AI Profiling: Liina Kersna

The politician's position is exceptionally focused on reforming education and research policy (R&D/RTDI), viewing these areas as pivotal factors for the nation's economic added value and long-term strategic development. He/She has consistently supported systemic changes (e.g., per-capita funding reform, micro-credentials, R&D governance) and has strongly opposed cuts to science funding. The approach is predominantly policy- and results-based, emphasizing the actual impact of programs, system performance, and accountability (e.g., criticism of ministry effectiveness). In addition to education, key topics include guaranteeing the vitality of culture and the Estonian language, as well as political obstruction, where he/she defends the Reform Party faction's stance and constructive approach.

The politician’s expertise is exceptionally profound and sustained, focusing primarily on education policy (general education, higher education, funding, reform management) and the strategic linkage of research and development (R&D) with the economy. This expertise is always underpinned by specific technical terminology (e.g., per-capita funding, micro-qualifications, TAIKS), knowledge of detailed legislative procedures, and concrete statistical data and international comparisons (OECD, doctoral degree numbers). In addition to these core fields, he/she demonstrates a strong awareness of the infrastructure for youth mental health services and academic depth in cultural and language policy, including the utilization of philosophical concepts. This expertise is grounded in long-term institutional experience, evidenced by references to former ministerial roles and work in the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament).

The politician's rhetorical style is consistently formal, professional, and respectful, maintaining this tone even when delivering criticism or condemning the actions of the opposition party. The discourse is predominantly analytical and procedural, focusing almost exclusively on logical arguments, figures, statistical comparisons, and the specifics of legislative procedure. Emotional appeals are rare, replaced instead by systematic and rational inquiries that emphasize the economic rationale of the policy, systemic deficiencies, and the necessity for clarity. This detail-oriented and fact-based approach suggests the politician’s strong role as a rapporteur for the legislative process and committee work.

The politician's activity pattern throughout the entire observed period (2024–2025) has been consistently high and rhythmic, centered on intensive legislative work within the Riigikogu Culture Committee. He is regularly active in plenary sessions, typically speaking 1–3 days per month. These appearances often occur in clusters (on consecutive days), suggesting that he is managing the final stages of the legislative process. His dominant role is that of the rapporteur for the lead committee, responsible for processing draft legislation, setting deadlines, and submitting detailed inquiries. Furthermore, he has engaged in extensive stakeholder involvement and fieldwork (e.g., visiting schools).

The politician's opposition is predominantly substantive, fact-based, and non-personal, focusing on systemic issues in the areas of education, research and development funding, and the government's fiscal policy. Criticism is aimed both at the effectiveness of the government's actions and at specific opposition parties (EKRE, Center Party) for their obstructionist tactics or previous inaction regarding raising teachers' salaries. The confrontation focuses primarily on procedural correctness and governing efficiency, where solutions and additional measures are often sought instead of mere criticism (e.g., to achieve economic objectives).

The politician's cooperation style is predominantly constructive, inclusive, and consensus-driven, focused on finding systemic solutions alongside a wide range of stakeholders (ministries, experts, and educational institutions). They frequently highlight successful cross-party collaboration and a readiness for compromise within Riigikogu committees, particularly the Culture Committee, emphasizing the value of listening and taking reasoned proposals into account. While instances of direct opposition do occur (for example, criticizing the Centre Party), the dominant approach remains the pursuit of broad political and societal consensus on matters of national significance.

The politician's focus is exclusively directed towards national policy, systemic reforms, and legislation in the fields of education, science, and culture, supplemented by frequent international comparisons (OECD, European countries). Specific regional or local issues do not constitute the main emphasis of their profile. Local institutions or regions (e.g., Uulu, Tartu, Võrumaa) are mentioned rarely and primarily as illustrative examples to support the necessity or impact of nationwide policy mechanisms, rather than for the purpose of solving local problems. Thus, this is clearly a politician operating at the national and institutional level.

The politician's economic views are inextricably linked to knowledge-based economic growth focused on innovation and high added value. He considers research and development (R&D) and education (including doctoral studies and vocational training) to be the primary investment priorities for societal enrichment. He is prepared to use borrowed funds to secure economic growth, stressing the high social and economic returns on educational spending. While the politician supports substantial state expenditures, he simultaneously emphasizes fiscal responsibility, favoring targeted investments (such as teacher salaries) over universal subsidies, and requiring costs to be covered by state levies. In tax policy, he advocates for abolishing the tax hump and raising the tax-free minimum to increase people's purchasing power, thereby demonstrating support for both economic growth and consumer welfare.

The politician's social policy profile is heavily focused on education, viewing it as the foundation for social stability, economic competitiveness, and equal opportunities. The focus is on structural reforms, such as raising the compulsory schooling age, increasing the flexibility of lifelong learning through micro-credentials, and ensuring the quality and salary level of teachers. Significant emphasis is placed on prevention, particularly supporting youth mental health and improving access to social services, and the expansion of parenting programs is supported. Furthermore, the politician emphasizes ensuring the vitality of the Estonian language and culture as a constitutional obligation, linking this goal to national existence and adaptation to new technologies.

The politician's legislative activity has been predominantly and consistently focused on the fields of education, science, and innovation, concentrating on teacher salary and career models, the implementation of education reforms, and the structural organization of R&D funding (the TAI Act). He has repeatedly served as the rapporteur for the leading committee and is a strong supporter of legislating long-term reforms (e.g., micro-qualifications, grounds for student exclusion), while also being an active initiator in considering the reform of legal education. The focus has shifted over time from broad-based education reforms (2024) to specific strategies concerning higher education, the science-intensive economy, and the enhancement of language policy (2025). Although he is mostly the initiator of reforms, opposition arises regarding procedural issues and bills that attempt to replace government regulations with laws (e.g., school lunch support).