Society and Safety Foundation seeks to change the meaning and content of the concept of “security” and to raise the awareness of security as a basic need, which if not satisfied prevents personal development. Through our activities we want to encourage the citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria to participate actively in the process of reforming the Ministry of Interior and the definition of the security service and to identify institutions which are its suppliers.

The security is not only a basic human need, but also one of the deepest aspirations enshrined in us. Ambition and desire for safety when we are at work, in public or when we are at home. Security can be viewed a much broader: striving for financial security, security in terms of our life and health, the health of our relatives, our work, our social position.

THE “CIVIL SECURITY” SERVICE 

At present, there is no clear definition of the scope of the “Security”, the formation of the main components and mechanism of interaction between the institutions which are responsible for the quality of this service. Common understanding of ‘security’ to prevent external aggression and maintain public order in the country, thus ensuring its usually identified with some of the functions of the state. In other words, the creation and maintenance of security can be defined as a common public good,  service that is used by all and for it is characteristic absence of competition in consumption, which is why its implementation is financed with part of the taxes of the population (budget of the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defence). Moreover, her negatives of all the non-market sector – inability to accurately measure received and paid, the absence of competition, hence comparability and choice, and presumably low efficiency. Meanwhile, the “National Security Strategy” of the Republic of Bulgaria refers to “adapt to the changing security environment” which “imposes new prioritization of security policy, the inclusion of overall institutional potential of society, applying new forms of interaction between the state, business and NGOs, such as public-private partnership. ”

“Extending of the social scope of the security policy poses new challenges for institutional coordination horizontal and vertical hierarchical relations management. Planned pooling of resources of the security sector and change the definition of the “security” requires taking concrete action not only by individual institutions and structures of civil society, but also of every citizen, which is one of the largest chalenges- citizens to realize that the quality of the “security” is defined by their action or inaction.

To be the “security” adequate to the needs and expectations of citizens is first necessary to identify their expectations and understanding of what constitutes the “security” – something which, although developed strategies and other program documents in this field is not made. Lack of clarity about the expectations of citizens, creating the basic prerequisite for overall dissatisfaction with the “security” as:

1. Their expectations are at variance with the vision and actions of individual institutions.

2. The institutions expect active participation of citizens and civil monitoring on quality of service, expect proposals for improving the quality and, while the citizens themselves do not find your place as a country, as it does not understand the scope of the “security”.

3. Subject to the general dissatisfaction of citizens with the quality of service “security” are employees of the Interior Ministry, because the definition of the “security” is not promoted and they are the only recognizable as a party in this process and bear all the negatives and civil frustration – both professional and political leadership and citizens, which poses a risk to public order and security.

Security as defined in the National Security Strategy is a broad and public order and security are only one of it’s components.

The main priorities of the National Security Strategy and defined as vital interests are: • ensuring the rights, freedoms, security and welfare of the citizens, society and the state;

• protection of the constitutional order and democratic values;
• preservation and development of national identity, building on the basis of a united nationality;
• ensuring the integrity of the Bulgarian civil society;
• overcoming the negative demographic processes, the significant disparities in regional development and construction of socio-economic environment, providing conditions for the development of generations of Bulgarian citizens, able to ensure the Republic of Bulgaria deserved place in the EU and global political, economic, financial and social processes.
• favorable and predictable security environment;
• ensuring energy security by diversifying the types of energy sources and routes of supply of energy and other strategic raw materials;
• development of education, training, science and applied research activities in the spirit of national and common European values;
• ensuring economic, financial and social stability and economic prosperity;
• preventing and combating corruption and organized crime;
• limitation of offenses against person and property;
• maintaining high quality of the environment and natural resources.

So formulated priorities cover all socio-economic sectors and require coordinated and common efforts of all countries to promote the “security”, quality and possibilities for its optimization and implementation of subsequent monitoring and control by its users.

It is essential that the institutions and their structural units, the civil society and citizens to begin to act as integrated components of the national security system. To begin this process is necessary before this dialogue to take place and create a partnership between civil society organizations, the private sector, state and local institutions  what suggests the “security” and how it can improve its quality.

Our mission is to transform the Ministry of Interior and to be a transparent and open institution which is taking into consideration the real needs of the citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria while is providing a high quality of security service.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOCIETY AND SAFETY FOUNDATION?

