There is agreement that the Ministry of Finance holds the original jurisdiction over managing budgets, and financial disclosure is a recognition of the sound legal basis on which the state must operate. The Central Bank’s recent position is not a matter of “shirking responsibility,” but a necessary step to restore things to their proper institutional framework.
For the full picture to be clear, the following points must be considered:
Supporting unification, not abolishing jurisdiction: The Central Bank’s sponsorship of financial arrangements or unified spending agreements was not a desire to encroach on the Ministry of Finance’s powers, but rather exceptional measures imposed by a state of extreme necessity to prevent financial collapse resulting from government division.
These steps were aimed at building bridges between parties to ensure the continued flow of salaries and basic services to citizens, not to permanently strip the Ministry of its jurisdiction.
Nature of financial data: Yes, the Central Bank is the source of funding and the conduit for all expenditures, but its data is “cash inflow and outflow” data (Cash Flow), not data on accounting entries and detailed sectoral budgets showing actual spending items, their documentation, and legality. That is the exclusive role of the Ministry of Finance and oversight bodies.
Publishing comprehensive and accurately classified data is a purely financial function. The Central Bank’s continued prominence in this scene perpetuates institutional chaos rather than curing it.
Imposing fees and monetary policy: Proposals related to imposing fees on foreign currency sales (which are mistakenly interpreted as taxes) are tools that fall squarely within the realm of monetary policy and the responsibility to defend the national currency’s value and curb inflation when government fiscal policies fail to control public spending.
These are globally recognized tools in times of structural crises, regardless of their correctness or lack thereof — the discussion here is about jurisdiction.
Correcting the course starts somewhere: The Central Bank’s previous interventions were “emergency” measures to salvage what could be saved in the absence of unified budgets. Today, insisting on the Ministry of Finance fulfilling its role in publishing data and governing spending is the beginning of the actual course correction and a return to the rule of law and institutions, not a contradiction in positions. Continuing an exceptional error and making it a permanent rule does not build a state.