Morally and legally

Any similarities with the Bulgarian reality in this article are random. This text is not based on any legal knowledge, but only the logic of (my own one) what is right and what is not …

Imagine a situation in which a relatively new democracy a new government comes to power and the first that does is to try to realize what a position is left of the previous state government, including what’s legal and administrative heritage of the old rulers.

This heritage can have many forms – adopted laws and regulations, persons appointed to certain positions (either key managerial and administrative or representative) signed contracts (short and long-term ones), commitments, etc.
Once aware that inheritance should be sought answer to the question what can take the new government.
Will change the law and regulations and to make reform (ie to change the way a system functions), depends entirely on the willingness of the new government.
You do not talk about how complex this change (if the policy so far has been correct or not), but only that the change depends on the decision of the new government. With part of the „inheritance“, however, things are so. If such was appointed governor of the National Bank (with a term) or long-term contract is signed (eg the energy sector), then the answers are hiding in the decisions of the old government, which or will remain in force, or should be reviewed.
How can this happen you can review and even to avoid the occurrence of similar situations?
Bituva opinion that when the power change is not revanchism and consistency in policy. This means people in the administrative structures are not widely persecuted and appointed new ones, and to work with people who already have lots of experience and know things. It was claimed that the purge of the administration is ill, which leads to corruption and shurobadzhanashtina.
This, in my view, this is not true for the following reasons:
1) if people vote for change and „kicked“ the old government from power, this means that there is dissatisfaction towards the administration and nothing more logical than to change people who take important decisions in the country – part of are eligible position (and change with the elections), but another part was simply appointed by the old rulers;
2) if people support the new management, it is normal all levers to be in the hands of those responsible.
Imagine for example that we appoint a new CEO of a big company – it is normal to have the power to close and opens departments to detect and close the positions and to change all managers. Politically correct or not, the following sounds quite logical: the voters elect those elected positions, and those who are selected have the right to appoint their favorites of the government, not elected positions.
Otherwise things are already in the signed agreements and commitments. Their withdrawal would allow much greater freedom of the new government, and perhaps more likely, but this is hardly the right solution. Ultimately, to develop a country must have some order and rules. If all contracts begin to be reviewed on the basis of the new government whether they like it or not, it would be disastrous. This would mean that there is no rule of law and supremacy of the ruling party.
If the presence of such a contract is a brake on key policies of the new authority, the decision may be obtained at the termination of the contract, but according to legal provisions. Each contract may be terminated unilaterally against appropriate compensation. Here the question is whether the amount of compensation that is lower than the benefits that would by its termination.
All these considerations as on the appointments, and those contracts can be presented in another light. This would be where they occur in the last days of the new government, when it is clear that the power will be changed. In this version things are still legal, but the question is whether it is moral to take such decisions at the last moment, and if not, what follows from it.
Here things are much more complex. All it is clear that appointments and making other important decisions in the last minute is not correct (ie is immoral), but it does not repeal them more easily. Ultimately, the rule of law is (or should exist) to have exactly the rule of virtue, or the opinion of individuals. Determine if every thing wrong and immoral as (and cancel it, although it is legal), it will open doors for many talkovaniya indefinitely. Everything will be declared immoral and you need someone to decide what really is and what not. In other words, we will depend on the opinion of this one, rather than laws.
The decision here can not be sought for this problem, but in general. Can be found these tools to deter management from making important decisions at the last second. These mechanisms will certainly be a lot of discussion, but may work.

––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––

Peter Ganev, IME