The founders of the Society and Safety Foundation,

PERSUADED that the Bulgarian society needs a serious discussion and more information about security and safety issues, the role of law enforcement in the prevention and detection of crimes, the need to analyze and change our attitudes and behavior in different emergencies and our active participation in the process of decision-making and policy-making regarding our security and safety,

MOTIVATED by the need of employees in law enforcement institutions to be involved and to participate actively in civic initiatives and the need to increase their knowledge and skills to work with civil society,

BELIEVING that providing security and safety for all can be achieved mainly through more education, training and motivation of the people to participate and improve the security service,

UNDERSTANDING the security service as guaranteeing the rights, freedoms, security and welfare of all citizens, society and the state,

CONVINCED that in the definition of the “security” must be involved citizens, employees in the Security Sector, institutions and social service providers and the work for improvement of its quality to in partnership with them,

ASSUMING that not the state institutions, but civil society organizations have a leading role in this to make people active, to identify problems in the security sector and to request changes which will improve both- the Security Sector and every citizen’s protection,

RESOLVED to work to bring different sectors and social groups together, to increase security and safety of citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria and asking all who are sharing our ideals, to join our efforts,

It was founded the Society and Safety Foundation by Trade Union Federation of the Employees in the Ministry of Interior as organization in public interest.

When we are calling on 112?
When the situation requires URGENT intervention  of the emergency services (fire brigade, police, emergency, civil protection) and a team have to be sent at the accident.

How to report a sygnal on phone 112?

1. As soon as you have contact with the operator on 112  you have to specify the village, city or town you are calling from. If you are not in village, city or town, you have to describe its geographical location by landmarks – roud, river, mountain etc.

2. Formulate briefly the reason for your call – whether it concerns medical incident or another – flood, fire, etc.

3. Listen carefully the questions of the operator and succinctly respond to them. If necessary, wait to be connected with the service – ambulance, police, fire and more. It is important to be known that this communication with an operator lasts between 1 to 3 min.  During the conversation the most accurate information have to be provided about wthe  intsident.

I have two children who were 4 and 7 years old when I applied for a job in the 112 Emergency line in Bulgaria. While I was passing all phases of the recruitment I worried and was sure I will not be approved for this position. I thought that my children are too small and it will be the cause for my rejection. I was not sure whether I am suitable for the job. I did not know if I’m good enough. I was worried because I did not know the system and what is the responsibility to work as an operator in 112 Emergency line. I was afraid because I knew that lives depend on the seconds in which you are judging and evaluating the severity of the situation. The lives of someone’s mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children depend on how quickly you are processing the signal. The lives who are depending on your judgment and professionalism. Today, nine years later, I am thankful to my husband, who saw the ad and gave me the courage by telling me that I will handle it. Today, I am thankful to my work as operator in 112 Emergency line, because I realized that life is much more valuable than I thought, and I contribute each day so many lives to be saved.

Quite offten we can see firefighters who are fighting the firestorm  and stand against it alone, but surounded by  at least two or three fire trucks.

Have you ever wondered what is due to the fact that the number of firefighters is equal to the number of firefighting vehicles?

The one reason is that firefighters are few and insufficient.

The other reason is much more terrible and caused by regulatory gaps and the lack of a defined minimum number of firefighters in the team. The acceptance of a minimum number of firefighters in the team is postponed till August 2017.

In this same regulation it is precised that in indoor’ accidents, the team of firefighter and driver / most common practice / must wait for another team before entering the burning building. This puts the first team /firefighter and the driver/ in  in deadlock: to get help to the victims or to wait for help, about 15-20 minutes in the big cities and much longer in small where help can come only from the distanced towns.  The exception rather than practice is three or four firefighters to be on shift and this is the number of  all firefighters on shift in  some major cities.

In small towns the situation is much worse.
The next time you see firefighters standing in front of a burning building who are not entering to extinguish the fire, please do not be angry at them, but the system which allows this to happen.
The next time when you hear about the injured firefighter, remember that very often it happened, because at the signal  responded  two firefighters  – one entered  alone in the burning building, because other had to stand outside and to ensure  him a water. There is not a third.
Photographer: Silva Toneva

Each day is different. There are days I’d been shouted. Days when people fainted in my arms. Days when my stripes had been torn and people spat in my face. Days, I’ve heard and seen how the life vanished.

