Bulgaria’s tripartite coalition Cabinet was formed after the summer 2005 elections with the stated purpose of ensuring the country’s accession to the European Union. Indeed, EU membership was achieved in January 2007, but recent political events have shown an urgent need for a thorough re-examination of the basis on which the Cabinet is made up, who is in it, and how it works.

Bulgaria is not a second-class member of the EU, in the technical sense, but it is clear that its functioning as an EU member is by no means first-class. This is not to say that having a minister or two fall because of a controversy sets it apart in any way from any other EU state. Individual changes within an executive are a normal part of political life, whatever the reasons that prompt those changes.

In a sense, circumstances in Bulgaria have changed since the formation of the Cabinet in 2005, and yet also they have not. At that time, the country needed to get through a substantial to-do list for accession to go ahead. To fulfil the needs of this list, a stable majority government was needed. However, it would be incorrect to suggest that when the celebratory fireworks went off on January 1 2007, the coalition Cabinet’s work was done. Far from it.

It is not only, quite obviously, that organised crime and corruption remain immensely powerful forces in this country. That is a given. This would be a major problem whether or not Bulgaria was an EU member. Nor is it a question of the fact that some ministers are obviously less competent than others. Some minority opposition politicians are never short of an Aunt Sally at which to direct regular calls to resign. The fact is that one of the most significant problems facing Bulgaria is its inadequacy in dealing with EU funds. Collectively and as individuals, Bulgaria’s Cabinet ministers have not proved up to the job, and it is not as if they and their officials have not had fair notice of the need to develop the means to spend these funds properly. A hash has been made of it, which is not only a matter of national embarrassment, but will also impede Bulgaria’s capacity to develop competitively in a number of strategically important areas of the economy. Against a background of this reality, no minister, and certainly no prime minister, should be seen smiling smugly about anything.

The political drama that led Roumen Petkov to resign as interior minister was something more than an opportunity for yet another tedious ritual exchange in a parliamentary debate on a motion of no confidence, even if that debate did result in the intriguing spectacle of one party in the coalition awkwardly trying to be government and opposition at once by abstaining. The opportunity that was produced was to come up with a Cabinet composed of appointments based, as far as possible, on qualifications and merit, to say nothing of honesty and integrity, at the same time abandoning outmoded political formulae or partisan considerations. The imperative that should drive a Cabinet reshuffle under these circumstances should be to appoint people who can get things done to a standard that the people of Bulgaria and the rest of the EU may legitimately expect. If such a Cabinet could be constructed on the basis of whatever talent and managerial ability is available, and real work be done on fundamental issues such as health care, education and social services, and national issues of urgent priority such as law enforcement, the economy in general and the energy sector in particular, there could be a chance for an improvement in the quality of life of all Bulgarians. But any Cabinet tinkered with or reconstructed while the Cabinet-maker is bound by political considerations or held back by resistance to real change, will not serve.