February 11, 2003

Ms. Ekaterina Michailova, MP, Vice-Chair of the Union of the Democratic Forces

Thank you very much, Mr. Shentov. Ladies and gentlemen, apparently as a veteran of these forums, I would like to share the views of the political power I represent on the anti-corruption practices and issues this country is facing. But since I'm not the only one to have participated in other Coalition 2000 forums, let me state right away that I will be repeating some of the things I have said before. It's simply that they have failed to happen, those are problems we have discussed and on which we have agreed it is necessary to take action but which, unfortunately, have still not been addressed.

Let me start by saying that in the course of the past year the Union of Democratic Forces and the Parliamentary Union of the United Democratic Forces have raised the issue of amending the Constitution and the proposed changes have significant anti-corruption implications. Let me consider these first and then I'll move on to the other topics.

The first amendment to the Constitution that we call for would ensure a more effective and speedy administration of justice, with possibilities for control within the various units of the judicial system, as well as a revision of their status and whether they should all remain within the judiciary.

The second thing related to the effective administration of justice and calling for amendment to the Constitution is the limited term in office for senior positions within the judicial system. We also put forth the issue of abolishing the immunity of MPs and magistrates alike, as an anti-corruption practice that is common in almost all democratic countries, and limiting the immunity within the frames of their official obligations and commitments as members of parliament and magistrates.

In addition to these proposals in the sphere of law, there is equally an anti-corruption element in our other proposal not to allow changes in the ruling majority. Such a change, all while it deviates from the popular vote, typically involves corrupt practices, improper lobbying and persuading MPs to back a government contrary to the will of the voters and the political power that originally nominated them. The so-called constructive vote of no confidence is another of the proposed amendments to the Constitution.

And finally, the other anti-corruption practice that we propose in connection with the Constitution concerns something that we discussed at last year's forum. Namely, the establishment of the ombudsman institution. Draft laws have in fact been introduced in parliament and I am myself one of the co-sponsors of the draft law elaborated by the Center for the Study of Democracy. Unfortunately, and precisely because of the lack of constitutional provisions concerning the prerogatives of the ombudsman institution, the National Assembly has still not passed a law. The chief divisive issue in the parliamentary committee considering the different draft laws concerns the very nature of the ombudsman - whether it is to be a truly independent institution in position to control the administration and coming close to the President's latest proposal to create a new body, in other words, for the ombudsman to be equally detached from all three branches of power, but able to control the administration; or whether Bulgaria's ombudsman will turn into a mere appendage to the government. Unfortunately, the members of the ruling majority favor a proposal that would essentially make the ombudsman just another official authority controlled by those in power, instead of actually controlling them, which is the fundamental purpose of this institution.

Our position is that it is important to pass the appropriate constitutional amendments to avoid the deformation of this institution that would place it in the service of those in power, regardless of who they are.

Yet at the present time we also need to see what we can do outside the constitutional amendments. And I would like to go back to the topic of the judiciary. Our proposals, those that we will put forth in the forthcoming legislative debates in parliament, concern the shortening of the pre-court phase, the continuation of the reform concerning adversary proceedings, as well as providing greater financial and material resources to the judicial system. I would here like to express my agreement with Mr. Slavov and take up a point that he made: it is extremely important, when we're talking about fighting corruption and crime, to have an integrated information system, based on integrated statistical data. Instead, we are now constantly flooded with information from different authorities claiming to have done this or that and referring to certain statistics that are immediately refuted by others who say: "no, no, someone else is to blame, our statistical data show something else". It is high time such an integrated information system was put in place because we otherwise neither have accurate information nor proper coordination between the various bodies dealing with corruption and crime.

Finally, let me say a few words about something that was also mentioned by Mr. Slavov. Certain corrupt practices are emerging in the sphere of legislation. The adoption of laws that do not allow the possibility for judicial control is in fact a corrupt practice that is being established on a legitimate basis. Privatization acts cannot be exempt from control by the judiciary. This automatically leads to corruption both in the executive and in parliament. And I say this here as a member of parliament, I can imagine what will be happening in the National Assembly when some large privatization deal is to be approved. Corporate interests will be raging among the MPs. The adoption of such a provision not only violates the principle of the separation of powers but could actually give free rein to corruption in politics.

In conclusion I would like to mention another challenge facing politicians outside of everything we've discussed so far. It seems to me that one of the challenges facing all politicians and political powers are the forthcoming local elections. When elections are imminent it is extremely important for each political power to establish internal anti-corruption rules. Furthermore, the legislation that will have to be adopted concerning the way the elections are to be conducted and the functioning of local government will also pose a challenge before politicians in the coming months, who will have to demonstrate their ability to deal with corruption in their own sphere, and not just talk about the problems existing in the other branches of power.

I conclude with this. Let me say how much I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the fifth annual Policy Forum of Coalition 2000!