Days like these are not uncommon, but are quickly forgotten, because  are followed by the other days. Days like today, when the people robbed grandfather Dancho have been revealed. Days which we cannot forget, because the tearful elderly man brought us, as his gratitude, a basket with apples and told us “Thank you, guys. Thank you, you’ve been here…”.

There are also the other days and they are the worst – days that you know you cannot help and  you are powerless. Days when you wished you could prevent a crime or incident. Days that you want the institution you work in is not so unwieldy. Days when you are praying on behalf of the victims’ relatives to survive and justice to prevail. Days in which your are furious and angry. Days you are asking yourself whether it makes sense and do you have the strength to keep doing your job.

In those days, three things are keeping you to move forward:  the love you have to the profession, the colleagues and people like grandfather Dancho.

With gratitude to my colleagues and grandfather Dancho

One official at the Ministry of Interior

Terrorism threatens a society by instilling fear and helplessness in its citizens. It seeks to hold a society or government hostage by fear of destruction and harm.

When terrorist acts occur, people generally look for ways to cope with the acute stress and trauma. Terrorism evokes a fundamental fear of helplessness. The violent actions are random, unprovoked and intentional, and often are targeted at defenseless citizens. Trying to cope with the irrational information that is beyond normal comprehension can set off a chain of psychological events culminating in feelings of fear, helplessness, vulnerability and grief.

Xenophobia — fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners — can be heightened under a terrorist threat and can become a social and psychological danger. The fear generated by terrorism can be exacerbated by a population’s diversity if there is distrust between groups, categories and classification of citizens. It is important to recognize that diversity in a population can be an opportunity for unity and strength. There are members of our diverse society who have experienced past terrorist incidents. The knowledge and experience they have gained from surviving and coping with these incidents can make them a valuable resource on how to cope and how to offer assistance to others.

Who is affected?

After a terrorist attack, many people are impacted. People who have experienced the trauma often fall into the following categories:

• Survivors of past traumatic events (e.g., refugees of wars, terrorism or torture, and survivors of domestic violence, child abuse or street crime). These individuals may have a heightened sense of vulnerability.
• People who personally witnessed or were victims of the terrorist attack.
• People who experience traumatization from learning of relatives, friends and acquaintances who were subject to the violence, or from exposure to repeated media accounts of the trauma.

What you may experience following a terrorist attack

People who have experienced or witnessed a terrorist attack may go into a state of acute stress reaction. You may feel one or all of these symptoms:

• Recurring thoughts of the incident.
• Becoming afraid of everything, not leaving the house or isolating yourself.
• Stopping usual functioning, no longer maintaining daily routines.
• Survivor guilt — “Why did I survive? I should have done something more.”
• Tremendous sense of loss.
• Reluctance to express your feelings, losing a sense of control over your life.

Coping with the trauma

1. Identify the feelings that you may be experiencing. Understand that your feelings are a normal reaction to an abnormal situation.
2. Remember that you have overcome adversity and trauma in the past. Try to remember what you did that helped you overcome the fear and helplessness in that situation.
3. Talk to others about your fears. It’s OK to ask for help. Workplaces may convene small groups with an EAP counselor or other mental health counselor so people can share feelings.
4. Make efforts to maintain your usual routine.
5. Think positively. Realize that things will get better. Be realistic about the time it takes to feel better.
6. Recognize that the nature of terrorist attacks creates fear and uncertainty about the future. Continue to do the things in your life that you enjoy. Don’t get preoccupied with the things you cannot control to the extent that they prevent you from living your normal life.
7. Know the actions our government is taking to combat terrorism and restore safety and security. Recognize that trained officials throughout the country are mobilized to prevent, prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks.
8. Limit exposure to media coverage.
9. Tips for helping children cope:

• Encourage children to say how they are feeling about the event.
• Ask children what they have seen, heard or experienced.
• Assure children that their parents are taking care of them and will continue to help them deal with anything that makes them feel afraid.
• Help children recognize when they have shown courage in meeting a new scary situation and accomplished a goal despite hardship or barriers. Instill a sense of empowerment.
• Let children know that institutions of democracy are still in place and our government is intact. (It can also be helpful for adults to realize this.)
• Know that it is possible for children to experience vicariously the traumatization from the terrorist attack (e.g. watching TV coverage, overhearing adult conversations).

