/ world today news/ For more than ten days, the main topic for all of us is what some pretentiously call “pension reform”, and for others it is a fairly well-thought-out financial operation in private interest.
The arguments “for” and “against” the form in which GERB and DPS adopted the Law on the budget of the National Social Security Institute are still relevant.
For now, I will not comment on why this decision is incorrect. For me, this discussion is yet to come, and in its course it will be determined clearly enough who sees how this legislative decision. If anyone had ever thought that the pre-Christmas frenzy of a few days was sufficient cover for making such an important decision in such an absurdly opaque way, I think they were mistaken.
However, I would like to share with you some very important things that have impressed me through it all. First of all, it is the unprecedented non-transparency of the so-called “pension reform” and the lack of urgency and pressure to make it happen at any cost. I think that this style of action of the GERB government has not been affected by the evolutionary processes of recent years. We all remember how the previous GERB government made its decisions, and it seems that there will be no change in this regard.
Evolution has also bypassed that part of the decision-making mechanisms in rulers that relate to their coalitional culture. Both before and now, GERB governs by concluding non-transparent parliamentary deals with various parties or by stimulating swarming processes in them in order to control them better. GERB practices management, which has its facade, but also has its unofficial side. If it doesn’t work with the official one, it will work with the unofficial coalition, the important thing is that GERB governs. This is not the place to comment on the relationship between the coalition partners in governance, but I still feel entitled to comment on the false hopes of all those who have been misled that governance will be transparent, clearly spelled out and all coalition agreements will be in writing and publicly known and – most importantly – whatever they are, be in accordance with the Basic Law. That’s clearly not going to happen.
Where is the President in this whole situation? A unifier of the nation, a man with interests in the pension case that are not from yesterday, a defender of transparency and the rule of law, he seemed to remain a little on the sidelines of the process. The president, who used to veto a budget update only to obstruct the government, which publicly stated the need to uphold the principle of transparency and the rule of law, has now exhausted his role with a limp statement that the veto will not be imposed , although he disagrees with the pension fund decision. This only proves what we have said dozens of times – this President is fulfilling his powers. Whether with his passivity the President aimed to please Goranov, whether it coincided with his views on the development of pension funds – we will see… But one thing is clear – a person who measures with a double standard draws lines of division. He cannot unite.
However, it is also strange – the President did not veto the Law on the budget of the National Social Security Institute, but his functions in this regard were usurped by none other than Borisov, who announced that the law may have been passed, but it will not be implemented. until a public consensus is reached on the matter. This is how the institute of the “prime minister’s veto” was introduced, on which constitutional law researchers have yet to comment. It will also be their task to examine how this relates to the principle of the rule of law. In fact, I do not understand how any responsible statesman can think, let alone state publicly, that a law passed, even a law passed at his request, will not be enforced. This is not decided by the Prime Minister or the President. All adopted laws should be respected, and those who proposed and adopted them should bear the political and legal responsibility for this. Aren’t laws binding on everyone, including the government? It is clear, however, that the “prime ministerial” veto in this case replaces the presidential one. Another question is why a government should initiate the adoption of laws it does not intend to abide by.
This question is posed even more acutely because in recent days several ambassadors in our country have expressed their own opinion on the otherwise internal state issue of judicial reform in our country. These ambassadors find reason to comment on this as part of the idea of Bulgaria asserting itself as a European state governed by the rule of law. It would be good if these ambassadors act consistently and declare a position on the issue of the so-called “pension reform”, which apparently violates the principle of the Constitution of Bulgaria, but also the pan-European values for the rule of law. No one can stop the operation of the laws, because the Constitution is above everything. At least that’s what the professors of constitutional law in our country and in Europe teach…
All of this is somewhat confusing to me, but somehow it isn’t because it fulfills expectations and proves assumptions that our entire society has. Nothing in the GERD management model has changed for the better.
Elections are set. It is enough just to be aware of the reality around us and to analyze.
#socalled #pension #reform #thought #financial #operation #private #interest
