Peer Reviewer 1:
1. Generally the notebook is factually accurate, but there are some minor inaccuracies.
Paragraph 1 had the following statement: "Corruption scandals have rocked the energy company, which is owned by the Ministry of Economy and Energy and the Municipality of Sofia. The scandals began unraveling on July 4, 2006, when both the Toplofikazia-Sofia Executive Officer Valentin Dimitrov and the Tax Inspector Alexander Angelov were arrested on the same day, but for different crimes". Yes, there were many corruption scandals related to the energy company Toplofikazia in 2006-2007, but the arrest of Inspector Alexander Angelov mentioned in the beginning was not related to Toplofikazia. Valentin Dimitrov was arrested on July 5, 2006, not on July 4, 2006. It is better to call Dimitrov "executive director" instead of "executive officer." It is more correct to say that the information about the money found in several bank accounts and deposit boxes was about 12 million leva (US$9.05 million) according to "SOME media," as data differed from media to media. The sentence "Subsequently, 16 bank accounts in his and his mother's names have been frozen in five Bulgarian banks" should come before the previous one "After serving 10 months...." Many details about Dimitrov's bank accounts found abroad were omitted. However, having in mind how large this case was, it was probably impossible to exhaust all facts.
In the paragraph starting with "On Dec. 13, 2006..." it is more correct to say "The Company's NEXT Executive Director..."
In the paragraph starting "On May 11, 2007..." it is more correct to say "Although the authorities have not acknowledged it, the June resignations of both Ovcharov and the director of the National Investigation Service, Angel Alexandrov, seem to be related with Toplofikazia scandal." Alexandrov and Ovcahrov are not charged, only investigated, in the Toplofikazia case, together with some people whose names were omitted. Also omitted were essential facts about the events that led to Ovcharov's and Alexandrov's resignations, including the dismissals or resignations of two high-level investigators and a deputy minister, who were also investigated for obstructing justice in the case of Valentin Dimitrov.
2. The Notebook is fair and clear.
3. There are some significant details, names, events and developments that were not addressed. The author could have given more detailed information about SAPARD's misappropriation cases, and about the case of Ludmil Stoykov (it seems this is a better spelling of his family name), which was mentioned only briefly. Also it would be good if the Notebook underlined the following CONTRADICTION: Tanov resigned from his position from the Ministry of Internal Affairs because he said the institution was unable to work against high-level corruption. At the same time, the minister of Internal Affairs, Rumen Petkov, who used to be Tanev's boss, brags that pre-trial actions have been taken against corruption, that 297 people were sentenced, and that 40 complaints against officials in his ministry were validated. The obvious question is "who is right, Tanov or Petkov?," and why these two men, who once worked together in the same institution and in the same field, now went separate ways? I think ths answer is that the system was not effective.
4. I think the reader would benefit from more in-depth analysis, which could answer questions like the ones above and like the ones below: - Why does the Toplofikazia case take such a long time in court? - Why did other cases, like those of Nestorov and Ludmil Stoikov, finish with no sentences? It may very well be, as some European institutions pointed out, that the weak judiciary system is responsible for not having good results against corruption in Bulgaria.
Peer Reviewer 2:
The facts described in the Reporter's Notebook are accurate and give a broad overview on the latest corruption scandals in Bulgaria. The information is clearly and fairly presented and interpreted.
Mention should be made that the figures stated by various legal enforcement authorities do not give a clear idea of what exactly is done by the state in the law enforcement field, as they include crimes that are not that closely interrelated with bribery and dont provide clear information on why a great amount of signals have not been investigated for various reason (as stated by Minister Petkov, only 100 of the 240 complaints were investigated completely in 2006 and only 40 were validated.)
In general, the efforts of the government are concentrated on fighting administrative corruption. Some positive results in the area are noted in the European Commission Report on Bulgarias progress on accompanying measures, from June 20, 2007. Political and high-level corruption, plus the embezzlement of E.U. funds remain, however, the biggest problems that the country faces.
The latest corruption scandals in which high ranking officials and businessmen were involved showed that the system is not ready (or willing) to effectively counteract political corruption. Many of the high ranking officials were not even investigated, and those who received charges were soon thereafter proclaimed innocent due to lack of evidence. The process deepened the understanding of Bulgarian citizens that there is a class of politicians and businessmen that is untouchable for justice, and that justice is only for ordinary people.
Peer Reviewer 3:
Last year I finished my comments with the conclusion that combating corruption needs real, tangible results, so as to build trust in the responsible institutions and to encourage citizens to actively support anti-corruption measures.
