Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

As a representative of the Centre Party, [he/she] is clearly opposed to e-voting and the restrictive procedural dealing associated with the related bills; emphasizes that democracy and the exercise of state power must adhere to constitutional principles, and restricting the opposition is detrimental. He/She calls for a vote against the aforementioned bill, emphasizing the role of the people as the ultimate sovereign power and the necessity of ensuring transparency and legal certainty in the electoral process. The style is centered on values and principles, and criticism is primarily aimed at the coalition and their procedural methods; demonstrating a primarily policy-based, democracy-protecting approach.

It outlines the technical risks within the context of e-voting and mobile voting (m-elections), specifically mentioning facial recognition, redundant servers, third-party involvement, and app store control. Furthermore, it stresses the necessity for trustworthy and secure systems. The text utilizes examples and terminology associated with guaranteeing election security and transparency, and references pertinent technical constraints.

A critical and combative tone; uses rhetorical questions, an anecdote (the Ossinovski case), and legal references; emotional, but primarily argumentative, emphasizing moral and constitutional principles; the style is largely aggressive in its criticism of the opposition.

Speeches are scheduled for a single day (May 7, 2024) during the plenary session; the text refers to protracted debates and obstruction; it utilizes references to interpellations and past incidents as examples of the issues that are arising; it highlights concerns regarding both the pace of parliamentary work and the quality of legislative procedures.

The primary opposing stance regarding the coalition and government procedures; accuses [them] of obstruction and violating constitutional principles; frequently calls for the protection of the opposition's rights and the equality of their mandate; remains reservedly critical concerning compromise.

Primarily an oppositional stance, showing few signs of broad cooperation; it stresses visible resistance to the coalition's measures and draws examples from the context of debate and counter-moves; it references the need for discussions, but ultimately focuses on defiance.

The central national context of the speech; urban examples (Tallinn) are highlighted, but the primary focus is at the Riigikogu level and the broader defense of democracy; a regional agenda is largely absent.

Expectations and criticism focus on tax and expenditure policy. This stems from concerns regarding additional taxes (such as the car tax and other levies) and criticism directed at the redistribution of costs associated with teachers' salary increases. The text emphasizes the economical and transparent use of the state budget and resources, highlighting the requirement for demanding the return of funds (clawbacks) as a fundamental guarantee of a state governed by the rule of law.

Important social issues: education funding and teachers' salaries, working conditions in the public sector, culture and heritage preservation, and the security of democracy and elections; strong criticism and the need for attention to these topics and clear solutions; emphasizes the teachers' concern and the experience of the horse.

The core of the main applications and priorities centers on the draft legislation concerning mobile voting (m-elections) and e-voting, including a discussion of their shortcomings and risks. It emphasizes adherence to constitutional principles and the protection of the equality of the mandate; it refers to parliamentary interpellations and the assessment of the Chancellor of Justice as elements of the court proceedings; and it reflects criticism regarding the government's rapid pace of legislative changes.