Български
EnglishWe present to you a declaration of the “Velichie” Party (партия „Величие“), delivered by Yuliana Mateeva (Юлияна Матеева) on 15 January 2026, regarding the failure of the latest constitutional amendments and the urgent need to restore the powers of the President to appoint a caretaker government (служебен кабинет).
The Failure of the Constitutional Amendments
Madam Chair, distinguished Members of Parliament, the latest amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria (Конституцията на Република България) were the product of political promiscuity and proved to be stillborn. They, like almost everything done by the current National Assembly (Народното събрание), had the sole purpose of stripping powers from the Head of State (държавният глава, the President – translator’s note). As with any result of unprincipled conduct, however, they turned out not merely inept, but gravely harmful to the state in situations in which it finds itself in a parliamentary deadlock. One of the gravest offenses against the legal order over the past 35 years were precisely those amendments to the Constitution concerning the appointment of a caretaker government. They gained popularity under a colloquial expression, which I shall refrain from using. Through them, fundamental constitutional principles were violated, insofar as an ordinary National Assembly in practice altered the form of government. As is well known, this can be done only by a Grand National Assembly (Велико народно събрание).
Restoration of the Constitutional Balance
After the Constitutional Court (Конституционният съд) declined to rule on this text, it is high time for the legislature to assume its responsibility and take a step toward restoring normality, namely the constitutional framework as it existed prior to the amendments. It is high time to realize that the Constitution is not a playground for political flirtations by randomly formed majorities of self-proclaimed messiahs. In this regard, we neither intend nor presume to innovate, but only to repair the damage done. Therefore, we propose restoring the previous wording of the text regulating the powers of the President in the event of parliamentary deadlock. What motivates us to propose this change is the need to restore the balance and the division of powers, together with returning responsibility for forming a caretaker government to the President. In the current wording, all ten listed options for a caretaker Prime Minister (служебен министър-председател), from which the Head of State may choose, are a function of the will of the National Assembly, which creates a direct collision with the principle of the division of powers.
Legal Arguments and the Competence of the National Assembly
The Constitutional Court, in a number of its decisions, has clarified the content of the concepts “form of government” and “form of state structure,” and has indicated when changes occur in each of them. The form of government changes when the powers assigned by the Constitution to the state authorities are altered, or when certain powers are removed from them, such as the President’s right of suspensive veto. It is impermissible for an ordinary National Assembly to undertake changes to the organization, status, and functions of the main constitutional bodies exercising state power, or to the balance between them. In this case, one such body is granted functions that previously belonged to another constitutionally established body. Such changes cannot be carried out by an ordinary National Assembly.
The constitutional legislator was wise enough to ensure relative inviolability precisely for the most important and fundamental provisions of the basic law. In this way, our Constitution aligns with the tendency that its foundational principles cannot be amended by any randomly formed majority. What was not foreseen, however, is that some majorities would not be deterred by the constitutional prohibition. In this respect, restoring the Constitution to its previous wording prior to the amendments would return normality to the functioning of the basic law in terms of interaction between the constitutionally established state bodies.
The Problem of Responsibility and Control
The most criticism is directed at the provision concerning responsibility. The classic procedure whereby the President appoints a caretaker government was based on three prerequisites: the existence of independent authorities in the three branches of power, coordinated action among them, and, last but not least, mutual checks and balances. A major weakness of appointing a caretaker government under the current wording is precisely the absence of a mechanism for such checks. Parliamentary oversight, with the National Assembly continuing to function alongside a caretaker government, does not constitute such a mechanism, since its role is purely informative. Practice has shown the impossibility of passing a vote of no confidence in a caretaker government, which only highlights the lack of a control mechanism and confirms the existence of a gap. When the President alone determines who will be caretaker Prime Minister, responsibility is clear and constitutionally defined.
Risks of a Constitutional Deadlock
Last but not least, there is also the purely pragmatic argument that the “numerus clausus” (exhaustive listing) of persons from whom the President is obliged to choose the next caretaker Prime Minister, in the absence of an elected office-holder for the respective posts or in the event that several such persons refuse to take the position, has already revealed its potential to turn any parliamentary deadlock into a constitutional one. Although the issue of appointing a caretaker government is not yet directly on the agenda, some of the individuals on the list have rushed to declare that they would refuse to head such a government, thereby outlining the possible contours of what lies ahead. Even if the current situation does not evolve into a constitutional deadlock, the proposed change is a way to prevent this from happening in the future. Such a scenario is excluded when the President acts independently, and in terms of democratic legitimacy, he is also directly elected by the sovereign [Translator’s note: the sovereign means the people, who according to the Bulgarian Constitution are the source of all state power] and is not inferior to Parliament.
This constitutional text creates far more problems than it solves. Moreover, it effectively changes the nature of a number of senior public offices by including within their scope the potential responsibilities of a caretaker Prime Minister. When electing candidates to such offices, the question is now rightly raised as to whether they would become Prime Minister should such a moment arise. All of this fits into the complete absurdity in which we live. Preserving the current rules for appointing a caretaker government reduces the role of the Head of State in times of parliamentary deadlock to that of an authority who merely certifies with his signature the will of the National Assembly.
Call to Action
The need to amend the Constitution of Bulgaria (българската Конституция) in this part is imperative not only because it was adopted by an incompetent body, namely an ordinary National Assembly, but also because it violates a number of constitutional principles such as the division of powers, parliamentary government, the neutral authority of the President, and, not least, incompatibility in the case of half of the potential prime ministers, whose mandates are merely suspended, while they continue to hold senior public office.
We in the “Velichie” Party still retain some hope that there is sufficient reason and courage—political courage—to acknowledge the flagrant mistake made with the sixth amendment to the Constitution (шестата поправка в Конституцията) and the will to correct it within the remaining time of the legislature. We call on all Members of Parliament to sign the draft constitutional amendment prepared by us, which provides solely for the restoration of the constitutional conditions for the genuine application of the principle of the division of powers. May the National Assembly not once again leave the role of corrective to the Constitutional Court, but instead assume responsibility for restoring the President’s real powers to appoint a caretaker government. It is precisely to him, as the neutral authority, that the Grand National Assembly entrusted the task, in the event of an incapable Parliament, to lead the state out of parliamentary deadlock and prevent it from turning into a constitutional one.
Thank you. (Благодаря Ви.)
Add comment