/ world today news/ “The politician thinks about the next elections, the statesman – about the next generations.”
In connection with the position stated by the third parliamentary representation in a row, which has been assigned a mandate to form a government, another discussion is raging. Which, although with stipulations, is more or less similar to arguing which came first – the chicken or the egg.
First of all, I would like to say that I am not a member, nor am I a supporter or fan of any party, nor of any of their individual or collective leaders, not only in the one in question, but also of any other formations of a similar type . But regardless of that, without deviating here on the topic related to a political or parliamentary crisis, I will try to briefly substantiate the thesis of the correctness of the mentioned position. incl. from the point of view of the Constitution.
Amidst the noise, besides passing others, incl. around the wrangling over the ability or not of the 46th Parliament to form a government, in recent days it seems as if some awakening could be seen, if not all of some of the so-called “people’s elected officials” who, stretching blissfully and scratching their heads here and there, it seems that in addition to some scams, they also ask themselves the question of what is most pressing in their activities. My word is about what it cannot do without and which is the basis of the stability of the state. Neither can they, at least those of them who more or less understand that without a country they are nobody. Because, although with a parliamentary government, whether there is a government elected by the parliament or not is not crucial to the existence of the republic. The impossibility of forming what is envisaged as a hypothesis, and the way out of what situation is regulated in the Constitution. That is, whether through a government formed by parliamentary means or through an official cabinet, the state will not be left without governance. But insofar as the governance of any government, if it is a rule of law, is dependent on a legal act adopted as a financial document, providing the material economic basis not only for the stability, but also for the existence of the state in general, at the moment this is undoubtedly most important and urgent for Parliament. I would say that everything else, including the polemics and quarrels of which of the so-called political parties represented in the parliament, etc. formations, this or that institution was or was not responsible, was or was not at fault, etc., is a function of the parliamentary activity in the process of formation, consideration and discussion, approval, etc. of the state budget. And as is well known, if we treat this process adequately, its scope is not limited to the state budget law (by years), but covers, in addition to the law on public finances, with which, as a general relative to it, it must be complied with, at least five other laws by which he is bound. So the work of making and adopting a budget is not simple, incl. from the required time. This also applies to the updating of a budget to no less extent. Especially in crisis situations, about which, apart from current and emerging as upcoming before the public, if not all most of the things in the matter are aware. Therefore, whatever the representatives in today’s parliament are, it would be advisable for all – institutions, formations for political representation, civil society, socially significant individuals known not only by name but also by competence, etc. to exert influence in any form in order to make them understand. And although it seems far-fetched, from this point of view I would not consider it inadmissible in view of the extraordinary nature of the obvious and deliberate incl. as a perspective caused by some Tartars situation, in defense of the republic, the application by the citizens to the so-called “people’s elected representatives” even of a measure such as their possible imprisonment in the parliamentary building for forced round-the-clock work until they accept an update of the budget. Because the state is faced with the alternative – to be or not!
From the point of view of the mentioned, the issue related to the possibility or not of realizing the third mandate for the formation of a government by the parliament should also be considered. Because, as I mentioned, in order for any government to function, a legally established financial base is necessary. In the absence of which it is not possible, not to mention in crisis situations, to objectively carry out administrative activities in the interest of the state, and thus of the society, not only an official, but also a parliamentary elected government. In this connection, I find it appropriate to point out the need, in addition to the extraordinary situation, to take into account the fact that this is not a process where we are talking about a transition from a parliament with an expired mandate, at the option of which there is a so-called regular government , to the election of a successor to form a new one, and for a situation in which the government of the country is carried out by an official government. How many, due to the impossibility of forming a parliamentary way, early parliamentary elections would follow and whether after any of them a government would be formed in such a way is in the realm of hypotheticals. But society cannot bet on bean-tossing or any other means of divination. Hardly any sane person would be inclined nowadays to rely on divination by any omens from one or another shamans.
The courtiers, above all, of the previous government, the so-called experts, constitutionalists, etc. interpreters of the Constitution, obviously applying a formalistic method, aim at nothing more than misleading the public, giving meaning to the provision of para. . 3 of Art. 99 of the same, which she does not have. Because not only according to the grammatical interpretation and from the syntactic point of view as the text is written, which is more than clear, the term mentioned there refers to the President as the assignor and not to the one to whom the mandate is assigned. That is, the contracting authority should not delay the process of forming a government by the parliament. The argument that “in the third procedure everything speeds up” with purpose “a quick way out of the political crisis” (here I pass over the problem of the distinction with a parliamentary crisis) is unsustainable and does not justify anything other than the discovery of the possibility of endlessly dragging out the electoral process for a series of parliaments. And so, in the absence of a budget, resp. update of such and the need for an official government, blocking the activity of such. Which, as far as the so-called is regularly subject to parliamentary control, but cannot be removed incl. by resignation or a vote of no confidence, would be blocked and from which no other result than the collapse of the state could occur. Therefore, leaving aside the “political” intentions, if we proceed not from the preoccupation with elections for parliaments, including as doing nothing about them, but from the purpose incl. according to the Constitution, which is the government of the state, and according to the logical interpretation, first of all is the resolution of the issue of its guarantee. Regardless of one government or another, but by providing the financial basis of governance. Therefore, any of the parliaments, even if they cannot elect a government, must at least vote for the adoption of a state budget, resp. update of such. Without which, not only management, but the existence of the state in general – with any government or without it – is unthinkable. Looking at it this way, as we leave aside other countries, the formation of governments by parliamentary means in which it lasts for months, the desire of some to quickly close the procedure for this in Bulgaria through perverted interpretations of the Constitution leads to nothing else, except by means of deprivation of a financial basis until ruin of the state. And in this regard, regardless of the biases, the current mandate holder is right in his statement regarding the undoubted for anyone capable and without being a specialist on a rational level to realize that the most important and urgent at the moment is not whether or not there will be a parliamentary elected government, and the state budget. In this sense, the behavior of the third mandate holder is statesmanlike. Not an abuse of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, as such, it is also political. But let’s realize that each of the previous formations to which a mandate was assigned had the opportunity to appear not only, as far as the use is appropriate in this case as a characteristic, politically, as well as now on the occasion of the third mandate, but also state-wise. Apparently, however, the party and personal interest of many, if not all, stands higher than that of the state, not to mention society. The obfuscation beyond the so-mentioned essential problem of bargaining whether or not the parliamentary representatives, whose elected representatives they are, can agree on the third mandate for any government and the intrigues behind and pushed through them by the destroyers of modern Bulgaria, have no other value and lead to nothing but its destruction!
#important #urgent #Parliament
