Agenda Profile: Jaanus Karilaid
Review of the Implementation of the "Fundamentals of Legislation Policy until 2030" in 2022
2024-01-24
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly critical of the quality of the government's lawmaking and its political culture. The most pressing issues are the lack of transparency, insufficient impact assessments, and the wide divergence between the government's rhetoric and reality. The speaker frames the situation as a parliamentary crisis, accusing the government of lying to voters to secure greater support. The stance is strongly procedural, demanding better scrutiny of draft legislation.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise regarding the legislative process and quality standards, highlighting the significance of impact assessment and constitutional conformity. They are familiar with the Ministry of Justice’s coordination tools (specifically, the issue of non-coordination) and the long-standing problem of restricting parliamentary competence. Furthermore, they reference a specific legislative failure, citing the absence of a consolidated text of the Arms Act since 2001 as an example.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and insistent, sharply highlighting the vast disconnect between rhetoric and reality, employing phrases such as "glaringly different." The text utilizes both logical arguments (procedural deficiencies) and emotional examples, citing political incivility and accusations of lying. The speaker demands practical steps (such as non-compliance) instead of vision conferences.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The data is restricted to a single presentation given in the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) in January 2024 concerning the overview of legislative policy. The speaker repeatedly notes that the issues addressed (parliamentary competence, the Arms Act) have been debated for many years and annually, which suggests his/her long-standing and consistent involvement with these subjects.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are Minister of Justice Kalle Laanet and the governing coalition, especially the Reform Party. Criticism is aimed both at procedural deficiencies (the failure to use the tool for non-coordination) and political ethics. The speaker accuses the government of political incivility, lying to voters (citing the example of family benefits), and ruthless action, which has resulted in a parliamentary crisis.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker criticizes the opaque cooperation, demanding that the Ministry of Justice submit its remarks in writing, rather than anonymously or following the party line. He notes that although there is cross-factional consensus on the need to increase parliamentary competence, this cooperation fails during the state budget drafting phase, which demonstrates a genuine lack of willingness to cooperate.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Insufficient data. The focus is solely on national legislation, the functions of the parliament, and the activities of the ministries.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic perspectives were indirect, criticizing the cuts to family benefits that were implemented without any impact assessment. The speaker suggested that the decision was, in all likelihood, ideological rather than a matter of funding, thus criticizing the government’s overall fiscal prioritization.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue is family and child benefits, the cutting of which is sharply criticized as voter deception and an example of political incivility. This points to strong support for maintaining or increasing family benefits. The need to update the consolidated text of the Weapons Act is also mentioned.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is centered on improving the quality of law-making, requiring the Ministry of Justice to withhold approval for flawed or incomplete draft legislation. A key priority is enhancing the competence of the Riigikogu (Parliament) so that it is capable of drafting comprehensive legal texts. Furthermore, the development of a new consolidated text for the Weapons Act is also being demanded.
3 Speeches Analyzed