in the bill's initiator's message. The appeal is primarily logical and procedural, demanding the verification of facts and local perspectives.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively participating in the Riigikogu session during the first reading of an important draft resolution. A characteristic pattern of behavior involves repeatedly posing the same substantive question to various proponents of the draft (Jaak Aab and Hendrik Johannes) in order to test their preparedness.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the initiators of the draft declaration (Jaak Aab and Hendrik Johannes), who are being criticized for procedural shortcomings. The criticism centers on the fact that the initiators have failed to find time to meet with representatives of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which constitutes a policy- and procedure-based attack.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The cooperation style is deficient because the speaker focuses primarily on the shortcomings of the opponents' preparation and on obtaining answers to questions. The speaker demands that the other parties complete preliminary work, but the texts contain no direct willingness to compromise or offers of collaboration.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on an issue being debated at the national level, one that directly affects the local community and institutions. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of understanding the viewpoints of the representatives and members of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate operating in Estonia, thereby highlighting the significance of the local context.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue is the relationship between the state and religious institutions, particularly concerning the question of supporting Russia’s aggression. The speaker emphasizes the need to take into account the views of the members and representatives of the local Orthodox Church, prioritizing local religious freedom and community engagement.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on opposing the draft declaration, titled "On declaring the Moscow Patriarchate an institution supporting the military aggression of the Russian Federation," or questioning the fundamental basis of that declaration. The speaker is acting as a critical opponent, demanding more thorough preparatory work and consultations from the bill's initiators.
2 Speeches Analyzed