Strong criticism has been levelled at a defence act recently proposed by Defence Minister Nikolai Tsonev, Bulgaria news agency BTA reported on September 15. The senior partner in the ruling tri-partite coalition, the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), joined its former leader and current President Georgi Purvanov in calling for the Cabinet to postpone discussion on the draft bill which will fundamentally change Bulgaria's defence and armed forces' infrastructure.

The proposed legislation will abandon the practice whereby General HQ is subordinate to the president, with him being the Commander-in-Chief. The amendment proposes that the General HQ (whose title will change to Chief of Defence) will be directly answerable to the defence minister, who will be appointed by the president with advice from the Cabinet. Purvanov expressed his disagreement about losing certain executive powers and access to critical information.

The BSP wants the implementation of an integrated model of the Ministry of Defence, which will prevent duplication of functions and services and resources that currently exist between the political and military leaders. They also support the newly-designed supplementary benefits and social bonuses for service personnel.

Purvanov is adamant about not relinquishing any power and executive capabilities as president over the Military. He has called for dropping the new legislation, otherwise he threatens to veto it.

The legislation should apparently have been discussed by government officials last week, but instead the issue has lain dormant. Tsonev said that the proposed new law has been featured for the past two weeks on the government's official website. He is hoping that in the next two to three weeks the citizens of Bulgaria will get a chance to debate the proposals.

The ambiguity and complexity of executive powers over the armed forces and which department has de facto and de jure powers over the defence of a nation are by no means restricted to Bulgaria. In many countries there are checks and balances to ensure not only that the military can be deployed swiftly in a crisis, but also that there will be no abuse of that power.

In the UK for instance, in her position as sovereign of multiple states, Queen Elizabeth II automatically holds the position of commander in chief in some of her realms, such as Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In the latter, she also serves as commandant-in-chief of the royal air force and lord high admiral of the Royal Navy. Since before she ascended to the throne, however, Elizabeth has also been installed as colonel-in-chief, captain-general, air-commodore-in-chief, commissioner, brigadier, commandant-in-chief, and royal colonel of at least 96 regiments throughout the commonwealth.

However, it is not the Queen so much as the British prime minister who is empowered to take immediate action. The commander in chief of the British armed forces is the Sovereign. Under long-standing parliamentary custom and practice, however, the prime minister holds de facto decision-making power over the deployment and disposition of British forces, hence he is the commander-in-chief without portfolio.