Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Most significantly, it is important to emphasize the transparency, inclusion, constitutionality, and the importance of impact analysis in lawmaking. There is a strong, but not politically detailed, position criticizing accelerated drafts and emphasizing that laws must carry justification and demonstrate the necessity of state intervention. It highlights the assurance of effective control and the prevalence of impact within the field as a central objective, and shows that for him/her, this is primarily a matter of evaluation and the development of legislative practice, rather than merely a political programmatic front.

Shows a clear understanding of the legislative process: the intent to draft, impact analysis, and constitutional compliance review are the core elements that must be included in the laws. The text refers to the views of experts (Carri Ginter, Allar Jõks) and the complexity of transposing European Union directives, a field lacking proper analysis (specifically regarding national suitability). It draws a comparison with the COVID and war crises, emphasizing that emergency decisions do not excuse the absence of constitutionality and impact analysis.

The speech is formal in style and argumentative, employing rhetoric through clear questions and references to authoritative sources. It utilizes sources and the example of Lennart Meri to illustrate the importance of long-term impact; the style is convincingly evidence-based, rather than purely emotional. The focus is on the explicit articulation of problems and the elaboration of solutions, not on immediate rhetorical fervor.

The address was divided into several segments over the course of the same day (2024-01-24), signaling active involvement in legislative discussions and the work of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament). The speech points to consecutive appearances before the Legal Committee and sustained focus on the area of judicial review by the Supreme Court and necessary coordination. The repeated addresses and the somewhat lyrical return (Thank you!) demonstrate a consistent, regular pattern of participation in major debates concerning legislative practices.

It is indeed strongly oppositional, criticizing the government and the coalition for their accelerated legislative drafts and the insufficient preparatory intent and impact analyses. It insists that acceleration is not a justification, and that every bill must undergo a constitutional legality review, rather than remaining at the level of “just another decision.” It highlights the necessity of hitting the brakes and demands that the Parliament (Riigikogu) and the government take responsibility for national rights and the quality of lawmaking.

It highlights the principle of cooperation: being inclusive, transparent, and guaranteeing citizens an equal right to participate must be an integral part of the drafting intention. At the same time, it is prepared to limit cooperation if the drafts do not meet their requirements (i.e., are not in compliance with the drafting intention and impact analysis). It demands strict adherence to bureaucratic standards and emphasizes that cooperation must take place as an honest and transparent dialogue between the government, the Riigikogu, and the citizens.

The focus is national and centralized, revolving around the state and the context of the global legal system. There is no emphasis on regional or local industries; instead, the stress is placed on the general legislative process at the nation-state level and compliance with European Union legal acts.

Specific positions regarding economic policy are limited; the text stresses that the rationale for tax hikes can in no way justify an expedited procedure. Concerning the economic effect of legislation, the emphasis is on the need for evaluation via constitutionality and impact analysis, rather than short-sighted cost control. It fails to present a deeper split between businesses versus workers or a broader tax and regulatory strategy.

Emphasizes respect for fundamental rights and inclusive participation; points to the issue of marriage equality as an example of how rushed interventions can violate the practice of sound legislative drafting. Focuses on social rights and the importance of awareness and debate, stressing that laws should enhance people's freedoms, not restrict rights. Lacks a deep personal stance on specific social issues.

The main trend focuses on reforming legislative practices: mandatory preliminary draft intentions and impact assessments, constitutional compliance checks, and strengthening the coordination system within the Riigikogu (Parliament) and the government. It indicates that future progress must rely on a transparent and inclusive process, and it expresses the desire that draft legislation should not be fast-tracked without these measures in place. It asserts that every law should undergo comprehensive analysis, taking into account long-term effects and the principles of the rule of law.