February 11, 2003
Ms. Tatjana Doncheva, MP, Parliamentary Group of
the Coalition for Bulgaria
Ladies and gentlemen, Your Excellencies! I would
like to thank the organizers of this conference, although I'm one
of them myself, for the opportunity to share with you some
considerations about corruption-related problems in this country
and ways of addressing them. We all know nobody would confess to
being corrupt. We are not an exception ourselves. But for years now
we've been hearing from every report about the country's
development, and even at this conference, reproaches that the
problem with corruption is far too alarming and that there lacks
political will to deal with it. Yes, it may have been produced by
the objective conditions and processes in Bulgaria after 1990, at
the peak of privatization and the property redistribution
processes. But I think that today, at the beginning of the 21st
century, we really need to reconsider our priorities in dealing
with corruption. Because we might otherwise make enormous efforts
and yet fail to achieve any notable results.
To me the key to achieving tangible progress is the
situation with the judicial system. It's true that we have for
years been taught and have traditionally assumed that prevention is
just as important as the work of control and law-enforcement
authorities. But the quality performance of the control and
law-enforcement authorities is a crucial deterring factor.
Constitutional amendments need to be justified, first of all, in
terms of the common values to which we all adhere and secondly, in
terms of the problems that we find there. I don't think we have any
problems with the value system. The rule of law and people's wish
to be able to say they live in a fair state where justice is also
the emblem of the judicial system are essential for a nation's
motivation to make progress.
As for the problems of the system, in my opinion the
political powers need to reach agreement in this respect. Because
these problems will determine the decisions we will have to
adopt.
It seems to me that while organizational issues are
important, they're not at the core of the problem. To me the most
pressing issue and most serious cause for concern is the strong
dependence of the judicial system on corporate interests and the
already alarmingly frequent use of the mechanisms of the judicial
system to deal with business conflicts and problems. Mr. Slavov is
right to feel concerned about the limitations on judicial control.
But the government is equally right in saying that when certain
business interests are so strong that they can get any title they
want, the solution cannot be to remain within this vicious circle.
And in my opinion, if we all agree that this is a problem, we
needn't pass the hot potato back and forth between the field of the
executive and of the judiciary. Judicial control is essential and
what we should all agree on is what to do about the judicial
system. And it is not to exclude it.
Another crucial flaw is the lack of any control and
correctives whatsoever within the judicial system. In 1990 many
political powers unconditionally embraced the position that it
should be left on its own and came to understand its independence
as its absolute right to do anything it wants, in any way it wants,
without being accountable to anyone. This is absurd. The public
cannot accept such a notion of independence. Today it is
anachronistic to assume that any form of control of the judicial
system is an infringement of its independence and I don't think it
is the practice in any sensible country. My concern, as a citizen,
is that the Constitutional Court appears to adhere to this view. I
think that the people who should be working there and issue rulings
should be statesmen, and not regional judges.
It is also necessary to reconsider who and how will
take part in forming the other. The executive and the legislative
powers are interrelated - one forms the other and can replace it,
respectively. This needs to be considered and constitutionally
established with regard to all three branches of power.
Another major shortcoming at the present time is the
exceedingly closed nature of the judicial system. Back in 1990 it
was conceived this way in the belief that this would help safeguard
its positive elements. Today the closed character of the system
allows the hypertrophy of flaws, which in my opinion, exist in any
judicial system but which, in the presence of a natural, let's say,
ventilation mechanism, would not turn to tragedy. The executive and
legislative powers are exposed to corruption pressure and
dependence as well, but the public nature of their operation and
the possibility to replace them alleviate the problem. Whereas with
the judicial system, as a result of its closed nature, these flaws
are allowed to grow out of proportion and distort everything.
The prosecution remains another problem with its
excessively hierarchical, centralized structure. They tell us: the
prosecution is independent. Yes, it's independent but is the
individual prosecutor independent when handling the cases he's been
assigned? Because the point of independence is for the prosecutors
to be free from any pressure and influences when handling their
cases.
Naturally, all of this - even if they are only cursory remarks -
brings up the question whether it is possible to solve the problems
with cosmetic changes to the Constitution alone. If the answer is
"no", and I myself think it's "no", then we, and the political
powers above all, need to realize the need for agreement. It may be
reminiscent of 1990 but I think it's essential. It should include:
agreement on the values, agreement on the problems at hand, and
agreement regarding the solutions. The problems will be dictating
the solutions. I think these solutions should be far-reaching and
should include even the location of the various magistrate
institutions, the connections between them, and indispensably, a
system of checks and balances because this would ensure social
balance and solid foundations. Naturally, we can discuss whether
the immunity should be full or functional, whether to reconsider
the appointment for life principle, everything may be subject to
review. I think this time we should be less bound by the tradition
to adopt existing models in their entirety and not let ourselves be
too influenced by the lobbying of various institutions. It would be
good if we could all realize that this is an urgent matter. The
idea of convening a Great National Assembly is just a way of
protracting it indefinitely. Bulgaria is faced with a great many
problems demanding immediate attention. These amendments should be
adopted by the National Assembly and the political powers should
reach agreement on this.
I say all this without being concerned about the
possible ruling of the Constitutional Court. I think the
Constitutional Court should be part of the reform because it's part
of the problem. With the constitutional provision that it is to
interpret the Constitution we have conferred to the Constitutional
Court constituent power that it doesn't have anywhere else and that
it is not supposed to have. I will refrain from citing Thatcher;
perhaps some might think it inappropriate for a left-wing
politician to cite a British Conservative. But I did come across
something in the papers last week that seemed very pertinent. I
don't think we should fall hostage to a few people's wish to keep
their comfortable situation. It's not a problem for our country
alone, nor for us as individuals, it's actually a quite common
problem. And the politicians of many countries have had to face
this challenge.
The right time is now and not tomorrow. The
agreement needs to cover serious constitutional issues and ensure a
more intelligent reception. This is the only way to meet the
expectations of our own nation and those of the countries whose
club we want to join - will the political powers muster enough will
for a lasting and definitive settlement of anti-corruption
issues?
|