If you are having trouble coping with the terrorist attacks, consider seeking help from a psychologist or other mental health professional. There are many ways to feel traumatized by terrorist incidents. Psychologists and other licensed mental health professionals are trained to help people cope and take positive steps toward managing their feelings and behaviors.

Source: American Psychological Association

In 2015, 3168 people have left the Ministry of Interior.
More than 2/3 of them are working at field and are at operational positions.
From all employees quit the system 1 is a senior, 466 are managers, 688 of are at executive and 2013 are at junior executive positions.
444 employees (65%) of the 688 people on executive positions and 1345 junior executive position (67%) of total 2013 have ceased their legal relations with the Ministry of Interior in the period October to December 2015.
The number of resigned employees sharply increased in the last quarter of 2015. It is a result of the planned “reforms” in the Law on State Budget of the Republic of Bulgaria, provoked unprecedented association of the employees in the Security Sector and spontaneous protests in Bulgaria
At present part of the vacancies are advertised competitions, but due to the long process of selection and training, the deficit created in the Ministry of Interior will not be brought soon under control.
Much of the staff left the system is not only employees working in the field, but also experts who have years of experience. They are not able to pass on their experience. Their work is done by their colleagues who are repeatedly loaded and as a result – ineffective.
Currently it a new amending in the Law on the Interior Ministry is planning, but measures addressing this crisis, tools for improving of the quality of service “civil security” and convert the Interior into an effective institution are not discussed – on the contrary. The new Law is providing reduction of the social rights of the employees, an internal restructuring, creating a state-owned enterprise and the transformation of Fire Safety and Protection of Citizens in Agency, but no one answers the questions how this will enhance the quality of work in the Ministry of Interior and will make citizens more safety and secure?

Society and Safety Foundation is one of the few civil organizations in Bulgaria which puts as a priority on its activities the improvement of the  “civil security” service provided by the Ministry of Interior, which is directly linked with the improvement of the quality of work and working conditions in the MoI’s system.

Regarding the Minister Buchvarova speaking at the press conference in the Council of Ministers on 13.01.2016 we are obliged to express our official statement.

Mrs Buchvarova, at the press conference on 13.01.2016 you said, quote:

“Therefore any further attemptс MoI to be criticized on this way – with insults, ridiculous allegations false information – typical “cop numbers” will be perceived as an attack on public and national security.”

Please explain on which point from art. 4 of the Act of the State Agency for National Security you relate the criticism to the Ministry of Interior.

You are absolutely right that “insults, ridiculous allegations, false information” can not serve as a constructive public dialogue on the subject, but only the court may classify the criticisms of the Ministry of Interior  as such.

You have no legal right to do so.

In this sense, the position you express can be perceived as restricting freedom of speech, which is protected by Art. 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria. May or may not representatives of the media to criticize the Ministry of Interior? May or may not civil organizations to criticize the work of the Ministry?

In another part of your speech, you said:

“Reforms are on my computer. How can you comment on something you have not seen.”

The logical question comes, why the reforms stay on your computer and are not published for public discussion? At organised by us roundtable on 18 December 2015, we appealed for reform which takes into account the interests of citizens and ministry’s employees. We appealed for greater transparency in the management of MoI’s budget which is over 1 billion lev – all taxpayers’ money. The reform in the Ministry of Interior can be done only with broad public support and obvious action taken in the citizens’ interest. Don’t you support this position, Mrs. Buchvarova?

We would not focus superfluous attention to other parts of your statement that aren’t less questionable and are not meeting the legal framework of your position. We will notice that the Ministry of Interior cannot have  “priority groups”, as it would be contrary to Art. 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria.

Society and Safety Foundation  does not accept the idea of ​​unilateral decisions that affect the whole Bulgarian society. We openly oppose to any attempt for  freedom of speech’s limitation and each reform the Ministry of Interior, which is not based on detailed research in the Ministry and after public debate on the issue.

And we say “Enough!”

Enough parceled reforms.

Enough savings to fill the budget for the next 12 months without long-term vision.

Enough reformes without at least elementary form of analysis within the ministry.

Foundation “Society and Security” calls for transparency and would support each initiative in this direction, but any reform that does not meet the needs of citizens and employees cannot receive our support.

