Today we want to raise the topic not just about the changes to the rules of the National Assembly, proposed by the majority and sharply criticized by the opposition in recent days. We want to talk about the meaning of parliamentarism, about the right of the opposition to be heard, about the obligation of the government to be controlled and about the right of citizens to know the truth. This was said by Nadezhda Yordanova from the parliamentary rostrum and added:
Parliament is not a place where the majority only counts its votes. Parliament is the place where the government must be questioned and must give answers.
If there is no lively debate here, there is no parliament. If there is no real control over the government here, there is no democracy. If the opposition is reduced to a decorum without real rights, the National Assembly ceases to be a representative institution and becomes a machine of the majority.
This is precisely the danger we see today.
The ruling majority proposes changes to the rules that limit the rights of the opposition in a way that even previous majorities did not allow themselves to turn into a rule.
Time limits for familiarizing themselves with draft laws before committees, before the plenary hall, before decisive votes are being shortened. Where before the outrages were at least violations of the rules, now they want the rules themselves to be rewritten so that the outrage becomes a procedure.
Until now, when meetings were called by ambush and draft laws were pushed through in seconds, this was at least a scandal. Now the ruling party wants to legalize the scandal.
They want the National Assembly to work on the principle: whoever understands - understands. Whoever has not managed to prepare - to vote. Whoever asks - simply interferes. Whoever insists on time and debate - sabotages. This is not parliamentarism. This is violence against the debate.
The direction you have taken is very dangerous. Let me remind you - this is not “your parliament”.
It is proposed that extraordinary items be introduced at random - without real discussion, without sufficient prior clarity, without normal parliamentary coordination. Even when a parliamentary group requests a break to discuss what is happening, the time for this is cut short.
The message is clear: the opposition should not think, should not ask, should not organize a position and should not interfere with the pre-written script.
But the opposition is not here to decorate the hall. Parliament is not a decoration for the majority. The opposition represents hundreds of thousands of Bulgarian citizens who have the right to have their voice heard.
When the rights of the opposition are taken away, the opposition deputies are not punished. The citizens who stand behind them are punished.
The attack on the temporary and inquiry committees is particularly worrying. The National Assembly has not only the right, but also the obligation to create such committees when society faces serious issues - about corruption, unregulated influence, dependencies in the judiciary, the collapse of institutions and networks of power beyond public control.
The temporary committee is not a court and does not pronounce sentences. But it is the place where the parliament can show whether it has the courage to ask, demand documents, hear officials and name facts that other institutions keep silent, postpone or conceal.
Therefore, temporary committees are not a parliamentary whim, a political extra or a PR. They are an instrument of democratic accountability. And it is precisely this instrument that is being attacked.
It is proposed that 48 signatures be required to create a temporary committee. This means that an opposition group will practically not be able to put a difficult topic on the agenda on its own, without seeking consent from another or from the same majority, whose actions often have to be checked.
It is proposed that temporary committees cannot enter even on the day of the opposition. Thus, the minimal instrument through which the opposition can raise an uncomfortable topic once a month is emptied of content.
It is proposed that there should be no hearings on the day of the opposition. Why? So that a minister is not summoned, why a regulator is not questioned, why a representative of the government is not confronted with the facts?
The limitation of parliamentary control does not stop there. The limit on the number of postponements of questions is being removed. This means that ministers will be able to postpone, hide and avoid responsibility indefinitely.
This is deeply wrong. A minister does not come to parliament out of goodwill. It comes because the executive branch is accountable to the National Assembly. It comes because citizens have the right to know. Control is not a humiliation of power - it is the essence of democracy.
The opposition's legislative initiative is also affected. It is proposed that opposition bills be easily separated from bills by the ruling party on the same topic and thus not reach a real general consideration.
The result is predictable: an opposition bill can be left to wait indefinitely - not because it is bad, but because the ruling party does not want to publicly reject it with arguments.
And perhaps most dangerously - the obligation of institutions to provide documents to the people's representatives is being abolished. This is one of the most important tools through which the parliament can understand what the government is doing.
So far, we have seen various ways of concealing information - missed deadlines, partial responses, formal refusals, excessive classification. Now the ruling party wants to abolish the obligation to provide information itself.
And without unhindered access to documents, there is no control. Without control, there is no accountability. Without accountability, there is no trust.
Openness and accountability are not born from press releases by the authorities. They are achieved through questions, documents, hearings, committees, public debate, the right of the opposition to insist and the obligation of the majority to respond.
When we ask for committees for Martin Bozanov - The Notary, for Petyo Petrov - The Euro, for the “Eight Dwarfs”, we want to unravel the symptoms of a state in which institutions have been inactive while the public already knew enough.
It is on such topics that the parliament should ask, have committees, demand documents and hear ministers, regulators, officials and all those who are relevant.
Let's be clear: this is not a dispute about whether there is parliamentary time. This is a dispute about whether there is a will. It is not a dispute about whether the parliament can. The parliament can. The question is whether the ruling party wants to.
In previous parliaments, we saw how various majorities refused to answer questions related to the real influence of Delyan Peevski. When the questions reached the core of the model, silence ensued. Now we see an attempt to turn this silence into a rulebook.
And let us not be fooled: the fact that someone uses temporary committees as smokescreens does not mean that we should destroy the instrument. The fact that someone creates poisonous doubles does not mean that we should prohibit real checks. The fact that someone sabotages parliamentary mechanisms does not mean that parliament should abandon them itself.
No democracy is cured by silence. A conquered country is not liberated through convenient procedural restrictions. No corruption network collapses when parliament looks the other way.
Temporary committees on serious corruption issues are not a whim. They are a minimal test of whether this National Assembly is capable of looking straight at the facts. If parliament refuses even this minimum, it is not protecting the institutions. It is protecting the convenience of power.
The question before us is not technical. It is not procedural. It is a question of what kind of parliament we want to have.
A parliament in which the majority dominates the votes but does not cancel the debate? Or a parliament in which the majority uses the rules of procedure as a silencer?
A parliament that controls the government? Or a parliament that provides it with cover?
A parliament in which the opposition has rights because citizens stand behind it? Or a parliament in which the opposition is tolerated only as a decoration?
We will not accept attempts to empty parliamentarism of content. We will not accept control being replaced with a hollow procedure, debate with deliberate haste, documents with refusal, and transparency with silence.
Do not confuse the majority with the right to be uncontrolled. Do not confuse the convenience of power with the interest of citizens.
The opposition is not here to interfere. It is here to show an alternative, to ask uncomfortable questions, to protect citizens, including those who voted for you, and to remind that power in a democracy is never owned by the majority.
A parliament without debate, without transparency, and without accountability is a weak institution, with undermined democratic foundations.
We insist that the rules of procedure of the National Assembly not be turned into an instrument for limiting the opposition. We insist that real guarantees for debate, control, hearings, temporary committees, access to documents, and legislative initiative be preserved.
Do not forget that power is temporary. Parliament is an institution of democracy that is more important than any governing convenience.
Parliamentarism is preserved with debate. With an opposition that has a strong voice. And with power that is accountable.