Commentators in the Bulgarian media and political circles who seek to portray the controversy about President Georgi Purvanov’s release of a transcript of the conversation in his office with Finance Minister Simeon Dyankov as an irrelevant side-issue, as political theatre or as somehow reflecting on Dyankov himself are, at best, deeply misguided.

The episode has profound constitutional and legal implications, as well as practical implications for the business of government, and certainly reaches beyond the question of whether Purvanov should be impeached for allegedly violating the constitution.

Certainly, it was unwise of Purvanov to describe as "unwise" the move by the Speaker of Parliament, Tsetska Tsacheva, to involve Parliament in the issue by requesting the records to assess whether any transgressions had taken place.

On the face of it, there may be a case to answer. In translation, article 32 of the Bulgarian constitution says that "no one shall be followed, photographed, filmed, recorded or subjected to any other similar activity without his knowledge or despite his express disapproval, except when such actions are permitted by law".

Whatever the internal policies of the President’s office may be in dealing with such recordings, it does not appear that they have the status of a law.

But, regarding the wider implications, other questions arise. The Movement for Rights and Freedoms has said that the release by the President’s office of the transcript is in line with the Freedom of Information Act. That may gently be described as a facetious assertion, but seeing as the act has been mentioned, what rights exist for applicants to request records from the President’s office of other meetings and conversations?

Further, to what extent are records held by the President’s office, and other Government bodies, the property of the individual in office or are they state property? In 1978, the United States resolved this issue by setting out clear rules in the Presidential Records Act, but in the absence of an equivalent statute in Bulgaria, the question arises of what becomes of records held by offices such as that of the President.

Further still, it is a fair question as to whether the President is alone in recording meetings. Is anyone else doing so, and if so, is it being done in accordance with the constitution and other legal provisions? What becomes of these records at the end of terms of office? Are they somewhere in those boxes of which glimpses are seen when governments depart?

Whatever the consequences of the current political furore around the Purvanov – Dyankov transcript, it would seem that Bulgaria would do well to come up with clear rules governing the records – and recording – of meetings and conversations in state institutions, whoever may currently happen to be occupying those institutions. It is clearly not a matter to be left to individual politicians to decide for themselves.