Recent years, when we hear Ministry of Interior the associations which come to our minds are “ineffective” and “reform.”We are all aware and conscious of the fact that more and more often, when we witness or become a victim of petty crime we prefer to cover the harm ourselves rather than complicate our lives and alert, to write explanations, to do 5-6 times to the local district and finally, after all these efforts, to understand that we are part of “unsolved crimes”.

At the same time we are also aware that this is an institution that is funded, like all state structures of our taxes, but we as citizens have no control over the policies of this institution. Every year we hear statistics and repors about the increased levels of solved crimes  – yes, by 2-3% per year, but it is still growth. At the same time, our life does not change. We do not feel safer or more comfortable for ourselves and our relatives. Our trust in the Ministry of Interior has not increased. We do not believe that if we are robbed, the perpetrator/s will be caught.

We feel that we are caught in a vicious circle from which the exit is impossible, but the  Ministry of Interior and the “civil security” service is becoming more expensive and increasingly ineffective.

Using a simple mathematical approach we find that the population in Bulgaria reduced, but the costs of MoI increased in absolute terms and against the backdrop of the missing police in Bulgarian villages. This for Society and Safety Foundation means inefficiency and uncertainty.

Many researchers, representatives of political parties, local government or business will say that this is not so and that theMinistry of Interior is a working institution. And they are right … somewhat.

MoI works despite  all political assignments. Despite the lack of vision and strategy for reform. Despite the poor working conditions, shattered patrol cars and missing consumables.

MoI works, because of the people who have remained in this institution. People who love their profession. People who want to be proud of what they work. People who want to serve to the citizens. People who want reform, but a real, long-term and reform which is meeting the needs of bulgarian citizens.

These people need support, because security is our common and shared responsibility and because to be safe and secure about himself and his family, we all must request the  Ministry of Interiorto to be reformed in  way which we as sovereigns believe it is correct.

It is time to start talking about quality and how to measure the quality in Ministry of Interior.

Much of MoI’s employees are ready. Are you?

The most important element of the whole process is institutionalized of forms and procedures for citizen participation in reforming the Ministry of Interior. The second crucial component is uniting around the need to prepare a long-term strategy to reform the Ministry of Interior, to be adopted as the Ministry of Interior and civil society organizations and the trade unions.

1. Institutionalization of the forms and procedures for citizen participation in reforming the Ministry of Interior

One of the biggest challenges is how to institutionalize citizen participation, without making structure cumbersome and inefficient. It is therefore necessary to set up an informal group of representatives of NGOs and professional organizations to clarify the parameters of functioning mechanisms for involving citizens and procedures for consultation with government representatives. In this period of advance planning is necessary activities and measures on the one hand to be provided to explore the expectations of citizens for the “security” and to hold public consultations and to what extent the Ministry of Interior can be reformed so that to meet public expectations. It is in the process of preparation and to provide mechanisms through which citizens can participate actively in the process of monitoring the activities of the Ministry of Interior and in making recommendations for improvement. In addition the components of active and broad citizen participation are necessary to provide institutionalized form of citizenship and have the necessary expertise. Therefore, it is necessary to attract two types of organizations: organizations with expertise on the topic “security”, MoI, civic participation and preparation of program documents, as well as organizations that have access to a wide range of citizens. This format will provide on the one hand the necessary expertise will enable the realization of activities on informing and consulting the public and will fill with meaning and content activities institutionalized form of citizenship.

One of the issues that should be discussed is whether such an institutionalized structure is better to be the Council of Ministers or the Ministry of Interior.

The reasons for this to be to the Ministry of Interior are related to the specifics of the activity of this structure, which requires consultation and debate on specific issues relating efficiency of the institution and the quality of provided service “security”. The functioning of institutionalized form of civic participation to the Interior Ministry will provide direct access and opportunity to work with experts of various departments in the Ministry, which will make the process more operational and flexible.

The arguments in favor of the institutionalization of such a structure to the Council of Ministers /CM/ are more – on the one hand, they are related to the need for reform vision and long-term development strategy of the Ministry of Interior be approved and confirmed by representatives of various ministries and agencies whose activities and policies will be directly or indirectly affected by the implementation of the reform in the Ministry. On the other hand, the constitution of this body to the Council of Ministers will ensure its independence from the Ministry of Interior. Representatives of other departments with rank minister or deputy minister, will facilitate the process of adopting the proposals at the level of CM and ensure the adoption of most of the recommendations of this authority. In the long term, the creation of such a structure to CM will allow expanding the scope of activity, interpretation of the “security” in much broader and synchronize visions for development and reform of the judiciary and defense.

