There has to be some persuasive explanation why Bulgaria has fallen short in dealing with organised crime and corruption.
With the help of the European Union, individual EU countries, the United States, multinational organisations and NGOs, Bulgaria has made some progress in moving against the scourges of crime and corruption, but reforms have tended to be at the level of legislation and restructuring of official institutions.
It is not that there have no arrests, but the numbers seem low in proportion to the apparent scale of the problem. It is not as if there have been no dismissals of officials, but these tended to have been at the lower levels.
Not only does it seem that organised crime has been able to operate with no more than a few hiccoughs, but also it appears that senior figures in organised crime are able to make what has become a customary step, that of legitimising their money through engagements in the formal and legal economy.
While there have been some steps toward raising public awareness against corruption, and praiseworthy if minor moves in setting up hotlines and web links to report corruption, there are many concerned voices raised within this country and abroad that greasing of palms remains part of accepted practice.
Against this background, recent days have seen a swirl of allegations, and an arrest, that have been interpreted as confirming links between senior figures in the Interior Ministry and organised crime. While further developments are awaited with the greatest interest, to see whether investigations will produce evidence sufficient to secure a conviction or convictions, it must also be pointed out that the allegations and other developments involving senior figures meant to be involved in law enforcement could have its background in a political campaign, either against certain people within the Interior Ministry or against the ruling coalition.
Rather than the current political and media circus surrounding the allegations, which might in the long term die away for “lack of evidence” or result in nothing more than court actions for slander, the idea of public hearings – something like those conducted in the US decades ago – into organised crime would seem to be an idea whose time is overdue. Such a step, in parallel with a genuine and objective cleanout of those who instead of defending the laws, flout them, may prove to be the only way to build public trust, at home and abroad, in Bulgaria’s law enforcement authorities. A major challenge would be coming up with people sufficiently above suspicion and without strong partisan political ties would could conduct such exercises, to expose the real workings of organised crime, to unmask all those either involved or who aid and abet it, and to do it crippling damage.
As noted, corruption appears to be an enduring problem even though there have been instances in recent years of action being taken against some corrupt officials. The latest idea, going by reports in the Bulgarian-language media, is to decriminalise bribery, so as to encourage perpetrators to co-operate in fighting corruption. Frankly, this idea seems laughable, and it is highly doubtful it would have anything more than the most negligible positive effect. Instead, if the authorities favour taking this route, any such amnesty should be negotiated on an individual basis. A society that is supposed to be based on the rule of law will do itself no good by eroding its own laws on such a blanket basis. A short-term collective amnesty at most, or individual amnesties, may be allowed for whatever short-term benefit they may have. In the medium to long-term, there is no substitute for the full force of the law, honestly, objectively and properly applied. To back away from such an approach would mean that the saga of Bulgarian and corruption could prove to be a prolonged one indeed.
