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!
|