In many countries, a tradition has developed of the media allowing new governments and new ministers a “honeymoon” period of grace. With newly-appointed Interior Minister Mihail Mikov, the mutual gaze between minister and media may prove to be more harsh than rosy, given his extraordinary statement that there is no mafia in Bulgaria.

Well, what was the minister was quoted as saying that while there was no mafia, there was a very serious problem with organised crime. If he was quoted correctly, it hardly seems worthwhile even accepting that he was making an attempt at making a semantic difference between a “mafia” and a very serious organised crime problem.

That there are business people in Bulgaria who have controversial reputations, to invoke the euphemism used by some media, is beyond question. That they are driven around in dark-hued luxury vehicles and affect modes of dress and behaviour apparently drawn from bad videos about mobsters is hardly a point that can be disputed. Moreover, that very serious organised crime problem includes at very least illicit business practices and certainly other sins, including the trafficking of people, illegal drugs and weapons, money laundering and, oh yes, assassinations. If it looks like a mafia, behaves like a mafia...well, Mr Mikov?

But let us not be too harsh on the new minister. Maybe he was just making a semantic point. Let us consider his stated plans, those that have emerged pending a more formal outline of what he plans to do with his new powers. Several media reports, apparently all emanating from the same source, have said that he intends replacing some senior law enforcement officials on the grounds that they are not up to their jobs, doing a shake-up of the traffic police to clean it of the corrupt, putting more police on the beat in the streets, and improving salaries in law enforcement. All of these intentions are praiseworthy, and it is to be hoped that they are followed through thoroughly. It may be noted that these steps do not differ, in the letter at least, from measures that his predecessor, Roumen Petkov, either took or at some point said that he would. After Petkov took office, it was noticeable that there were more police on the streets, even though the numbers seemed to tail off after a while. Visible policing is a good thing in itself, if only because it discourages petty crime, however much Bulgaria’s “very serious problem” is organised crime, which requires a higher-level, specialist and forensic approach to combat it. Cleaning out the corrupt should be the business of any interior minister, and veteran observers will recall that Petkov occasionally emitted statistics about law enforcement officials dismissed for corruption. Again, increasing police salaries is a good thing in itself, but the effect may be nothing more than to make policing a more attractive occupation. There is evidence from other countries that increasing salaries does not necessarily mean lessening corruption.

If Mikov is to have any effect on the view to be taken by the European Commission in its report expected in June, he would have to act very quickly indeed. He might also take note of the point made by Atanas Atanassov of the Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria, who said that the problem in law enforcement was not a structural one, but was rooted in the personnel of law enforcement. It is a valid point, and few who want Bulgaria to succeed in the fight against organised crime could argue against a strategy that would see the corrupt and incompetent either penalised, dismissed or both, with the gaps filled by better-paid and highly motivated police. If this could be done, along with employing the best technical and legal minds against the very serious problem of organised crime, Mikov’s purported statement about there being no mafia in Bulgaria would be relegated to being a footnote.