How do you judge how effective a parliament is? In many professions the answer might be obvious: how many goals does a footballer score? How many shoes does a cobbler make? In December 2013, Parliament Chair Michael Mikov noted that 75 laws and 170 bills had been passed in the 42nd Parliament. And this in a quite disturbed parliament year given the early resignation of the GERB government.
But as any football fan knows, it’s not just about scoring goals: the creative players who make opportunities and the sturdy defenders who stop the opposition are as important to the team. And a cobbler making fewer shoes at a higher price would add more to his bank balance. In other words, you have to look at value, not just output.
By that measure, I wonder whether Parliament’s performance could be improved. The Government has announced the introduction of impact assessments, ensuring that the consequences of new laws are understood before they are proposed. They will ask BORKOR to scrutinise each bill, to ensure it bears down on corruption. Through citizens’ councils, ministries have a mechanism for consulting before introducing laws.
By contrast, Parliament has undertaken none of these measures, neither for the laws nor – equally important – the amendments it proposes. This means that serious legislation is brought in without sufficient time to understand it or its impact. An example is the Offshore Act, which has a confused set of goals and is probably incompatible with EU law. Bulgarian businessmen tell me that the Labour Code is amended so often, they and their staff can hardly keep up.
Parliamentarians say that they cannot do more because they do not have the resources to employ the staff needed. But that is what the Administration is for! Deputies should reasonably expect the Council of Ministers to co-ordinate impact assessments on their amendments and Parliamentary legislation. It is then up to a sovereign parliament to decide what to do.
A further advantage of ensuring all understand the impact of what they propose is that whilst waiting for the assessment, parliamentary time would be freed-up for overseeing the government and its agencies. Two years ago there was an enormous row over a new Asset Forfeiture Bill. Deputies claimed in emotive terms that ordinary Bulgarians would be persecuted and that the law was anti-democratic.
This was powerful rhetoric, coming no doubt from sincerely-held beliefs. So it is extraordinary that Parliament has not yet found time to receive and debate the annual reports of the Asset Forfeiture Commission from 2011 or 2012, let alone 2013. Who is responsible for holding the Commission to democratic standards, if it is not those MPs who called it anti-democratic? Similarly, many politicians have spoken out against oligarch circles and monopolists. Yet, I see no sustained investigation from Parliament’s committees.
Deputies could really represent the people by investigating what is actually happening in this, and so many other areas. And they could make themselves stars as well! In the UK, the Chairs of these Committees have become household names; their televised sessions are compulsive viewing. As a civil servant, the thought of being called before such a Committee makes me double-check that everything I do would stand up to subsequent scrutiny. And that makes for better government.
This blogpost was originally published in Capital.bg.