Agenda Profile: Alar Laneman
Second Reading of the Draft Act (344 SE) on the Amendment of the Riigikogu Election Act and Related Amendment of Other Acts
2024-04-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to Draft Bill 344 SE, which is viewed as a "very bad" and dangerous development that paves the way for negative consequences. This stance is value-based, stressing that the primary objective of elections is to ensure the clear expression of the will of the citizenry, not mere convenience. The speaker directly connects the lack of electoral credibility with negative governing outcomes, such as "less democracy and more taxes."
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding election procedures and security, criticizing the subjectivity involved in handling proposed amendments (specifically citing the "insincere" criterion). They draw analogies to quality control requirements (comparing elections to items like an oven or furniture), stressing that the state is responsible for ensuring the process is tamper-proof and maintains integrity. A specific data point is also cited: that 40% of voters do not trust e-voting.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's style is sharp, critical, and at times emotional, describing the situation as "sad and comical simultaneously." They employ strong rhetorical questions and direct addresses ("darlings," "dear colleagues") to highlight the illogicality of the opposing side's arguments. Logical arguments (state responsibility, quality control) are interwoven with moral and social appeals (trust is the glue that holds society together).
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The discussion centers on a specific legislative debate (the second reading of Bill 344 SE) held on a single date. The speaker mentions that schoolchildren recently visited, suggesting active engagement with educational communities or local constituents.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposing side (the bill's defenders) is sharply criticized for subjectivity, incompetence, and arrogance, particularly for stressing their own confidence at the expense of voter trust. The most intense criticism is the accusation that the bill's supporters are implementing a "Putin-like approach to organizing elections," even while they themselves criticize others for spreading Putin's talking points. The criticism is both policy-based and procedural.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
In this discussion, the speaker’s style is predominantly confrontational, focusing on highlighting the shortcomings of the draft bill. He supportively cites the position of "good colleague Siim" regarding the importance of trust, which demonstrates selective principled cooperation with like-minded colleagues. There are no references to a willingness to compromise or broad-based cooperation concerning the draft bill.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is clearly on the national level, addressing amendments to the Riigikogu Election Act and the credibility of democracy across society. The international aspect is limited to using Russia as a negative example regarding election administration. A visit by schoolchildren is mentioned, indicating local outreach efforts.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic viewpoints are framed in terms of the consequences, where untrustworthy governance inevitably leads to economic decline. The speaker warns that "less democracy and higher taxes" and a "poorer standard of living" are directly linked to how power is acquired.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The most crucial social issue is public trust and the integrity of democratic processes. It is stressed that trust acts as the glue that holds society together, and election security is the responsibility of the state, not a burden placed upon the voter. A decline in democracy is viewed as a direct threat to the quality of life.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on the opposition to Bill 344 SE (the Act amending the Riigikogu Election Act). The speaker is a formidable opponent, concentrating on the bill's substantive deficiencies (security) and procedural irregularities (the subjective assessment of proposed amendments).
4 Speeches Analyzed