Bulgaria - Parliamentary, Presidential or Semi-Presidential Regime

The Bulgarian political environment has faced one very important debate ever since its liberation in 1878. Supporters of different regimes have tried to outdo each other in presenting arguments in favour of one or another. Although it is true that the three regimes - presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary - have their disadvantages, there are a lot of people talking about our country turning to semi-presidential regime in order to deal with the issues in our political circle. Most of the pros of this system come from the idea of cohabitation between the president and the prime-minister or in other words there is a clear supervision and mutual control that is supposed to be more beneficial as it ensures honesty, consideration and legality of the legislative and executive powers.

In the current situation our country has a president and a prime-minister from the same party - GERB. If Bulgaria was a semi-presidential country, the political situation would be much less intense as both political figures would agree on matters concerning domestic and foreign policy. In the other case, when the majority in the parliament is held by a party other than the one that the head of state represents, the president would be hard pressed to nominate a prime-minister that is suitable no matter whether this is a representative of the minority or the majority otherwise he could be blamed to be subjective and unrealistic in his decision. In that way the choice of a head of the executive would be made with adequate competence and if it is found to be inappropriate, the parliament is free to terminate his mandate by a vote of no confidence. One of the main pros for Bulgaria if it becomes a semi-presidential regime is that the president can play the role of an arbiter in a case of a significant disagreement in the parliament being able to delegate some contradictory responsibilities of the prime-minister. For example, in the case of Portugal, the president is much more legitimate and the procedures of his suspension, if any, are hard to be brought into effect. In addition to that, if the parliament is found to bе inefficient, he has the right to dismiss it or only some ministers that are irresponsible in their duties. In order to be effective, experience has shown that if a change in the political regime takes place it is necessary to be in connection with the increase in the legislative powers and the right to call for a referendum. Furthermore, it is not to be underrated that the so called cohabitation can create an effective system of checks and balances like the one in the United States. Although the possibility of heated debates between the two leaders remains, we can well be reminded that "truth is born of arguments". Usually such regimes require division of powers in a way that the president is responsible for foreign policy and the prime-minister for domestic policy. That presupposes better concentration of both figures on their obligations as well as more-focused and purposeful methods of conducting various political actions. Our presidents since 1991 onwards have rarely been viewed as something more than a figure who represents the nation in international meetings or visits. The mere sign of our president on treaties does not signify also his participation in the decision-making process, which is a huge sign of his lack of significance in important matters in the legislation. The advantage of a potential semi-presidential regime is likely to present the elected president as not merely a head of state who lacks political authority but also as an active participant in the so called "dual executive". At the same time he will not be clearly the 'chief' executive, because of the existence of a prime minister who may not be strictly a subordinate of the president. Of course the precise relationship of the president to the prime-minister (and cabinet), and of the latter to the assembly vary widely across regimes that fit the basic conception of semi-presidentialism. Therefore, our country is able to mold its conduct up on that of semi-presidential countries that fit in the same political and economic situation like ours because these formal institutional variations are likely to have significant consequences for the behavioral performance of our democracy. Therefore, Bulgaria is free to find its own interpretation of the term and develop the system in a way that is most suitable for the particular political situation. The system itself creates shared lawmaking powers that generates the necessary for the executive and legislature to bargain with one another, such that legislative change is a joint product of both elected branches. Therefore multiple competing agents of the citizenry must each be empowered and motivated to check the ambitions of one another.

Having had its painful experience with totalitarianism Bulgaria and other countries have perceived the idea of a parliamentary system as a trustful remedy against dictatorship. Nowadays a great number of people are fiercely arguing that the parliamentary system is not suitable for our Bulgarian political climate. These people reason themselves stating the obvious fact that Boyko Borisov and his party have seized the whole power and are able to control both the parliament and the executive. Thus, the fear of him taking hold of the legislative branch has arisen among ordinary people. In order to prevent such centralization of power it becomes more evident that it is necessary to increase the power of the president as a separate and opposing figure in the political system. Furthermore, following the example of France, Bulgarian president would have the last word in the choice of a prime-minister.