It is unfortunate that so much of the focus of the current controversy surrounding the finger-pointing about the Toplofikatsia investigation is centred on Economy and Energy Minister Roumen Ovcharov.

This newspaper again reports this week on the ever-more complex web of mutual accusations involving sundry figures in Bulgaria’s public life.

It is clear that many of the “responses” to the problem amount to spin-doctoring and attempts either at political damage control or the seeking of political advantage, especially given that the country is a short time away from elections of members of the European Parliament.

Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev has sent Ovcharov on compulsory leave, a move that cynics might suggest was made in the hope that by the time that Ovcharov returns to office, assuming that he will do so, the nation’s political conversation will be focused on the results of the MEP elections. Others have been fired or similarly temporarily sent away from their desks. Predictably, most opposition parties have started gathering signatures to be able to table a motion in Parliament of no confidence in the Cabinet. In a new twist, the European Commission has been invited to send a representative to observe the official investigation, purportedly in the name of transparency.

All the allegations that have been made thus far are serious. The knee-jerk reactions on one side of offering up a few scapegoats and taking action that may have no lasting effect, and on the other of calling for resignations, a somewhat unimaginative and unproductive appeal, will take us no further.

It is a fact that talk of links between figures in public life and figures in organised crime has been with us for some time, although lately such talk has grown somewhat more strident. It is a fact that, going by a consistent trend in opinion polls, people perceive those in public life as being involved in corruption. Dealing with the current contretemps in isolation, as a single if exciting episode in public life, will not provide a long-term solution.

There are those who believe that the conduct of politicians is driven not by ideology or policy choices but by their concealed paymasters. This perception, never proven in concrete fashion, may be a contributing factor to the disillusionment evident from the country’s record in recent years of low voter turnouts.

There is a need to widen the focus. A single investigation of a single episode will not serve. What Bulgaria needs is a credible series of hearings, led by people of the greatest possible credibility (it cannot be done by Parliament alone because many will believe that the political establishment will simply be investigating itself, with a predictable lack of results) and with witnesses offered protection and, as an unfortunate but necessary compromise, indemnity from prosecution in return for full disclosure of what they know.

This is a highly ambitious proposal and one likely to find little favour among anyone with something to hide and much to lose. Yet, unless a decisive step is taken by Bulgaria to shine lights into dark corners and then to clear house, the perception of a “political mafia” may endure, unchallenged, unproven, unconfirmed and unending, and to the detriment of the image of Bulgaria.