Session Profile: Jaanus Karilaid

The political position is highly critical of the working style employed by the government and the Ministry of Justice, stressing the urgent need to improve the quality and transparency of legislative drafting. The speaker sharply criticizes the prevailing political incivility and dishonesty (specifically referencing the prime minister’s statements and the cuts to family benefits), prioritizing ethical and procedural values above all else. They assert that Estonia is currently facing a parliamentary crisis, which stems from the excessive power and lack of integrity demonstrated by a single political party. This stance is intensely confrontational and fundamentally value-driven.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in the legislative process and the organization of government work, focusing on the inadequacy of impact assessments and the mechanisms for inter-agency coordination. They are well-versed in the disparity of competence and resources between the parliament and the ministries, and they reference specific legislation (e.g., the Weapons Act). Technical terms such as "failure to coordinate" (or "non-coordination") and "impact analysis" are employed.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and at times emotional, employing strong expressions such as "strikingly different" and accusing the government of lying. The speaker balances procedural criticism (impact assessments, the coordination instrument) with moral accusations regarding the decline of political culture. He uses a rhetorical question (why comments are made instead of simply refusing coordination) and requests additional time, which underscores the importance of the topic to him.

The speaker's pattern of activity involves repeatedly and consistently drawing attention to problems concerning the quality of legislation, noting that these topics have been discussed for "many years" and "repeatedly every year." He/She actively participates in the plenary session during the discussion of the Minister of Justice's overview.

The primary opponents are Minister of Justice Kalle Laanet and the ruling coalition, particularly the Reform Party. The criticism is intense, targeting both procedural deficiencies (specifically, the failure to utilize the non-alignment mechanism) and issues of political ethics and culture (such as lying and the controversy surrounding family benefits). The speaker accuses the government of fostering anonymity and contributing to political incivility, stating that there can be no compromise when it comes to political dishonesty.

The speaker refers to a previous broad consensus regarding the expansion of parliamentary authority, noting that virtually all factions have given their assent. He stresses that, in reality, this consensus cannot be implemented when drafting the state budget. Furthermore, the current communication with the government is rather confrontational, demanding public and transparent dialogue among the ministers.

Not enough data

Not enough data

The social sector focuses on family and child benefits, sharply criticizing the government's decision to cut these benefits after the elections. The speaker views this as an ideological issue and a betrayal of voters, which undermines trust in the political system.

The legislative focus is aimed at improving the quality and process of law drafting, requiring the Ministry of Justice to withhold approval for inadequate legislative drafts. Furthermore, the necessity of granting Parliament additional competence to develop consolidated texts is stressed. Specifically, the need to prepare a new consolidated text of the Weapons Act is mentioned.