New form of office, new rights of the president… These are some of the changes in the Constitution that the deputies in the last parliament made. But have we achieved something better… Attorney Gancho Ganchev spoke to FAKTI on the subject.
- Attorney Ganchev, how do you view the desired loud proclamation that Bulgaria needs constitutional reform, and what actually happened?
- Bulgaria does not need a constitutional reform, but a restart of our political system and a complete replacement of the political elite that has lost its legitimacy. What Bulgarian citizens expected from the loudly proclaimed constitutional reform was to return the citizens' sense of justice - social, financial and judicial. In practice, this did not happen. The whole drive for constitutional change has played its only role, and that is to limit the power of the president and the ability to appoint caretaker governments, as well as the ability of the political class to control the electoral process. As they say: “He who pays, also orders the music”.
Control over the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the services and the prosecutor's office, in practice, provide the protection that is necessary for the network of buying and selling votes to function.
The inaction of law enforcement agencies and turning a blind eye to them leads people to feel that the elections are pre-determined. The mantra “everything is solved” and “they are all mascaras” it has been accepted by our society for a long time and it drives away the capable and principled people from politics, and the mass of our society voluntarily gives up their constitutional right to vote. This leads to the multiplication of the same political entities and the lack of standards and quality selection of our political leaders.
- We see that the idea was for the parliament to control the caretaker government, and the deputies voted for a vacation. Why?
- Absolute nonsense. As I said above, the goal of the system players was to limit the right of the president to appoint a caretaker government to organize and conduct fair and transparent elections. In practice, those who lied to their voters, I mean GERB and PP-DB, through their parliamentary majority with DPS and through the viciously conceived “assembly”, took control of the parliament and imposed the constitutional reforms. The parliamentary republic, unfortunately, has long been exhausted - at least in the form in which it now functions. Deputies have long been hostages to party commands, the egos of their chairmen and their personal interests. The interference of foreign embassies and the lack of resistance forces in our political leaders to defend our national interest,
creates the feeling of a lack of sovereignty and the transformation of Bulgaria simply into a servile territory governed by deputies.
Bulgarian society and the national media lack pluralism, foreign opinion is stigmatized, the play on words such as Euro-Atlanticism, European values and parliamentarism have long since been emptied of content. The departure of the parliament on vacation showed once again that the changes in the Constitution are a delusion and that the parliament, in itself, does not want to be corrective, but rather a crutch of the mirror image of the resigned regular government "Denkov-Gabriel" ;, I mean the government of Prime Minister Glavchev.
- It is increasingly being commented that the changes in the laws are unconstitutional. And the Constitutional Court is silent. How long…
- Although we have as a result a change of the Constitution, every single law for its amendment and addition derives from the Constitution, i.e. has a secondary character and is subordinate to it in form and content. Constitutional practice recognizes that such an act of the National Assembly can be subject to independent control after its entry into force. Each such act cannot contradict the main principles of the law, and changes can be assessed only in accordance with the current Constitution, its supremacy and its immediate effect. Therefore, the obligation to respect the ways and forms of changing a constitution is not simply an obligation to respect its norms, but rather an obligation to defend the democratic, legal state and the rule of law, which is the foundation of every developed society.
In this regard, I am deeply disappointed with the Constitutional Court, I expected the Constitutional Court to make a principled decision by fixing the mess that the sleazy lawyers in the 49th National Assembly made. Unfortunately, as we have seen, even people who are purely party candidates, people with low public support, tied up in addictions and last but not least, without any legal expertise got into the SC. Law is not a spoon for every mouth. It is a specific matter that should create order and rules, not chaos and lawlessness. For me, for the most part, the constitutional changes are illegal and populist. Hidden behind good intentions, the current constitutional changes have created an institutional crisis.
The lack of a timely decision by the Supreme Court has undermined the rule of law and shows only one thing - dependencies.
In order for it to be a “management tool”, controlled and limited by the means of democracy, it is also necessary to guarantee the protection of the Constitution by itself (Decision No. 7 of 13.09.2006 under the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6/ 2006). For this reason, the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Constitution, adopted by an ordinary National Assembly, is subject to review for constitutionality – as well as regarding whether the order established in art. 154 and 155 of the Constitution, and whether in accordance with Art. 153 of it, the amendments contained therein do not affect issues of the exclusive competence of the Grand National Assembly. In the absence of such control, there is a danger that any National Assembly may amend the Constitution, but without complying with its provisions in Art. 154 and 155 line for this, as well as in violation of Art. 153 of the Constitution to affect issues that are within the competence of the Supreme Court (Decision No. 3 of 2003 under the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 22/2002) I.e. any newly formed parliamentary majority to juggle the constitution as it pleases. This is the issue that is on the agenda and that awaits its decision, because I believe that it is inadmissible for an ordinary National Assembly to make proposals for changes in the status, functions and organization of the constitutionally established bodies, positions and the existing balance in their interaction.< br /> I believe that the changes concerning the chief prosecutor and the division of the SJC into two panels are not in defense of the public interest, but are rather a disguised attempt to control the judicial system. The division of the SJC into two - a prosecutor's and a judge's collegium, in the form in which it was adopted, does not guarantee independence and fair justice. In practice, the judicial system has lost its independence and legitimacy.
- The caretaker governments of the past few years have created the impression that the president is some kind of power center. And now what power do we have…
- The caretaker governments were a temporary harbor in which our society found peace from the unprecedented political crisis into which we got ourselves. We have entered a spiral of crises, from political and institutional to constitutional. The reasons, in my opinion, are twofold: firstly, the controlled vote and secondly, the low voter turnout. In turn, this led to close, almost identical results in periodically repeated parliamentary elections and the lack of an alternative to the political status quo.
The president, for his part, has become not so much a center of power, this is rather the thesis of our political class, but a center of stability and the only alternative to the current status quo, which is the opinion of a large part of our society.< /strong>
I myself am a Republican by conviction and I do not share the thesis of concentrating power in the hands of one person, but I am in favor of a balance between powers. Because as they say: “Power prevents power”.
According to the doctrine of separation of powers, the three functions of government – legislative, executive and judicial, should be separated and performed by different bodies defined by the Constitution. The executive, legislative and judicial powers should be exercised by independent institutions, but in their responsibilities they should mutually control each other. These branches of government should be autonomous, but still interrelated, but not subordinate to each other. The separation of powers is such that no one share of power can exercise power that interferes with the responsibilities of a share. The judiciary must not be dependent on political influence in the performance of its functions and must have a guaranteed mandate. This very doctrine was practically destroyed and became hostage to the political class. Power concentrated in the hands of politicians.
To be continued…