Bulgartabac - a test or discrediting evidence

Privatization was the first occasion which caused the people currently ruling the country to become involved with Bulgaria, when they were simply employees of foreign investment banks. Through highly critical statements, some of the people now in power won the sympathies of a part of the electorate. Now they have the real chance to apply their abilities. And most important of all - to justify the expectations for a new, transparent style of privatization.

One of the first tests for this style was the deal for Bulgartabac. The latest developments, though, indicate that the deal rather threatens to turn into discrediting evidence for the Cabinet.

There are at least two indications in this direction.

Firstly, the deputy minister of economy, Lyubka Kachakova, due to reasons known solely to her, said the minimal price of Bulgartabac was declared to be $100 million. An absolute faux-pas, otherwise the deputy prime minister, Nikolai Vassilev, would not have explained for several days that this digit was a gross estimate, that the price depends on the percentage stake which will be sold, and the investors' interest.

The internal contradictions among the people in power can only work against the interests of the state in any deal. Looked at from afar, though, this picture does not coincide with the idea of a transparent and effective privatization. Because the Cabinet announced the price tag, which had to remain a secret in the name of the best possible end price, and did not announce its strategy for the sale of Bulgartabac, which had to be made public, at least for the potential investors. That means that the faux pas was double.

The second indication of disgracing evidence for this deal is that the people in the power, on the one hand, excluded the possibility of negotiations with potential investors from the privatization law and, on the other, called the investors for Bulgartabac for "consultations." The difference between negotiations and consultations is another issue. The fact is that in this case there were 20-minute meetings between buyer and seller in a closed room without any outside person.

The question is - are the voters mistaken, thinking that some ruling people know a lot about privatization, or are the ministers wrong, thinking that their faux pas and tricks will go unnoticed?

Kapital

NMSII MPs are rebelling? And why?

The parties with parliamentary representation waited long enough to see the 100 days of the new government, to pour out their discontent against it. The more interesting thing in this case, is that the parliamentary group of the National Movement Simeon II hardly made it through the 100 days, and it is giving indications that it might split.

The MPs from the majority are stating as a motive for their discontent the authoritarian methods with which their leading body is allegedly handling them. For example, the fact that only select people have access to Simeon Saxe-Coburg, and only Plamen Panayotov, chairman of the NMSII parliamentary group, is authorized to announce to them the tasks and decisions.

The tensions, though, disappear when the MPs meet the prime minister, according to MP Kamen Vlahov.

According to his Rousse colleague, Nikolai Chukanov, there is the possibility that some MPs prefer their own corporate interests, and not the one which they promised to serve.

If a personal interest can be corporate then it remains a secret. Chukanov, though, is right about one thing. There are stark disparities between the ambitions of the NMSII and reality. Most of them went to great lengths to make it on the election ballots, believing that this authority will not be much different than the previous ones. Meaning that, during this term of office, everyone will get a bowl and will be scooping up from the state honey vat.

Instead of a bowl though, the MPs received "A tale about the ladder" by Hristo Smirnenski, which tells about a poor person who gradually climbs the social ladder and at the same time loses one of his senses with each step.

After all, they've had the chance to realize that they are not allowed to devise any schemes. It is normal that the more mercantile of them ask themselves what they are doing there. And to find a tap for their own schemes. How? By splitting the parliamentary group. For now, though, they do not have the guts to resort to this extreme measure, because they still have to respect the person through whose name they received access to the country's power.

But how long will their humility continue, and when and how will their mercantile beginnings take hold?

It remains for us to hope that reason will prevail. Not for anything else, but because society is monitoring their activities under a magnifying glass. Simeon Saxe-Coburg said he will not forgive those who do not justify his trust. For this reason, the rebels are running the risk of disgracing themselves. And the iron rule holds in Parliament - schemes are not disclosed if everybody steals.

Monitor