EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
If democracy is majority rule, then the constitution is the mechanism that should ensure the rights of the individual against encroachments by that same majority.
In the historical development of modern Bulgaria, four constitutions have been in effect – the Tarnovo Constitution of 1879, the so-called Dimitrov Constitution of 1947, the Zhivkov Constitution of 1971 and the current one of 1991. It seems that everything has been written about the first Bulgarian constitution and probably for this reason almost nothing is known about it. Certainly almost nothing that is worth knowing. Especially from the point of view of guaranteeing the rights of the individual against assassination attempts by the state. This is the main reason for the attention paid to it.
A few facts about the Tarnovo Constitution
It was hastily drafted by the Constituent Assembly in Tarnovo and was not an initiative of the Bulgarians, but an implementation of a decision taken at the Berlin Congress by the great powers. The basis of the voted document was a draft developed by the Russian administration, which in turn was based on the constitutions of Serbia and Romania, which in turn were based on the Belgian constitution of 1831. At the time the Constituent Assembly was meeting, the Bulgarian principality was in the process of being built and the country was governed by a Russian occupation administration. Therefore, the draft constitution came from Russia.
Discussions on the provisions of the constitution continued for about a month in the period March-April 1879. The deputies at the beginning of the work of the Constituent Assembly were 229, but the constitution was signed by 211. Most of them were not elected, although there were some. There are easily noticeable flaws in the constitution – some of them quite real, such as the lack of adequate provisions for the separation of powers, others rather imaginary.
Deputies, divisions and delusions
No stenographic diaries have been preserved for the meetings of the Constituent Assembly, because there was no stenography in Bulgarian at that time. The available minutes and memories still allow for some conclusions.
The deputies are divided on the basis of different principles, sometimes they come to sharp arguments and even beatings. Frank political demagogy and ignorance can be found in the discussions and decisions of the Constituent Assembly. For example, when discussing education, it is assumed that primary education is “free” for everyone. Formulations in which the illusory “free” is missing or in which it is stated that municipal budgets cover the costs of primary schools have not been accepted. The statement in the constitution is demagogic, because someone always pays for education, but it is convenient for “the people”.
Gradually, a division crystallized among the deputies, which, somewhat misleadingly, was characterized as a division between liberals and conservatives. In fact, there were almost no true conservatives in the Assembly, and even later. From the point of view of the functioning of the institutions and the economy, the so-called conservatives were more liberal than those defined as liberals. Both conservatives and liberals often succumbed to collectivist attitudes. Compared to subsequent Bulgarian parliaments, however, the deputies of the Constituent Assembly much more often adopted and were ready to implement ideas that were close to classical liberalism.
The majority of the deputies have no state or administrative experience. It is precisely the lack of such experience, combined with the relatively liberal principles that dominated Europe in the 19th century, that underlie at least two noteworthy emphases of the constitution.
Inviolability of private property
The comparative analysis of the four Bulgarian constitutions shows that the Tarnovo Constitution is the clearest and most categorical in upholding this fundamental concept for economic freedom and prosperity. In Art. 67 it is stated that “Property rights are inviolable”. The next article specifies the conditions under which forced expropriation of private property can take place – only in the case of state and public benefit and with fair and advance payment. In all other Bulgarian constitutions, the right to private property is limited with many conditions – the constitution of 1947 and 1991 – or is simply absent – the constitution of 1971. It speaks of the limited place of small personal property.
It is true that during the period from 1879 to 1947, private property rights remained insufficiently secure in practice. There is no shortage of examples of this. The agrarian reforms after the First World War limited land ownership by encroaching on the few large landholdings. Thus, the efficient and market-oriented Bulgarian farms were broken up. Encroachments on private property became particularly intense after September 9, 1944. The lack of security of private property is one of the underestimated and little-studied reasons for the not particularly great successes of the first Bulgarian capitalism. All this does not diminish the value of the statement about the inviolability of private property in the first constitution. Its existence is a principled basis for resistance against attempts to abolish or limit it.
Minimum country
The deputies of the Constituent Assembly create a state and this is not their choice. They are obliged to do so by virtue of an international treaty, but they do not create an all-powerful, but a minimal state. First of all, in Art. 161 of the constitution, the number of ministries is fixed – there are exactly six. With subsequent amendments to the constitution in 1893 and 1911, their number increased to 8 and 10, respectively. There is no familiar practice of a prime minister without a specific portfolio, i.e. the prime minister is always a minister of something. Fixing the number of ministers in the constitution has an important positive consequence. It limits greed for ministerial posts. It is not possible for every new government, at its own discretion and in order to satisfy the ministerial ambitions of political entrepreneurs and coalition partners, to simply increase the number of ministries, to have ministers without portfolio or ministers of temporary situations (such as the European presidency).
Another, almost unthinkable for our later history, example: the Russian draft constitution provided for not six, but seven ministries. The deputies of the Constituent Assembly decided to reduce the number of ministries. The state machine, for a number of reasons, has a tendency to constantly grow. The supposedly inexperienced and insufficiently educated deputies of the Constituent Assembly made a completely unusual move - they reduced the ministerial posts. By the way, the Russian draft constitution provided for the maintenance of the future Bulgarian monarch to be one million gold francs per year, and in Art. 35 of the constitution the monarch's salary was reduced to 600,000 francs.
Similar to the provisions on private property, these were also changed in the following years. The number of ministries increased, as did the monarch's means of support. However, the deputies of the Constituent Assembly cannot be blamed for this. They did what depended on them. Whether they were understood and if not, why? is a completely different question.
And a little naivety?
Driven by the desire to prevent the restriction of the fundamental freedoms of citizens, the majority of the deputies made mistakes. From today's perspective, probably too many. There is an opinion that for the functioning of the Bulgarian Principality, the Senate (or State Council) and property qualification proposed by the so-called conservatives would have had a rather positive influence.
In a burst of populism, these proposals were rejected. However, if one carefully reads Petko Slaveykov’s speech against the Senate, one will see that, besides populism, there is sound logic in it. He claims that in order to prove the necessity of its existence, the Senate “will drag things out.” Slaveykov’s fear comes from the fact that the bureaucracy will start imitating activity in order to show that it is necessary and must exist. This is a reflection of the classical liberal view of less state, and also a slight anticipation of arguments from public choice theory.
All constitutions after the Tarnovo Constitution have been considered and weighed for a longer time, one even went through a (pseudo) referendum. However, none of them further developed the important and valuable elements of the Tarnovo Constitution - the inviolability of private property and the limitation of state omnipotence.
For the two socialist constitutions of 1947 and 1971, this is completely understandable. Considering the conditions in which the current constitution was adopted, the insufficient presence of these elements is also understandable. However, the inviolability of private property and the minimal state are necessary prerequisites for economic freedom, which in turn is the basis of successful economic development. And it seems to have no ground in our country. It is completely understandable why.
