/ world today news/ Interview with Prof. Rumen Gechev, MP from BSP and member of the “Budget and Finance Committee” in the National Assembly
Denitsa Gacinska: Hello, Professor Gechev! Today you are participating in a conference of the BSP related to the left, its past, future and present, but today another topic was touched by you, related to privatization, which was also touched upon a little earlier by the deputy chairman of the BSP – Kiril Dobrev . He announced that Cornelia Ninova privatized “Technoimpex” according to rules created by Prime Minister Zhan Widenov and Vas. What is your answer?
Rumen Gechev: My answer is very clear. It is about some, probably deliberate misunderstanding, because what was accepted by the BSP congress, not by Zhan Videnov or by Rumen Gechev, is to use an international mechanism that has been used in the world economy for decades and is entrenched in the textbooks – this is about worker-manager privatization. However, we introduced, I would say, an iron, social element – two elements. First, in the privatization of state-owned companies – there should be only one candidate, a worker-manager candidate, that is, a minimum of 51% of the list of employees in the company. Second, the employees of the company must have worked for a minimum of 2 years in the company they wish to privatize. This was changed by Mr. Kostov. This is an extremely important and rough change in the Privatization Law concerning this element – the worker-managerial one, since the intention of this change is obvious and indisputable, and the intention is the following – that the new ruling party, which came after a coup d’état, and one of the goals of the coup d’état on January 10 was precisely this – to loot Bulgaria, in freedom and peace, by changing the laws, so that robbery in Bulgaria would become legal. What did they do – at 9 o’clock they appoint their own people to the company, figuratively speaking, at 9.15 they privatize the company with a worker-manager collective of newly arrived people who are loyal to the new government. This happened before the eyes of the entire Bulgarian people. So the policy of BSP has been extremely precise, based on international practice and doing everything possible to bring this practice closer to social justice and we will not allow anyone to wash their hands with the party to save individual cases, individual.
Denitsa Gacinska: How was the privatization of Technoimpex carried out?
Rumen Gechev: Well, I did not deal with the privatization of “Technoimpex” and it is not my business, since, of course, I follow what is reported in the media. Most likely what we all understand so far, it was carried out according to the law after it was changed by the government of Mr. Kostov and it concerns all transactions. Also, I don’t think that… of course, in general, we shouldn’t focus on a single deal. If there is going to be an audit of the transition – I agree that it should be done on all transactions. However, whether the transaction is smaller or larger – I would not agree to wave our hands and say that companies that had assets of 1, 2, 3, 5 million – let’s not deal, but deal only with assets of companies that were large, but I want to tell you something else – I could not be responsible for other colleagues, I think they were not involved either, especially Prime Minister Videnov, but I, who was the Deputy Prime Minister on this time and carried out the party’s program, for example, I did not participate in any privatizations. I don’t have a single share in any state-owned companies, and I think it is a matter of morals for a person who participates in the management and organizes this process, not to mess with the honey pot, as the Bulgarian people say, which is why my conscience is extremely clear and I will not allow people who have, how shall I say, not yet sufficiently explained their enrichment and control of significant assets, to make evaluations of a privatization that has been decided by party forums. Let me emphasize that the implementation of the privatization program, including the worker-management program, was laid down in the party program, was approved by the party congress, and it is strange to me that some people dare to criticize collective decisions at congresses, at plenums and others who have proven themselves right.
Denitsa Gacinska: Is it friendly on the part of Kiril Dobrev – to try to clear the name of Cornelia Ninova with you?
Rumen Gechev: No, I will not enter into such controversies between my colleague Dobrev, nor do I intend to comment on fundamental issues, economic and political, that are associated with an individual person, but since it was brought up, let me also emphasize the following – the other day I also pointed out I reminded our parliamentary group of these legal changes at the meeting we held last Tuesday, as you know every Tuesday we have a meeting of the parliamentary group to set our agenda and voting policy for the coming week and to prepare our participation. Then this question was raised again and I, before the whole parliamentary group, had the moral obligation and explained about this difference, that the BSP’s policy on privatization was then correct, it was never criticized with legal arguments. The fact that the right wing, which participated in the coup d’état, changed the laws so that the new political elite could enrich themselves, loot Bulgaria and make it so that we and our successors would be enslaved to them for decades, so to speak, in the realization of these seized assets. I think that the BSP cannot be held responsible for this. It is in no way moral, once again I want to say, for anyone to risk correct, established party policy, just to save himself or his friends.
Denitsa Gacinska: What is your personal opinion about the position of one of the people’s representatives from the BSP, that politicians of the transition who participated, directly or indirectly, in privatization – have no place in politics?
Rumen Gechev: First of all, let me say, I have already shared that I would not like to comment on individual statements, but privatization has two sides – the legal side, as I said, the ruling party, after the coup d’état on January 10, 1997, changed the laws so that to be able to seize Bulgaria and this happened in front of everyone’s eyes, and I hardly need to argue. The second question, however, is a moral one. I would in no way share that all those who privatized are moral criminals – nothing like that. We all know, unfortunately it is not a very high percentage, but we know people who, following the law, kept certain companies during their transformation into private ownership, kept jobs and managed to develop the companies. In general, this tendency in Bulgaria – to stigmatize all journalists, all politicians, all doctors, is absolutely unacceptable, both legally and morally, and that is why those who participated in the privatization, in the end, this privatization was not forbidden for leftists or for right-wing, but I say again – those who want to set the tone in the BSP, its leaders, must be very careful when talking about privatization, because after all, not only privatization has representatives of the various political forces, who will find it difficult to explain their enrichment after privatization because social justice in Bulgaria is not only related to privatization processes. After all, we know many cases in which some people will find it very difficult to explain how they or their heirs acquired hotels, why they participated or were caught in currency-speculative operations, what were the results? In general, these questions must be answered – regardless of whether you participated in the privatization or not.
Denitsa Gacinska: Okay, thank you very much for this conversation!
#Rumen #Gechev #comrades #explained #enrichment #evaluate #privatization #behalf #BSP
