Session Profile: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
2024-12-10
Political Position
The political stance centers on emphasizing the merit of its proposed draft legislation, pointing toward a policy- and results-based framework. The speaker positions themselves within the opposition, criticizing the governing coalition's intent to reject their proposal. The stance is moderately confrontational, focusing specifically on the procedural obstruction.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
There is not enough data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The address is formal and courteous, directed toward the respected chair of the session and the rapporteur. The style is inquisitive and slightly skeptical, employing a rhetorical question to cast doubt on the governing coalition's motives. The emphasis is on logical and procedural argumentation.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
There is insufficient data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponent is clearly identified as the governing coalition, which is being criticized for its intention to reject the bill put forward by the opposition. The criticism is both procedural and policy-based, calling into question the justification for the rejection.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker stressed cooperation within their own party group ("we put forward a genuinely substantial proposal"). Cooperation with the ruling coalition is nonexistent, as the government's actions are perceived solely as the rejection of the opposition's suggestions.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
There is not enough data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There is not enough data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
There is not enough data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on the handling of draft legislation and the defense of proposals put forward by the opposition during the plenary session. The speaker positions themselves as the initiator or a supporter of the bill, emphasizing the merit of the proposal and arguing against its rejection.
1 Speeches Analyzed