February 11, 2003
Mr. Assen Djulgerov, Secretary General, Sofia
Municipality
I would like to stress several points that have
found their place in the report but which I think need to be
elaborated on in the future. I'm referring to the sections of the
report concerned with anti-corruption measures in the particular
spheres.
First of all, I'd like to point out the emerging
problem with the capacity of public administration. And this
concerns all possible bodies and authorities, including the
judiciary. The problem with the capacity is very serious because we
keep assigning new functions to these authorities, instead of
reducing them. New structures are being established and new laws
are passed all the time, which require a high level of
qualification. We're doing very little to find out to what extent
public administration is capable of assimilating all of this and of
acting efficiently in this context. It is suggested at one point in
the report that it is necessary to relieve the judiciary of some of
its functions. We need only recall the Roman maxim that a praetor
does not care about petty matters. And this is what the reforms
should be aimed at. The same applies to the sphere of executive
power.
The lagging behind of our administration in terms of
the European standards can be overcome and we can make significant
progress only and solely through investments in the field of
information technologies and training. Not enough is being done in
this respect in Bulgaria although we could. I'm not talking about
the financial resources but we certainly do have the human
resources to set off such a development. Until 2007 we have no
other chance of creating an administration that would come closer
to what we observe in the West-European countries.
Let me add that we need to think more about positive
motivation of the officials, about what we are giving to these
people so that they are motivated to choose to honestly perform
their functions.
There is very little investment in staff training.
It is necessary to think about it because education should be
viewed as an investment.
Several very relevant examples have been cited in
the report in connection with the enforceability of the laws. This
is one problem, one aspect of the quality of the legislation that
tends to be overlooked. Certain public expectations are often
incorporated in the legislation in an unrealistic way. There are
laws that are simply impracticable. And I can guarantee, as someone
with practical experience, that they will never be fully enforced
with their present provisions. The encouragement of unreasonable
expectations later makes people feel they have been victims of
corrupt practices: I had these rights but they were denied! This
generally seems to be the prevailing attitude judging from my
experience and contacts with the public. We must remember that to
the bulk of the people in Bulgaria corruption is a much vaster
concept than to us, the experts in this field. They're inclined to
ascribe to corruption all cases when their rights and claims have
been denied, either because the law does not entitle them to such
rights or because the particular law, by-law, or regulation is in
fact impracticable.
Next I think we should also try and ensure a more
adequate distribution of responsibilities. All functions and
obligations should match the actual competence of the various
levels in public administration, and particularly the state and
municipal administration. At present all too often the
responsibility is assigned to levels that, for some reason or
other, even for lack of information, if you like, cannot have any
real impact on the practices that we call corrupt and cannot
prevent them.
And last but not least, I think we should intensify
preventive control. I know from personal experience that most
decision-makers would be happy to consult with the respective
control authorities before making a particular decision. And they
are frustrated when they are unable to do so. And this is
immediately related to what I spoke about earlier, the poor-quality
and impracticable legislation. Because many times the
responsibility stems from provisions in the law that leave room for
different interpretations and the interpretation of the control
authority does not always coincide with that of the enforcing
authority, not to mention the courts, which are above all this and
are supposed to render the final interpretation. These divergences
cannot be overcome at the present time except by creating the
possibility for continuous contact between the control and
enforcement authorities.
Thank you.
|