Agenda Profile: Siim Pohlak
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 e-elections, which are viewed as a threat to public trust and democracy, demanding their immediate termination. The draft bill under consideration (344 SE) is seen as nothing more than a cosmetic change that fails to address the actual issues. This position is strongly value-driven, highlighting the lack of transparency and trust in the electoral system, and accusing the government (the Reform Party) of remaining in power thanks to e-votes.
14 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in election organization and the technical and legal aspects of e-voting, particularly concerning the provisions for outsourcing identification, signing, and registration services. In their argumentation, they rely on the assessments of IT sector experts (e.g., American professor Drew Springall) and academics (Raivo Palmaru) regarding the security and reliability of e-elections. Furthermore, the speaker is familiar with the contentious issues related to the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and the powers of its Board.
14 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and insistent, particularly when addressing e-elections and criticizing the board's actions. The speaker employs both emotional arguments (e.g., calling mobile voting a "crazy idea") and logical ones, citing system failures, public opinion statistics (showing 40% distrust), and academic research. Furthermore, the speaker draws strong political comparisons, linking the Reform Party to United Russia because of their shared faith in e-voting.
14 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is highly active during the Riigikogu session, repeatedly posing detailed questions regarding the draft bill's provisions and intensely engaging in obstructionist tactics. They raise objections to the board's decisions, demand clarification on the rules of procedure, and frequently request recesses before votes.
14 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the government (the Reform Party) and the Riigikogu Board, who are criticized for both their policies and their procedural order. The government is accused of continuing internet voting despite security risks and public distrust, and they are also linked to the Russian ruling party regarding the e-voting system. The Board is strongly criticized for exceeding its mandate and establishing disproportionate procedural rules when limiting recesses.
14 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The cooperation style is centered on factional opposition and obstruction, requiring the presidium to specifically allocate the necessary recesses for the factions. The speaker supports the protests of other deputies (e.g., Ms. Kõlvart) and requests that the presidium convene to discuss the protests. Data concerning cross-party cooperation is unavailable.
14 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is clearly on national legislative issues (the Election Law) and international comparisons (Russia, studies conducted by American professors). Regional or local topics are addressed solely for illustrative purposes, describing the organization of paper-based elections within a local government (the municipal council confirms the commission members).
14 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
No data available.
14 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
No data available
14 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the draft bill amending the Riigikogu Election Act (344 SE), which the speaker strongly opposes, deeming it merely cosmetic. Attention is primarily focused on the provisions concerning e-voting, particularly the lack of transparency and the security risks associated with outsourcing these services. The speaker is employing obstructionist tactics to impede the bill's proceedings, demanding recesses and protesting the decisions made by the board.
14 Speeches Analyzed