Anyhow, the Constitution, as it exists, was the work of Russia. This fact accounts, to my thinking, for the singularity of the charter. The impression left on one’s mind by its perusal is that the charter must be the joint composition of two authors—the one an admirer of autocratic government, the other a partisan of unbridled democracy ; and that these authors, being unable to agree on any common scheme, had compromised matters by arranging that each in turn should contribute alternate clauses.
The preamble states that the Principality of Bulgaria is to be an hereditary and constitutional monarchy with a national Parliament The clauses defining the respective attributions of the sovereign and the Parliament are drawn up, in the former case, on the most autocratic principles; in the latter case, in accordance with extreme democratic ideas. The position assigned by the Constitution to the monarch may be summarized as follows :
No laws passed by the Parliament are valid without the sanction of the Prince. By right of his office he is chief of the army, and has the absolute power of appointing or dismissing all officers in the service. In the same way the Ministers are nominated by him, and may be deprived of their post at his good will and pleasure.
Ministers is binding on the executive
They are not necessarily members of the Sobranje, though they have the right of taking part in the debates; and their tenure of office is independent of the issue, whether they do or do not possess the confidence of a Parliamentary majority. Every decree emanating from the Prince and countersigned by his Ministers is binding on the executive.
On the other hand, the attributes of the Parliament under the charter are almost co-extensive with the powers of the Prince. Universal manhood suffrage is declared to be the law of the land.
Travelling 