Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

A strong, principled emphasis is placed on defending the constitution and respecting the parliamentary process. The position is highly critical of government decisions (especially the car tax) and the handling of the budget, stressing the necessity of representing the public voice and ensuring parliamentary oversight. The stance is values-based and results-driven—forceful in its sector-specific approach and oriented toward changes, provided those changes guarantee adherence to the constitution and a socially equitable distribution of burdens. Noticing a perceived constitutional drift, the individual calls upon the Riigikogu to renew its respect for the constitution and fulfill its role as the guardian of the separation of powers.

Expert in the field of domestic constitutional law and procedural law; cites the constitutional provision and the foundations of social rights (Sections 10, 28), as well as the principles of being under special care. Explains the distinction between formal and substantive compliance and emphasizes that European Union norms must be harmonized with our legal order; utilizes the role of laws and explanatory memoranda and the essential principles of sound legal analysis.

Well-reasoned, yet critical and slightly accusatory in its phrasing; it poses questions regarding certain aspects (how and why) and emphasizes underlying principles rather than merely presenting facts. The tone is formal, but includes emotional elements (the voice of the people, the defense of rights), and the length and detail of the address enhance its persuasiveness.

He/She speaks at the plenary session and focuses on criticizing constitutional issues and budget management; references previous debates and stakeholder engagement, and stresses the need for greater transparency. He/She notes that postponed or consolidated amendments have been problematic and calls for corrective action.

Critical of decisions made by the coalition and government (especially regarding the car tax and procedural practices). The decisions are described as unconstitutional, and it is emphasized that the state must not restrict the Riigikogu's ability to represent diverse societal groups. The tone is one of strong conflict and opposition, but the focus remains on policy and procedures, rather than personal attacks.

He/She has experience cooperating with stakeholders (such as involving chambers and associations for people with disabilities) and notes that some amendment proposals were drafted in collaboration with those groups; however, he/she points out that these collaboratively developed proposals could not be brought up for discussion. In the call, he/she stresses the necessity of continuing cooperation, but does not exclude criticism concerning the absence of compromises.

There is insufficient data regarding regional concentration; the entire approach is national and constitutional. Not enough data

The focus is on the assessment of social and fiscal consequences; it criticizes car tax cuts and the coordination of support for, or opposition to, these measures. It emphasizes that the redistribution of tax revenue and insufficient support measures increase the risk of poverty, especially among people with disabilities. It does not represent broad economic policy rhetoric, but rather stresses the necessity of budgetary principles that are thrifty and restrictive, yet fairly targeted.

The primary focus is placed on the rights of people with disabilities, social cohesion, and providing care for those in need of assistance. The text highlights the necessity of preserving the principles of the welfare state and preventing inequality resulting from political decisions. Furthermore, it emphasizes that modifications to the car tax could heighten the risk of poverty, asserting that state provision must be guaranteed as a fundamental principle, pursuant to Sections 10 and 28.

Analysis of constitutionality and a procedurally correct debate. The discussion focuses on differentiating amendments based on their substance versus their procedure, stressing that the voice of the public and interest groups must not be limited. It mentions the car tax law and its conflict with the constitution, emphasizing the Riigikogu’s role as the guardian of the constitution and the necessity for improved transparency and cooperation processes.