[ad_1]
The losers attribute their failure to the state, the system, and bad people.
When they are eliminated, will we import politicians from abroad? Or from a neighboring galaxy?
It is ridiculous to say that the press in our country is not free and the executive orders something
A fierce campaign is being waged against Bulgaria to prevent the rule of law from being applied; this is in the interest of external forces.
It would be nice if the people we see at the protests, instead of repeating 3-4 mantras, had a broader understanding of things. I heard some people say (there were young people among them) “now we will take them out and then good and honest people and politicians will come. I do not know if we will import them from abroad, if they will come from a neighboring galaxy. I didn’t see them pointing at me. When you say such a thing, you must have someone in mind. This was said by former prime minister and UDF leader Filip Dimitrov, now constitutional judge and vice president of the Venice Commission, in an extensive interview for https://transitionstories.eu/
The idea that now we are going to remove this and the other will fall from the sky is not recommended, even for young people. Those who want to change the country and improve it may have to work hard not only to be in the square, which is easy, but also to prepare for what they have to offer.
Because the thesis that in Bulgaria people who have something to say will not be listened to is not true. It is not true that people who have knowledge and skills cannot apply them. In a sense, there is a hunger for knowledge and skills in Bulgaria. And it’s not true that everyone is in a hurry to ignore readers just to put the shoddy aside – these are urban myths.
I have the vanity to believe that in those years people who showed great qualities triumphed. Very often, those who have failed attribute their failure to the state, the system, bad people, etc. My advice to young people is, above all, to prepare their things and be able to assume the responsibilities that await them, and whether or not they will be in the square is a matter of their understanding, political thinking and who they like.
When we set out to change the communist system, Bulgaria was at the bottom, people were congested both economically and socially, in terms of the opportunity to travel, exchange and, if you like, communicate with the world. The economic situation in the country has never been as good as now (perhaps only after 1938, when there was a boom associated with the coming war). There can be many problems, there may be people who can barely make ends meet, even then. But the general level of Bulgarian citizens and the economy as a whole have never been as good as now. Claiming that the last 10 years have been lost is not just a lie, it is an insult. Bulgaria is developing, it could probably develop better, says Dimitrov.
Somebody here wants Bulgaria to catch up with other European countries; We could probably try it successfully in the future to see if we can reach a better level than Slovakia and Romania. The idea that we will overtake Germany, France or the Netherlands will soon seem a bit dubious to me, and this is based on historical processes that must be taken into account. I think all 15-year-olds want to have Schwarzenegger physics, but most don’t.
For the rule of law
In Bulgaria, of course, there is much to be desired in terms of the application of the best practices of the rule of law. There has been a lot of feedback on it, action has been taken and will be taken in the future, there is room for improvement, but that’s one side of the problem. In this sense, both for Bulgaria, as for all European countries (until now they were few) will be monitored, because this issue is gaining special importance throughout the EU, says Filip Dimitrov.
The flip side is the fierce campaign, carried out from within, but not without help from outside, and which aims to present Bulgaria in a very special position when it comes to the rule of law. It is unlikely that it will not apply, something that, in my opinion, is more related to the interests of external forces towards the EU and NATO, than to things in Bulgaria itself.
Bulgaria, which is trying to play a stabilizing role in the Balkans, is a thorn in the side of those who want to see the Balkans shaken. What could be better than claiming that there is no free press in Bulgaria? The whole press is spitting on the government, in whose name this is another matter. We can say that it is subject to certain oligarchic interests, we can say that in certain aspects it shows a great bias in one direction or another. We can say that the level of competition from the Bulgarian media is lower, but to say that it is not free, but that the executive can impose something on it, is ridiculous. However, this issue is constantly inflated.
There are criticisms of the work of the forces of order. On the other hand, the claim that this is related to some control by the executive seems rather dubious. Ten years ago, I wrote in a text that we must be careful not to confuse the problems of the current situation with the problems of the first century. When the issue of dependence on the executive court was on the agenda. I am not sure that the executive is currently able to influence the Bulgarian court. Unfortunately, I allow situations where a specific Bulgarian court can be influenced by another person and this is a problem of course.
Asked if these are the oligarchs, he confirmed.
About the prosecution and its powers
Wherever you place the accusation, you should keep the following in mind. That is why I am so bothered by people who read but don’t read the legal literature and talk about what the other half of the American system is without knowing what the other half is. Whatever you do with the prosecution, you will always be in a special position with the administration and will not be part of it. On the other hand, the judiciary is exercised by the court, and the prosecutor’s office does things related to the judiciary and obviously cannot be equivalent, says Filip Dimitrov.
Whether the Attorney General’s mandate will be longer or shorter is a matter of sovereign decision. I want to emphasize that the Attorney General still has some functions. The idea of completely castrating his powers is also not a good idea. There is a decision of the Constitutional Court, a bill has been presented, which has certain restrictions and rather opportunities to be able to claim the responsibility of the Attorney General in exceptional cases. The idea of the Attorney General being prosecuted every two weeks is nonsense and legislation should not be drafted on the basis of this presumption. Another issue is that there should be a way to hold the Attorney General accountable if he “tramples” (and in this line of thought there are advice from the Venice Commission). The separation of the council in charge of the prosecution from the Supreme Council of the Judiciary is a continuation of this idea for the two chambers that were established with the last reform to the Constitution.
But, again, I say that the prosecutor will never be the head of the third branch of power, the judiciary, but he cannot completely separate himself from it. If you follow the options in other countries, you will see that one option is for someone to sit at the door of the court (as in French law). There is a special position on the part of the prosecution regarding him, but there is always someone who stays somewhere. Or the prosecutor, like us, is related to the judiciary: he is a magistrate and, of course, he is not a judge and he cannot and should not be. He is in the bank on an equal footing with the accused, but has special functions that involve the judiciary in a way that is incomparable to the capabilities of anyone else. The enthusiastic accounts of people who solve problems from today to tomorrow on a topic they do not know, could not be the basis for criticism or analysis of these proposals.
For deputies and elections
The problem is not looking at the representatives of the nation as enemies, traitors and obscurantist figures who prevent people from living, says Filip Dimitrov. My advice to those heroes who loved it for so long and became an occasion in this draft of a new Constitution to raise the question of reducing the number of deputies, think about how to reduce the destructive discourse of respecting their representatives and going to the polls. And not after elections are held to declare they were honest only when they got rid of them. Now that there are elections and someone is elected, they are fine, but other elections have always had flaws, how does this happen?
[ad_2]