2. Merging around the need to prepare a long-term strategy and unified vision of the Ministry of Interior

Before proceeding with the preparation of long-term strategy the civic and professional organizations, and the representatives of legislative and executive power need to unite around a common vision for the Interior Ministry in the long run. The preparation of a common vision is associated with both study of the attitudes of the public and lobbying and consultations with government officials. The main issues that need to be discussed and be reached a consensual decision, before starting preparation of the strategy are:

1. What are the structural changes that need to be implemented? What are the points that need to come out of the Ministry of Interior /MI/ and to which ministries and agencies will be transferred? How to ensure the protection of the rights of employees and compliance with the agreement, which they have concluded when they started to work in the Ministry. What happens to links as the Academy of Ministry of Interior, The Institute of Psychology of Ministry of Interior and others ?
2. Whether the direction of the reform will be decentralization or centralization? In case of decentralization, how to improve the qualification of the teams that will manage the structures on local and regional level? How to realize subsequent control and prevent corruption? How will the same quality of the provided service “security” in the whole country be ensured.
3. How to reduce the political influence in the work of Ministry of Interior? Could chiefs of police stations and / or directors of regional management of Ministry of Interior be elected together with the candidates for mayors in the case of reform towards decentralization? What are the mechanisms in case of decentralization that will allow debate on level of concepts of development and ensure transparency and fairness in the election / appointment? How limited political “purges” and the expiry of qualified personnel of the Interior Ministry?
4. What are the mechanisms and models that will enable active aging employees? How will the principles of lifelong learning be introduce? How to ensure continuity between employees?
5. What is the extent of “opening” of the Ministry of Interior for citizens and what are the specific actions that need to be taken? What are the topics on which information is characterized as classified and how stakeholders can rally around this decision?
6. How to overcome the accumulated prejudices and stereotypes regarding employees in MI? How to debunk the myths and what are the organizations and / or institutions that need to do it? What is the communication strategy, which is necessary to prepare and what are the main priorities?
7. Which are the organizations and institutions that work with children and young people and develop their active citizenship and legal culture in the interaction with the Ministry of Interior? How to combine principles of formal and informal education?
8. How Ministry of Interior interacts with other institutions at the level of delivery of service “security” and how this interaction can be improved? What tools need to be implemented and how to measure their effect?

The main issue which united representatives of trade unions, professional organizations and NGOs in terms of public order and security, is that the “security” service provided to citizens, is not effective and does not meet their needs. The discussion about the parameters and expectations of what should the service be has not taken place – as citizens, and with trade unions and professional organizations. Reasons for the lack of discussion about MoI are many but the main ones are:

• The concept of about MoI’s functions has been changed with every new government;
• The system is closed and does not create real opportunities for citizen participation in decision-making, and the citizens are not motivated to participate, because their knowledge and ideas of MoI are often based on myths and prejudices that are inherited in each generation;
• Representatives of political and professional leadership in the Ministry of Interior, who take MoI as an institution of power, whose part is to ensure public order and security, often are overweening to citizens even arrogant sometimes. In many of the decisions taken, we can see and demonstrated elitism to the citizens, as the Government officials they do not understand the real problems of the institution, do not know the system and therefore they are not allowed to tell to MoI what security is and how it can be guaranteed.

That is why the police system becomes more rigid, more encapsulated and sacrifice more cruel its employees. This is happening on a background of permanent reduction of the quality of  “security” service and increased number of unsatisfied from the MoI’s work  citizens to whom is said they are complaining are reasonless and exist only because they do not understand “the complex matter of security.”

