Session Profile: Vladimir Arhipov
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
2025-02-25
Political Position
The critic vehemently rejects the constitutional amendment bill that restricts voting rights, labeling it collective punishment and anti-democratic. He emphasizes that the right to vote is a fundamental right for all permanent residents of Estonia, not a privilege. This stance is value-based, focusing on the principles of democracy and human rights.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates a strong grasp of constitutional questions, the history of suffrage, and the principles of democracy. They utilize specific figures (60,000 to 70,000 people, a quarter of the population) and reference historical examples regarding voting rights for women and the poor. The analysis centers on constitutional law and the evolution of democracy.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
An emotional and passionate style that combines moral argumentation with factual claims. It uses rhetorical questions, historical parallels, and direct addresses to the people. The tone is cautionary and mobilizing, emphasizing the need for unity and criticizing the political motives of the authorities. The language is elevated and full of pathos.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speeches took place during a single day (February 25, 2025) at the Riigikogu plenary session, where the speaker addressed the same topic multiple times. This references the President's speech from the previous day, demonstrating active monitoring of the political process. The pattern of activity focuses on intensive participation in crucial discussions.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
Sharp criticism was leveled at the government and the bill’s proponents, accusing them of acting solely for the sake of power and attempting to divert attention away from ongoing scandals. It is claimed that the bill’s true objective is political gain, particularly in light of the upcoming Tallinn local elections. The criticism targets both the political substance and the underlying motives, with no mention made of any possibility for compromise.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
It calls upon all responsible colleagues to jointly oppose the draft bill. It addresses "esteemed colleagues" directly, but offers no concrete cooperation or compromise. The style is more mobilizing than negotiation-oriented.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
It specifically mentions the context of the Tallinn local elections, suggesting that the draft legislation might be aimed at seizing power in the capital. While generally focusing on national issues, the Tallinn example demonstrates an awareness of regional political dynamics.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Limited data on economic views. It mentions that people with restrictions "work and pay taxes" but are unable to make decisions, citing taxpayers' rights. More specific economic viewpoints are not evident in the speeches.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
A strong stance on protecting the rights of non-citizens and maintaining social unity. It mentions the restriction of religious rights ("the right to pray in one's own church"). It emphasizes that a quarter of the population feels offended and warns against dividing society. The position is clearly inclusive and supportive of multiculturalism.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The focus is on opposition activities against the constitutional amendment bill, highlighting the dangers inherent in its swift adoption. It criticizes the changing of election rules right before an election. The legislative priority is the protection of constitutional rights and the preservation of the democratic process.
4 Speeches Analyzed