Session Profile: Ando Kiviberg
XV Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
2025-11-06
Political Position
Supports the continuation of e-voting, albeit moderately, emphasizing personal satisfaction with the option and institutional trust. The political stance is based on the functioning of the Estonian state and the repeated opinions of the Supreme Court regarding the reliability of e-elections. The approach is driven primarily by institutional and legal considerations, rather than being value-based.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
Demonstrates strong expertise regarding the working procedures of the Constitutional Committee and the interpretation of state law, detailing the requirement for the majority of the composition and its historical evolution. He/She accurately employs technical terminology and refers to assessments provided by the Riigikogu Legal and Analysis Department, as well as the content of the ODIHR report. Although he/she denies considering himself/herself a constitutional expert, he/she demonstrates profound procedural knowledge.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is formal, procedural, and fact-based, focusing on the neutral presentation of the committee's discussion. It employs logical appeals, relying on legislation, Supreme Court positions, and data provided by the electoral service. When addressing criticism, the tone is serious and protective of the institutions, yet it also permits a brief personal remark concerning the convenience of e-voting.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Acting as the rapporteur for the Constitutional Committee during the Riigikogu plenary session, [he/she] provides an overview of the recent sitting and the committee’s activities. [He/She] mentions the public hearing organized by the committee regarding the ODIHR report and the written appeal submitted to the Ministry of Justice. This operational pattern is characterized by the detailed and timely communication of the committee’s work.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
It approaches the criticism raised by the opposition (the Centre Party, Helme) regarding the reliability of e-voting in an official and measured manner. It responds to the criticism by presenting counterarguments (e.g., Koitmäe’s confirmation that there were no errors, the Supreme Court’s positions) and emphasizing that the ODIHR report constituted a legal, not a technical, assessment. It avoids personal attacks, focusing instead on defending the institutional integrity of the system.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Describes structured cooperation with Arne Koitmäe, the head of the Republic of Estonia Electoral Service, and other members of the commission. It demonstrates readiness for institutional cooperation by formally addressing the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs in writing regarding the consideration of ODIHR recommendations and the preparation of necessary amendments. Consensus was reached within the commission regarding procedural decisions.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the deliberation of Bill 679, initiated by the Centre Party, which concerns the suspension of e-voting. It emphasizes the necessity of implementing legislative amendments in accordance with ODIHR recommendations and ensuring the correct procedural order (the requirement for an absolute majority of the membership when the government is presented with a proposal to amend the law).
5 Speeches Analyzed