Rigidity of the system is due to many reasons, some of which are:

1. MoI is an institution which implements functions for prevention and combat all types of crimes, guarantees public order, protects national security, ensures border control, regulates migration processes, protects financial interests of the European Union, works on fire safety and protection of the population etc. Most of the activities require the classification of information, which in itself is associated with limited access of nongovernmental organizations in the preparation and implementation of programming documents. The need access to the information to be limited is understandable, but it is used as a reason the institution to be closed for citizens’ monitoring of the overall policy of the Ministry. Under the pretext that certain policies, decisions and actions are classified, most of the structures of civil society are isolated, the motivation for participation is decreased and form attitudes in people that to be MoI monitored evaluated requires specific expertise that only certain people possess. Thus the majority of the representatives of civil society are deliberately isolated and a range of non-governmental organizations and experts who have proven experience and expertise are allowed to participate in policies’ development, but these experts and NGOs are not actively working with the civil society and thus their proposals the vision for reform and expertise to be changed reach a very small group of people.
2. The lack of accessible information, creates conditions for speculation as to the number of employees in the Ministry of Interior, the method for spending of MoI’s budget and it makes possible changes in MoI to be realized which are satisfying certain political parties. Reporting documents published on the website of the Ministry of Interior and promoted in the media are prepared and present information in an incomprehensible way. These documents are published, but not “translated” in plain language to encourage the expression of citizenship and shared expectations of what service the citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria want to receive. This is why the citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria have no real need to participate in the preparation of proposals for changes in the Ministry. On one hand, due to the above reasons, but also arise from the deliberate release of a certain narrow range of experts in the process of information and consultation.
3. The politicization of the system is one of the main reasons for the lack of action the Ministry of Interior to be opened to the citizens. Because of its nature and function as structure of power and authority the resources are used and maintenance of political and party interests and protection of certain persons / data from a study of the factors causing stress, conducted in 2013. /. The politicization of the system changes the vision of the function and role of the Ministry of Interior – by structure that should provide the “security”, it becomes a structure that supports / sometimes at the cost of repression / achievement of certain political priorities. The politicization of the system contributes to the lack of vision for the development and reform of the Ministry of Interior, as the planning horizon is within mandate of the governing political party/coalition. MoI reform requires both talking about the effects of reform on employees and preparation of tools to assess the quality and effectiveness of the service and the citizens’ satisfaction, which in turn requires the participation of civil society organizations in monitoring and evaluation process. The lack of vision for the development and reform in MoI becomes both employees and citizens hostages and victims of political programs.
4. Failure of the successful model of institutionalized participation of citizens in reforming the Ministry of Interior. The presence of such a model will allow external evaluation of the satisfaction of the citizens from the “security” service, it will allow a debate on the necessary reforms and means for their realization to be conducted, it will give publicity to proposed policies and will seek an agreement and unification of legislative, executive government, civic, professional and trade union organizations.
5. Understanding the MoI reform by restructuring and renaming cuts, not as increased efficiency, transparency and ensured decent working conditions for employees. There are currently no understanding at the political level that before starting the process of change is necessary to make an assessment about how much it will cost in terms of the service that MoI delivers. When politicians’ are talking about reform, they usually mean and make a drastic reduction in the number of employees in the Ministry of Interior, without considering the fact that the cuts will burden the welfare system, will increase unemployment and risks certain units and structures MoI to become unable to operate. The mathematical approach and the mechanical contraction of the people is one of the most sinful and destructive reform models as the effect of these cuts is measured only by savings in MoI and reduction of the state, but does not account for the additional load of the other employees in the department, inability to perform her/his obligations due to over-load, ie quality and efficiency of work. This mathematical approach to reduce the numerical strength of the basic structures of the ministry, but it reduces an efficiency in performing the functions of the Ministry. Such an understanding of the reform is a reason for the crisis in MoI, creates conditions for reduction of the effectiveness of the Ministry and increasing citizens’ dissatisfaction with the service that is provided.

Ministry of Interior is the only unreformed Ministry in Bulgaria, but also one of the ministries in which structural changes are the most numerous. One of the major structural changes that contribute the MoI to become a mega-ministry is the closure of Ministry of Emergency Situations and merger it with the MoI  /29.07.2009 /. This change is one of the main reasons the scope and functions of the police to be expanded and the number of the employees to be increased as well. The functions for civil protection as nonspecific for MoI, took a very large financial, human and time resources for establishment of a model which ensures that mechanically merged with the Ministry of Interior structures will begin to function as part of the whole Ministry. The stress of merge, which endured as officials closed the MES and MoI, the lack of clear rules of interaction, changed principles of operation and interaction between institutions is extremely large. Shortly before the “merger” of officials from the MES, the MoI- in 2007, was “released” from the National service “Security” and the “protection of the means of communication” and a State Agency “National Security” was established. As a result of structural changes to 2009., the number of MoI’s employees is nearly 68 000 people.

