Session Profile: Jaak Valge
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
2024-05-29
Political Position
The political position is firmly against lowering the voting age, emphasizing responsibility, maturity, and the historical norm of 18 years. The speaker strongly supports increasing citizens' capacity for political influence through the possibility of initiating referendums, in order to remedy "failed parliamentarism." The argumentation is a blend of value-based reasoning (maturity, stability) and policy analysis (social research data).
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the fields of social sciences, demography, and political science, demanding the inclusion of political scientists, social scientists, and biologists in the discussion. He/She refers to European Social Survey data regarding the rise in the age of becoming an adult and uses ratings from the Institute of Societal Studies to show the volatility of party support across different age groups. The speaker employs academic terminology and criticizes the opposing side for a primitive explanatory memorandum and anecdotal argumentation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and academic, emphasizing logical arguments, social research data, and historical context. He criticizes the opponents' terminology ("reactionary," "progressivist") as Marxist and considers the draft bill's explanatory memorandum unconvincing and poorly structured. The speaker attempts to maintain a formal tone, but is sharply confrontational at the same time.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker participated in the Constitutional Committee's discussion, where they proposed involving external experts (political scientists, demographers). At the plenary session, they presented their party's arguments against the draft bill and ultimately proposed rejecting the bill.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The confrontation is directed against the initiators of the draft bill and the work of the Constitutional Committee, criticizing the explanatory memorandum for being flimsy, primitive, and for failing to involve experts. He rejects opponents' attempts to label conservatives as cynical or reactionary, defining these labels as Marxist. The opponents' ability to persuade is considered low, but the possibility of compromise is not ruled out ("they may still try").
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The collaborative style indicates an openness to involving academic experts (political scientists, biologists), even though this proposal did not receive approval from the commission. He/She also refers to cooperation with national-conservative youth (Sinine Äratus), whose negative opinion regarding the draft bill was sent to the commission.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
A regional focus is lacking; the discussion concentrates on national legislation and international social research data (Europe, Belgium, Germany).
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Data is missing.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social theme is the voting age and the criteria for reaching adulthood, emphasizing that mature citizens are less susceptible to influence and more stable. He/She uses social science data to show that the age of reaching adulthood has risen in Europe, a trend which contradicts the lowering of the voting age.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on opposing the bill to lower the voting age, proposing that the draft law be rejected. He/She is taking the lead on procedural amendments (such as the inclusion of experts) and supports a legislative initiative that would empower citizens to launch referendums.
2 Speeches Analyzed