The Reporters Notebook fully confirms the continuing necessity of equitable penalties and justice. There are many noisy scandals related to the abuse of power that involve high-level politicians, but in the end nobody is guilty, and, as a journalist writes: everybody [involved] still goes to work.
The lack of justice and the lack of fair punishment create an atmosphere of mistrust and alienation, which strongly affect our lives. This is especially obvious when we look at the last election campaign for mayors and municipal councilors: the results were apathy, very low electorate activity and unbelievable open and shameless vote-buying. As sociologists noted, probably about 10 percent of the votes have been bought, and the electoral activity fell to 28.26 percent compared to 47 percent in 2003.
According to the chair of the Supreme Administrative Court, K. Penchev, there are 438 litigations against election results, and those complaints in fact refer only to the the third round of the elections . In many districts administrative courts started a second counting of the votes/bulletins and probably some of the results will show different winners.
We expect newly elected officials to return the generous gesture of donors, the prosecutor general announced several days before the elections. Because of the hundreds signals of vote-buying, from now on the government representatives will be subjected to special observation by the Prosecutor Generals Office and law-enforcement agencies.
The growing number of fraud cases derives from the efforts of local businessmen to enter directly into the elected local-government bodies, which will give them the chance to exercise immediate political power, instead of exerting just pressure and influence. As some observers underline, this is cheap and much more effective than making donations to political parties so as to elect grateful representatives.
New terminology emerged together with this campaign. Analyzing the elections, political experts talked about market relationships, using terms such as brokers , dealers or buyers . The words of a political party leader, buying votes is a European phenomenon, became the most argued idea after the campaign. But the governing majority of the Parliament refused to back a declaration which was to denounce soundly and clearly this dangerous practice.
To summarize:
- No results of our governmental and institutional anti-corruption programs can be expected if the society doesnt cope with that devastating practice of buying politicians at all levels of authority. - The umbrella policy over the gray economy and the strong links between shadow business and political parties need to be broken. - Every step against the well-known and widespread forms of corruption will be fruitless if we dont manage to work from its basis upwards. Changing the electoral systems, accepting new laws and rules for exerting strong financial, legislative and citizen control over political parties and campaign finance will result in a much more fair and open political process and will strengthen the correct representation of our elected officials. - Money in politics has to become a long-term broadly, openly and publicly discussed, high priority issue.
Peer Reviewer 4:
The Reporter's Notebook offers a good overview on the major events and developments related to corruption and governance in Bulgaria during the past year, with a focus on those situations that became most prominent in the eyes of the general public.
In order to better understand the Bulgarian situation, we will need to place the stories covered by the notebook in a broader political context. The E.U. accession process had a tremendous influence over all political developments in the country. The European Commission, in all its monitoring reports, identified corruption and organized crime as two of the most serious problems in Bulgaria; the emphasis on corruption became even stronger in the last pre-accession report of the Commission. System reforms, as well as practical results in the fight against corruption and organized crime, were specifically mentioned as conditions for the integration of Bulgaria into the European Union. There was a constant threat during the course of 2006 that the safeguard clauses regarding the country's membership in the European Union could be triggered because of the government's failure to counteract corruption and organized crime. However, and somewhat anti-climatically, the European Commission finally accepted that the government had made sufficient efforts in this respect and the clauses were not triggered. Bulgaria joined the European Union on schedule, on Jan. 1, 2007.
The Toplofikazia case and many other cases of corruption cannot be considered separately from the above mentioned processes. They can be seen as a part of the government's so-called showcase activities aiming at convincing the European Commission that the country takes corruption and organized crime seriously. These activities, according to many observers, were more a kind of PR rather than deep system changes. Such observations are indirectly confirmed by the fact that most of the large court cases involving high-profile public servants and organized criminals that have been initiated over the last year have proved to be very difficult and are not very likely to end in convictions. Most of these cases were seen by the media and the public at large as direct responses to the European Commission's explicit demands for convictions for corrupt high-profile public officials and members of the organized crime groups.
Vanyo Tanov, the former director of the General Directorate for Combating Organized Crime, is a good example, if we seek to illustrate the growing importance of corruption and anti-corruption rhetoric as an instrument for political mobilization. He left the police service not only because he was disappointed with the lack of political support but also because he decided to choose a political career. In the last local elections, he ran for mayor in the town of Russe, representing the newest Bulgarian party GERB (Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria) that was established by the current Sofia mayor and former chief secretary of the Home Ministry, Boyko Borissov. To a great extent, this party and its leader owe their current popularity to their strong anti-corruption and anti-crime rhetoric.
Global Integrity uses a