Agenda Profile: Vladimir Arhipov
Draft law amending the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (536 SE) – first reading
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The speaker adopts a strongly opposing stance regarding the draft constitutional amendment, arguing that the true objective is not security, but rather the weakening of political rivals, particularly the Centre Party. He strongly emphasizes that stripping away voting rights undermines social unity and internal security. This position is value-based, focusing on the principles of democracy and social cohesion.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge regarding the relationship between security and democracy, highlighting the links between internal security and social cohesion. They show an understanding of public sector workers, specifically mentioning the defense industry, the Rescue Board, and the medical sector. The argument relies more on foundational principles than on technical specifics.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker employs combative and interrogative rhetoric, issuing direct challenges to colleagues through rhetorical questions. The style is emotional and confrontational, utilizing the highlighting of contradictions and irony. The tone of the speech is formal yet sharp, combining polite addresses ("esteemed colleague") with critical accusations.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Based on limited data—two interventions during the same day in the debate on amending the constitution. There is insufficient data to identify any patterns.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The speaker sharply criticizes the bill's supporters, accusing them of political manipulation and undermining their competitors. The criticism is both procedural (a lack of analysis) and fundamental (the undermining of democracy). There is no sign of a willingness to compromise; on the contrary, the position is categorical and accusatory.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker shows partial agreement with colleague Varro regarding the lack of analysis, but the overall style is confrontational. There are no signs of a willingness to cooperate; the focus is instead on opposition and accusations. There are no references to bipartisan cooperation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker addresses issues of citizenship and voting rights, emphasizing the importance of including all people residing in Estonia. He/She advocates for broader participatory democracy and criticizes the restriction of suffrage as a form of societal division. The position taken is liberal on matters of civil rights.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The speaker is clearly opposed to the constitutional amendment bill, criticizing the urgency of its proceedings and the lack of analysis. They focus on procedural deficiencies and the fundamental issues of the bill itself. The positions taken are oppositional, not initiatory or supportive.
2 Speeches Analyzed