In the period 2009-2014 structural changes continued. In 2013, from the the structure of the Ministry of Interior were removed General Directorate “Combating Organized Crime”/CDCOC/ and Specialized and the “Operational technical operations”/SDOTO/.  CDCOC became part of National agency “Security” and SDOTO became the State Agency “Technical Operations” to Council of Ministers. Alongside these structural changes, the names of regional units and departments were changed many times and the number of employees continued the trend for reduction and in 2014 employees in MoI  was  49 500.

All these changes were made without the participation of citizens, without an assessment of their impact on the quality of services delivered by the Ministry of Interior, and especially without an assessment of their impact on the employees. This  long-standing practice is one of the reasons MoI to become the (auto) oppressive, suspicious, dehumanized, formal and disengagement institution in which the prospect of long-term reform and involving citizens in its implementation is assessed as a threat that must be limited, not as an option which should be used.

Reforms that are realized at the time, as mentioned, are parceled and ineffective. Reforms in the Ministry of Interior needs to be long-term, have consulted with civil and professional organizations, to explain the effect of a change in the life of every citizen and employee in the Ministry of Interior, and are tailored to the needs of the citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria.

One of the most important reasons for the need for the involvement of trade unions in this process is the fact that reforming and optimizing the operation of each system is associated with a reduction in the number of employees and reduction of social rights. The main role of trade unions is the reform and streamlining of the activities of the Ministry of Interior does not happen at the expense of employees who are victims of realized until parceled and inefficient structural changes. Namely the trade unions are the ones who will make their contribution to the smooth transition and change in the way the Ministry of Interior, with regard to employees. On the other hand the trade union organizations will be those who will consult in advance the reform proposals will propose the adoption of programs for alternative employment for redundant workers and can take up a large part of the work of retraining, together with non-government organisations. Last but not least, the trade unions will have the responsibility to inform and “exhausting” incurred tension among employees.

Iliya Kuzmanov was born in 1967 in Sofia. He graduated in  “Georgi Sava Rakovski” high school and  the “Asen Zlatarov” university in Sofia in 1994.

He is working in the Ministry fo Interior since February 1997.

He worked in 07-th and 1-st Police departnment in Sofia and he is currently a head of “Combating crimes”group in the 05-th Police department in Sofia.

Iliya Kuzmanov can be described as a person with M. Kassimova’s quote: “… Because the heaviest part of the complaint and murmur as processes is their correlation with us.

To complain is the first step, logically followed by the desire “to dare”.

Once you dare the fight comes, then the two choices are possible – to win or to be defeated.

And,  as you know,  somehow we’re not OK to be a part of the team of losers  – it is better to play in the team of the passive knowing people  – so at the same time we are doing nothing and avoiding the possibilities to do something wrong, while we are continuing to complain.”

But Iliya continues  and says “I am confident that at the end of the tunnel there is light and as we are often joking, it is not from the oncoming train … The light we strive … The light that inevitably will be reached … as long as we do not stop to desire it and to do it … to dare … to avoid and to not become a full-time/permanent players in the the passive knowing people’s team! ”

 You can contact Mr. Iliya Kuzmanov at e-mail: ssf@ssf-bg.eu

On 23 and 24 April 2016 in Bansko, a workshop was held which aim was to determine a “Society and Safety” Foundation’s priorities until December 2017.

The workshop is financed by Trade Union Federation of the Employees in the Ministry of Interior  and is a part of realisation of the project “MoI’s employees and the citizens – partnership for security”.
The workshop was attended by members of the Trade Union Federation of the Employees in the Ministry of Interior Ministry, representatives of non-governmental organizations the Foundation worked successfully last year with and the academic community.
The main challenge which was identified by the participants in the workshop was the administrative and organizational strengthening and development of the Foundation.

The priority areas for development and work by the end of 2017 are related to the improving of the employees in the Ministry of Interior’s image and increasing citizens’ confidence in them, working with children and young people and developing of a strategy for improving the quality of”security” service supported not only by political parties, but also employers, non-governmental organizations, academic community and state institutions.