Progressive Bulgaria" proposes new rules for the work of the parliament, with which to impose complete dictate and crush the opposition. Why does Radev need such a move? By Vesselin Stoynev.
"Progressive Bulgaria" wants to impose complete dictate in the parliament with changes to the Rules for the Organization of the Activities of the National Assembly.
The second of the three sentences of motivation for the proposals for changes submitted by them states: "They (the proposals - b.a.) are in line with problems identified in the work of previous national assemblies and are aimed at their improvement". It is as if the submitters subconsciously admit that by this "improving the problems", they are actually deepening them.
The Speaker - First Against the Disenfranchised
With the proposed amendments, the Speaker of the National Assembly is no longer first among equals, but first against the disenfranchised. He will be able to make changes to the parliament's agenda alone, without asking the parliamentary groups of the Speaker's Council. He will be able to both discuss in the hall as a deputy, and even lead the session and vote, and not, as was previously the case, for his deputy to lead the session in such cases.
If a deputy has spoken on a given bill at the first reading on the merits, he cannot speak again at the second reading and the Speaker will take the floor. They can no longer play it off with requests for breaks - instead of a minimum of 15 minutes, they will give 10. The monthly coordination meeting of the parliamentary chief with the chairmen of parliamentary committees on the distribution of draft laws is also eliminated. And the opposition parliamentary groups should not know much at all - they will no longer be able to propose temporary committees themselves, at least 48 votes will be needed, and no opposition has that many. Because the new rulers do not like these temporary inquiry committees at all, even though we have had extensive practice with them since the beginning of parliamentarism in our country. But then again, there will no longer be a "Botas" committee, for example.
It is at least good that the parity principle for members of the committee for control over the special services is being preserved and that even it will be chaired in each parliamentary session by representatives of different parliamentary groups. If the committee were formed on a proportional basis and the ruling party had a majority in it, as well as a permanent chairman, it would be completely pointless, because they both manage the services and also control them through parliament. It is also good that the number of deputy chairmen of the parliamentary committees is being reduced from four to three - both so that there are fewer parties in the new parliament and so that unnecessary money is not spent.
The deputy should last and know almost nothing
The ordinary deputy must become a master of short oratory. The time for justifying a proposal in the hall is reduced from 5 to 3 minutes, the rejoinder falls from 3 to 2 minutes. And after a substantive statement, in his next speech, even on related texts, the deputy can only speak legally and technically, and then for up to 1 minute.
Every deputy will be in a tense ignorance of the bills of his colleagues outside his parliamentary group or the government, because the minimum of 72 hours for publishing the minutes of a meeting of a committee that considered a given bill before it enters the plenary hall is eliminated. The minimum 72-hour period for considering bills from their submission to a committee is reduced to 24 hours. The period for their entry into the plenary hall is also shortened threefold. Who managed to see, who managed to insert - it doesn't matter, press the voting button and that's it. And what is especially important is that the opposition's bills no longer matter. The reason is that when there are bills on one topic, a 2/3 majority in a committee will no longer be needed for them not to be considered together, now with its simple majority the PB will be able to impose the consideration of only its own.
End of control over the executive branch?
Parliamentary control over the executive branch is almost being eliminated under the new "progressive" rules. The Prime Minister and ministers will now be able to practically not answer parliamentary questions, because they will be able to postpone the answers indefinitely - until now the postponement was limited to 2 times for good reasons. So instead of control, there will be government propaganda from the parliament rostrum. Members of the government will come to answer only convenient questions from deputies from their own majority. This posture was also practiced by previous rulers, but now it is concreted in the rules.
No official now has a single photocopy to give to an opposition MP. The regulations only contain a blanket statement that state and local authorities and their administrations are obliged to assist the MP in exercising his powers, but the obligation to provide him with information and documents is dropped. Thus, the MP can neither prepare himself with reliable information on draft laws, nor use such information to prepare himself for control over managers. He can either not know, or he can be patient.
As much as parliament is by definition a talking shop, it is not a bad idea to limit its abuse. The removal of the replicas of statements made by colleagues from one's own parliamentary group seems positive - something that some parties seriously overdid in previous parliaments in order to drag out parliamentary time and avoid reaching the next unwanted point in the plenary day.
Will the calculations turn out to be wrong in the end?
The desire of the ruling party to limit the possibilities of the already diverse and exhausted opposition, when they have a full majority and can already dictate the direction and rhythm of parliamentary activity, is completely inexplicable. If from "Progressive Bulgaria" are afraid that experienced opposition parliamentarians will hinder them with procedures, they can catch up in a matter of weeks again in the comfort of their comfortable majority.
The only logical justification for this move by Rumen Radev's party is to rush to achieve results "in its own way", while it is guaranteed a few months of high public trust credit, which will inevitably begin to melt, as with anyone in power. And to extend the time and extent of melting, saving itself as much criticism and obstruction from the opposition as possible. Moreover, by the first maturity of this credit of trust and expectations - the presidential elections in the fall, the PB must fight for "more of the same" and recharge its government.
But that is precisely why it is much more advantageous for it to have a weak in numbers and diverse in composition - GERB, DB, PP, "Vazrazhdane" - but a full-fledged opposition, which with these characteristics will further legitimize the government. Which, as in the first days of the new parliament, will be able to demonstrate strength and determination, but also dialogicity towards it, reinforcing its superiority in a sporting manner. The barracks crushing of the opposition "under a new statute" can only breathe life into it and even consolidate it against the ruling party. For starters, it will begin to gain public sympathy and sympathy and create the ground for a new civil-political cause against rising authoritarianism, which will erase the liabilities of the GERB and PP-DB assemblies and the radicalism of "Vazrazhdane".
This text expresses the author's opinion and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and the State Gazette as a whole.