Session Profile: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The political position is fiercely oppositional, criticizing the government’s actions against the backdrop of declining living standards, tax hikes, and a lack of positive outlook. The speaker vehemently opposes draft legislation concerning the social sphere (state fees, unemployment insurance, psychological assistance) as well as the removal of voting rights from Russian citizens. The focus remains on the negative impact of the government’s policies on citizens, particularly pensioners and the less affluent, which points strongly to performance-based criticism. Regarding the voting rights issue, emphasis is placed on the violation of the principles of democracy and the rule of law through collective punishment.

The speaker demonstrates knowledge regarding the financing of the social sphere and the covering of administrative costs, citing, for example, the unrealistic 500-euro grant provided to a municipality of 5,000 inhabitants for the provision of psychological assistance. The argumentation is particularly strong on the topics of the rule of law and security, where direct and repeated reference is made to Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise and the former head of the Security Police Board, Arnold Sinisalu, to support their position against the revocation of voting rights.

The rhetorical style is critical, accusatory, and direct, emphasizing the injustice and negative consequences of the government's proposals ("bad law," "unjust"). It employs both logical arguments (specific financial examples, citing experts) and emotional appeals, focusing on the protection of vulnerable groups (pensioners, the poor, students). The speech maintains a formal tone, addressing the respected presiding officer and the rapporteur, yet it includes pointed questions regarding the competence of the opposing party.

The speaker was very active during the plenary sessions, presenting over the course of two days (November 20 and 21) on several different draft laws concerning the social and legal sectors. A recurring pattern is noticeable, where multiple questions are posed regarding voting rights, repeating the same argument concerning collective punishment and the views of experts. All presentations took place during the Riigikogu plenary session.

The primary opposition is the government and the rapporteurs of the draft legislation (e.g., Mr. Seeder), whose policies are deemed unjust and punitive toward the less affluent. Criticism is leveled both at specific policies (saving funds at the expense of the poor) and at fundamental rule-of-law principles (collective punishment). The resistance is intense, manifesting in proposals to reject or discontinue the bills, and the opponents' competence is being questioned, with references made to the former head of Kapo and the Chancellor of Justice.

The style of cooperation manifests itself through the presentation of the faction's positions and proposals made on its behalf to reject or suspend draft legislation ("The Centre Party faction proposes"). There is no evidence of a willingness to compromise or engage in cross-party cooperation; the focus remains on opposing government policies.

The focus is on national social and security issues that affect all Estonian citizens and residents. Emphasis is also placed on the increased burden on local municipalities, which are forced to pay subsistence benefits and have unrealistically little funding for providing psychological assistance. Specific regional projects or industries are not mentioned.

Economic policy is firmly focused on opposing increases in taxes and state fees, arguing that such measures lower the standard of living and place a heavy burden on consumers, particularly pensioners. There is criticism of the government's efforts to save money at the expense of the poorest segments of society through the reform of the unemployment insurance system. Furthermore, there is support for protecting lower-income groups from inflation and rising prices.

In the social sector, attention is focused on the accessibility of mental health care and the inadequacy of social benefits (unemployment insurance, subsistence allowance), stressing that entire categories of citizens, such as students, are left without support. The rights of Russian citizens and non-citizens residing in Estonia are vigorously defended, opposing the revocation of voting rights based on the principle of collective punishment, which is contrary to democracy and the rule of law.

The legislative focus is on opposing government-initiated bills in the social and legal sectors. The speaker is actively submitting objections, proposing that bills be rejected (unemployment insurance reform) or that their reading be terminated (raising state fees in healthcare and the social sphere). Opposition is also being mounted against the bill concerning the organization of psychological assistance, as it fails to offer viable solutions.