Agenda Profile: Ando Kiviberg
First reading of the draft resolution "Establishment of a Riigikogu investigative committee to examine the security of the Riigikogu e-election process" (576 OE)
2025-04-21
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The most crucial topic is the security and reliability of e-elections, and he/she is currently processing the bill that was initiated to investigate this matter. He/She supports transparency and obtaining answers from experts, but prefers to wait for the results of the report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (ODIHR) before moving forward with the investigative committee. His/Her approach is rather procedural and cautious, emphasizing the utilization of existing expertise.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates strong expertise regarding the work and procedural rules of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, presenting a detailed overview of the session's proceedings, participants, and voting results. The speaker is aware of international electoral standards and the ODIHR mission timeline. However, the speaker himself emphasizes that he is not an e-voting specialist, but is merely relaying the discussion that took place in the committee.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The presentation is highly formal, structured, and informative, typical of a commission report that references the positions of other parties. The tone is neutral and objective, focusing on the communication of facts and procedural steps. When responding to follow-up questions, they are cautious, emphasizing their role as a non-expert.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
His operational pattern is tied to the role of the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, which involves chairing sessions and submitting reports to the Riigikogu. He actively proposes procedural solutions; for instance, he is taking responsibility for organizing a visit to the electoral service.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The speaker himself does not directly criticize any specific faction, but rather relays the conflicting viewpoints presented within the committee (e.g., the concerns of those who introduced the draft bill versus the objections raised by the electoral service and other committee members). He also conveys the criticism voiced by Peeter Tali, who considered the establishment of the investigative committee an overreaction, comparing it to the investigation into e-banking.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
He/She is open to cooperation and compromise, proposing to the sponsors of the draft bill that the procedure be postponed pending the receipt of the ODIHR report. He/She supports cross-factional cooperation, agreeing to organize a joint visit for committee members to the election administration. He/She emphasizes transparency and the involvement of experts.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is strongly on national (Riigikogu, e-elections) and international topics (OSCE/ODIHR, France, Finland, Ukraine), touching upon the comparison of the Estonian e-voting system with those of other countries. Regional or local focus is lacking.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There is not enough data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
There is insufficient data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the processing of Riigikogu Draft Resolution 576 OE, which concerns the establishment of an investigative committee on e-voting security. He/She is the representative of the lead committee and is responsible for the procedure of the draft's first reading, during which a motion was made to reject the draft (6 in favor, 3 opposed).
3 Speeches Analyzed