Agenda Profile: Vladimir Arhipov
Draft law amending the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (536 SE) – second reading
2025-02-25
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The speaker consistently opposes the proposed constitutional amendment bill, which he views as anti-democratic and a form of collective punishment. He strongly asserts that disenfranchising 60,000 to 70,000 people will destabilize domestic security and fracture society. The speaker stresses that the constitution should not be amended hastily for the sake of political gain, and he criticizes the practice of changing electoral rules immediately before an election.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound knowledge of constitutional law and the history of democracy, referencing the historical development of suffrage and the principles of the rule of law. He uses specific figures (60,000–70,000 people) and analyzes the law's impact on social stability. The speaker demonstrates an understanding of the connections between security and social cohesion.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker uses emotionally charged and dramatic rhetoric, combining it with historical parallels and moral reasoning. He addresses the people directly ("Dear people of Estonia!") and employs rhetorical questions and metaphors (the heart of democracy, the state is gasping for breath). The tone of the speech is passionate and cautionary, emphasizing the dangers and consequences.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker actively participated in the parliamentary session, delivering several speeches on the topic of constitutional amendment throughout the day. He/She referenced the president's speech from the previous day, demonstrating that they were keeping track of political developments. Based on the available data, it is not possible to assess long-term activity patterns.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The speaker sharply criticizes the bill's supporters, accusing them of acting purely for power and engaging in governance hostile to the people. He asserts that their actions are aimed at achieving political gain and diverting attention away from the government's scandals. The criticism is fundamental and uncompromising, urging a definitive "no" to the proposed law.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker urges all responsible colleagues to vote against the bill, but does not mention any specific cooperation with other factions or politicians. He addresses "everyone" generally—those who feel responsibility for the future—but fails to outline specific forms of collaboration or the pursuit of compromises.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker specifically brings up the context of Tallinn, suggesting that the law might be aimed at securing power in the capital during the upcoming local elections. Other regional aspects are not covered in the speeches, which instead focus primarily on nationwide issues.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There is not enough data.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker strongly advocates for the rights and integration of non-citizens, stressing that non-citizens permanently residing in Estonia must also have the right to vote. They also mention the restriction of religious freedom and criticize the act of pushing people away from their homeland. The speaker emphasizes the necessity of social unity and the importance of including all residents.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The speaker focuses entirely on the position opposing Bill 536 SE, the Draft Act on Amendment of the Constitution, placing him/her clearly in opposition to this specific legislative change. He/She omits any mention of other legislative priorities or initiatives, concentrating solely on obstructing the current bill and arguing against its passage.
4 Speeches Analyzed