Advertisement

Judicialisation of Government Accountability in Bulgaria: Crisis or Transformation of Democracy?

  • Gergana DimovaEmail author
Chapter
  • 187 Downloads
Part of the Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century book series (CDC)

Abstract

Using the methodological framework set out in Chapter  5, this chapter assesses the Bulgarian government’s accountability in the aftermath of media allegations. The empirical findings depict a trend of judicialisation of accountability in Bulgaria, which means that when the government is criticised in the media, the prosecutor and the courts are likely to be involved in sanctioning and investigating the implicated incumbents. These findings contribute to the vibrant theoretical debate as to whether judicialisation enhances democracy and whether it benefits the elites or the public in terms of accessibility, legitimacy, contestability, uncertainty, aggregation of demands and intimidation. Specifically, the chapter argues that the judicialisation of accountability in Bulgaria has had a two-sided effect on democracy. On the negative side, prosecutorial investigations of media allegations have been used by the elites to threaten opponents, legitimise threats and gain time. On the positive side, court review of various media allegations has allowed the public greater access to the political process, a more appropriate forum for resolving non-political issues, and has provided a more fact-based public discourse.

Keywords

Bulgaria Courts Prosecutor Democracy Media Elite Public 

References

  1. Alarma News. 2014. Има Съвпадения Между Тефтерчето на Филип Златанов и Ударите на Комисията, January 16. Available at http://alarmanews.com/?p=10841. Accessed April 16, 2015.
  2. Blokker, Paul. 2013. New Democracies in Crisis? A Comparative Constitutional Study of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Dimitrova, Zlatina. 2014. Prокуратурата - начин на употреба. Webcafe, August 3. Available at http://www.webcafe.bg/id_750064207_PRokuraturata__nachin_na_upotreba. Accessed April 17, 2015.
  4. Dnes. Bg. 2014. Цацаров: Прокуратурата стана универсален сапун за пране, June 25. Available at http://www.dnes.bg/temida/2014/06/25/cacarov-prokuraturatastana-universalen-sapun-za-prane.230234. Accessed April 17, 2015.
  5. Elmer, Greg, Ganaele Langlois, and Fenwick McKelvey. 2012. The Permanent Campaign: New Media, New Politics. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Ginsborg, Paul. 2008. Democracy: Crisis and Renewal. Profile Books.Google Scholar
  7. Guarnieri, Carlo. 2003. Courts as an Instrument of Horizontal Accountability: The Case of Latin Europe. In Democracy and the Rule of Law, ed. J. Maravall and A. Przeworski, 223–241. Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Guarnieri, Carlo, P. Pederzoli, and C.A. Thomas. 2002. The Power of Judges. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Legal World. 2013, May 15. Available at http://www.legalworld.bg/30835.dostojnite-prokurori-ne-sa-anonimni-ili-pone-sa-pogramotni.html. Accessed April 17, 2015.
  11. Mair, Peter. 2013. Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. Verso Trade.Google Scholar
  12. Maravall, José María, and Adam Przeworski. 2003. Democracy and the Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. McCormick, John. 2011. Machiavellian Democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Papadopoulos, Yannis. 2013. Democracy in Crisis?: Politics, Governance and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Popova, Maria. 2012. Politicized Justice in Emerging Democracies. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Peruzzotti, Enrique, and Catalina Smulovitz. 2006. Enforcing the Rule of Law: Social Accountability in the New Latin American Democracies. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2006. Democracy Past and Future. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2008. Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sabato, Larry. 2000. Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism and American Politics. Lanahan Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Shetreet, Shimon. 1984. Judicial Independence and Accountability in Israel. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 33 (4): 979–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smilova, Ruzha. 2011. The Duty to Obey the Law and Social Trust: The Experience of Post-Comunist Bulgaria. CAS Sofia Working Paper Series 4, 1–39.Google Scholar
  22. Smilov, Daniel. 2015. Статус на деня: Разликата между Василев и Пеевски: Единият има адвокат, а другият – прокурор, March 31. Available at http://danismilov.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/blog-post_31.html. Accessed April 17, 2015.
  23. Solomon, P.H. 2008. Assessing the Courts in Russia: Parameters of Progress Under Putin. International Journal for Court Administration 1 (2): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Warren, Mark. 2003. The Second Transformation of Democracy. In Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. B.E. Cain, R.J. Dalton, S.E. Scarrow, B. Cain, and S.E. Scarrow. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Social Sciences, Forensics and PoliticsUniversity of WinchesterWinchesterUK

Personalised recommendations