The real question is how the Fund operates: its governance architecture and institutional safeguards, so that its capital serves exclusively the purpose for which it exists, namely the security of current and future pensioners.
If the Social Insurance Fund continues to function with the logic of a state appendage, the reform will be more accounting exercise than genuine change. Decades of experience have shown that when a social insurance fund is treated as a convenient financing pool for the state, the cost is transferred to the next generation. That is precisely why stopping the accumulation of new debt must be seen as a first step, not a reform in itself.
What is needed is independent governance, based on professional criteria and clear operational rules, in line with international standards for large insurance and investment funds. Independence is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite for credibility, transparency and efficiency. The Fund cannot be run according to political expediencies or the short-term needs of whichever ministry happens to be in charge.
A supervisory board is of course necessary. But not as a body that decides on day-to-day management. Its role should be control, accountability and evaluation: monitoring whether rules are being followed, whether investment choices are prudent, and whether strategy serves the public interest.
The organisational model the Social Insurance Fund needs should, in philosophy and institutional structure, resemble the successful funds of other countries. Norway's Government Pension Fund Global is internationally recognised as the benchmark for managing public wealth precisely because it operates under strict rules of independence, transparency and long-term planning. It is not treated as a tool to plug short-term fiscal gaps, but as an institution that protects and grows revenue for future generations. Its governance is based on professional criteria, while the state exercises oversight without intervening in day-to-day management, which strengthens its credibility and limits the risk of political interference.
Without independent governance and operation, the reform of the Social Insurance Fund will remain half-finished. And in that case, it may well be preferable to leave things as they are rather than baptise as reform something that changes nothing of substance.