The changes at the top of the state began on the first day of the "Glavchev" caretaker government. They are happening against the background of scandals in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and customs. How to look at what is happening and what to expect from the parties… Political scientist Ralitsa Simeonova spoke to FACTS.
- Mrs. Simeonova, if we look at things realistically, who is responsible for this office and its actions?
- In the context of constitutional changes, in practice, this is the key issue. It used to be clear that the president appointed an official cabinet, bearing the corresponding responsibility for the selection of ministers and for the management of this cabinet. This responsibility rested on a clear logic in view of the specific institutional role of the head of state in the system of separation of powers in Bulgaria. Yes, the connection of political responsibility and accountability to the parliament is broken, insofar as the latter is dissolved, but the legitimacy of this approach still remains high, insofar as it derives from the high legitimacy associated with the direct election of the head of state by the Bulgarian citizens.
After the constitutional changes, the political responsibility, as far as we can talk about it, is borne by the acting Prime Minister. The appointment of this prime minister is a function of selection from a specified list of positions, not a judgment of merit and competence. This is a prerequisite for the official cabinet to be headed by highly partisan individuals, firstly, because of the very procedure for selecting principals for these positions, and secondly, inasmuch as they are often occupied by party functionaries. The constitutional changes removed responsibility from the president for the selection of cabinet appointments, but did not transfer it to another entity with reciprocal legitimacy. Under these conditions, in practice, no one is sufficiently responsible for this choice.
Such a vacuum in terms of responsibility opens up a field for outside influences in the decision-making process within this cabinet.
At the same time, the new "model" an ex-officio cabinet is expected to answer to a parliament in force at the time, which did not actually elect it and which has no effective mechanisms to control it. In other words, the political responsibility that is borne in this context is greatly minimized at all levels - cabinet, parliament and president.
- It used to be clear that the president appoints a cabinet, but now he has become the administrator of the press? What is the political logic of this and how workable is it…
- The logic is precisely to minimize responsibility. Because if we assume that the idea of these changes was to limit the powers of the president on the occasion of the appointment of service cabinets, then this could be done much more elegantly, with the resigned cabinet simply continuing to rule until a new cabinet is chosen. This is an established model of transition from one government to another in many democracies and would not have created such institutional chaos. The fact that these exotic changes were made raises many questions, mostly about who wants to rule without being held accountable and what decisions are yet to be made.
In this context, it is very likely that the cabinet "Glavchev" to be instrumental in making unpopular but key decisions, both on personnel matters and on policy.
These will be decisions for which no party will be inclined to bear political responsibility. By all accounts, it seems that the “Glavchev” it will be a backstage screen.
- Don't these constitutional changes hide under the “official cabinet” really partisan?
- To a large extent it is. The mechanism for electing an ex-officio prime minister is in itself a prerequisite for establishing in practice that the ex-officio offices are actually partisan. The first office of this kind gives evidence in this direction. Mr. Glavchev is a bright party figure from the ranks of GERB, which cannot help but provoke doubts that there is party influence on his choice of ministers, as well as that such will be exerted in relation to the upcoming decisions of the cabinet.
- Parliament works in a kind of timelessness. Is this the best time to use situational majorities?
- The situation actually poses risks that the parliament, which no longer has a sufficiently high legitimacy in view of the scheduled new elections, will adopt key decisions and bills through situational ("floating") majorities. The question of the legitimacy of these decisions can be legitimately raised, as to how proper it is for such decisions to be taken by a parliament that will soon cease to exist. So, in this context - no, it's not the best time to make important decisions, but probably certain political forces will take advantage of the moment.
- The organization of elections or what is happening in the Ministry of the Interior. Which is more important and more interesting?
- The two are connected. The Ministry of Internal Affairs has an important role in conducting elections. The agency has key security functions and is one of the structures called to ensure the integrity of elections. We have to keep this in mind when we talk about the problems of controlled and bought votes, electoral crimes. The fierce political struggle over who will control the Ministry of Interior, in view of the upcoming elections, will not help to increase confidence in the electoral process.
On the contrary - the feeling is growing that the department will be used in the service of certain party interests.
This can discourage citizens from exercising their right to vote and lead to low voter turnout. With low voter turnout, we know that the hard cores of the parties determine the final results. In this sense, we guess who she serves.
- Compromises. Is this important to have for a person who will occupy a senior position in the Ministry of the Interior?
- Unfortunately, it is a practice to admit to high public positions persons for whom there are already accumulated incriminating documents, guaranteeing that they will subsequently be successfully controlled. These are ugly techniques typical of certain circles, but they are applied massively in the political sphere. Such practices make the lack of transparency in making political decisions on important issues palpable and increase the feeling of behind-the-scenes interference in these processes. Sometimes, of course, there are breakthroughs and clean people enter the MIA system, but these cases are rare and the puppeteers quickly correct the "mistakes". And the exceptions always confirm the rule.
- And what comes out - whoever doesn't listen, they quickly finish him off with compromising materials…
- Yes, those who don't listen are usually quickly finished with compromising materials, and when there are no suitable ones, the "factory of lies", i.e. certain media outlets produce and distribute fabricated stories so that the disobedient are quickly shut down in every sense - socially, politically and economically.
This is the reason why decent and worthwhile people cannot survive long in this political environment. This is the reason why we have such a poor quality of political representation, as well as a lack of professionalism and low competence of many of the persons holding high public positions.
And in this ugly information environment, in which no one is responsible when they spread lies, the Bulgarian citizens totally lose their orientation as to which information is reliable and which is not. This is the goal. When you don't have correct data, when you can't distinguish truth from lies, then you can't make adequate decisions and you become easily controllable. This is how the behavior of entire social groups is often guided.