Session Profile: Aleksei Jevgrafov
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
2025-03-26
Political Position
The political stance is strongly oppositional to the decisions made by the government and the Riigikogu majority, particularly concerning the restriction of rights and the polarization of society. The criticism centers on a value-based framework, accusing the government of cynically employing the security argument to justify unfair measures. The speaker objects to the method used for amending the constitution and deems the Riigikogu's activities a security threat because of their divisive impact on society.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge of the history of integration policy, referencing 30 years of work and discussions held at the university 27 years ago. The expertise is social in nature, emphasizing schools' practical readiness for the transition to Estonian-language education and the demographic and social impact of legislative changes (such as the disenfranchisement of 150,000 people). Instead of relying on data or statistics, the arguments are based on moral and social principles.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and urgent, employing strong moral condemnation ("shame," "humiliation," "cynical"). The speaker utilizes historical context and a religious phrase ("If God wishes to punish, He takes away reason") and sharply contrasts the government's actions with the genuine suffering of the people. The style remains formal but is passionate, focusing on narratives and values rather than dry data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The data is limited to two appearances during a single plenary session on March 26, 2025, where both a question and a lengthy speech were delivered. There is no information available concerning the frequency, regularity, or other public activities.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the Parliament majority and the government, who are intensely criticized both for their policies (the dismantling of integration) and their procedures (the abuse of the majority vote). The criticism is personal, accusing them of forgetting the people, being ignorant of life in rural areas, and searching for enemies among their own populace. No willingness to compromise is expressed; instead, they are called upon to change their course of action.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker focuses on condemning the actions of the government and the majority, coupled with a call to work for the sake of a unified Estonia. There is no information available regarding cooperation, co-signing, or readiness to compromise with other political forces.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
A strong regional focus is directed at rural areas, Ida-Virumaa, and regions that fall outside Tallinn’s "golden ring" and Tartu. It is emphasized that the government does not understand how people in these areas live, earn a living, and manage to cope.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic views presented focus on the context of social subsistence and welfare, highlighting the struggles faced by vulnerable groups (pensioners, people with disabilities). The government is criticized for failing to ensure people’s minimum livelihood and opportunities for earning a living. No specific positions regarding taxes or regulations have been put forward.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issues are integration, Estonian-language education, and civil rights. The speaker is strongly opposed to restricting the voting rights of 150,000 people, viewing it as humiliating and second-class treatment. Criticism is also directed at the transition to Estonian-language instruction when schools are unprepared, and the removal of rights (including the right to bear arms and the right to pray) is mentioned.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The speaker opposes several bills, including the constitutional amendment (regarding the method) and the law amending the Law on Churches and Congregations. Specifically, opposition is directed at laws that restrict the voting rights of long-term residents and the accessibility of education in their native language.
2 Speeches Analyzed