/ world today news/ “We are facing a process of “party consolidation”. It will be a top-down process. He is practically isolated from public sentiments and is not guided by them,” Anastas Stefanov, a political scientist from the Trend Research Center, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of St. Kliment Ohridski”. In his words, this process is directly related to the second phase of guaranteeing a political future for some elite figures: “The first phase was secession, and now alliances are coming. It seems to me that these are also the political strategies with a view to possible early parliamentary elections in the spring of 2017.”
– Is there an event from the past parliamentary season that you would point out as significant; an event that stands out against the general background of what appears to be semi-organized chaos?
– It is difficult from the distance of time, even if only for a few months, to single out a key, significant event. This is partly due to the fact that we live in a busy political time, characterized by ultra-geopolitical dynamism.
Yes, the changes in the Electoral Code and the debates accompanying them can be labeled somewhat symbolic. Rather, these changes delegitimized the very institution of the National Assembly, there were games with the household needs of the population – the proposal for “subject prizes” by the leader of the VMRO Krasimir Karakachanov.
Of course, ABV’s departure from the coalition format it currently governs. The unsigned coalition agreement between GERB and RB, which Borisov personally handed to the leader of DBG Meglena Kuneva.
– You have already shared your opinion that with the changes in the Electoral Law, there is a need for new changes. What did the people’s representatives fail to do regarding him?
– The changes in the Electoral Code are a conjunctural and elitist undertaking. Society itself no longer looks at them dramatically, rather apathetically. This, it seems to me, can also be singled out as a hidden goal of the political elite. Yes, there is no public consensus, the public’s hopes are being toyed with.
The truth is that the majority element is very much liked by Bulgarians for several reasons.
First, because it is part of our political culture – highly personalistic.
Second, it is both part of us as a political culture and alien to us as an experience, which automatically pushes us to legitimize it as a panacea.
Third, presenting the fact that we want personalities in politics under the heading of “majority choice” is a distorted truth.
Society wants personalities in politics because there is a strong leadership deficit in the main political agents – the parties. In this regard, the Electoral Code delegitimizes the elite itself, because the changes made regardless of which ruling power are often not in favor of the democratic political system.
– You yourself say in your comment that since the beginning of 2016, and even since the end of last year, there has been a deepening fragmentation and fragmentation of the configuration in the parliament. Please develop your thought.
– This parliament is initially fragmented on record. Not only because eight political subjects received representation in it.
Let’s just look at the composition of some of the rulers: The reformist bloc is the vanguard of fragmentation, every action pushes them to produce division among themselves. The Patriotic Front, which in itself is made up of two entities – VMRO and NFSB, although we are now witnessing a process of consolidation regarding the presidential candidacy.
It seems to me that there is a tendency that is somehow implied by the behavior of the elite themselves. We witnessed hyper-fragmentation, and then there was talk of possible early parliamentary elections.
Some of the political forces are well aware that this fragmentation is followed by consolidation. We have seen it in the 39th NS as well as the 42nd NS, the 36th is too early to add to the comparison.
In my opinion, the hypothesis is valid that some of the small political entities see the 43rd National Assembly as a slowly sinking ship, whose iceberg will be the presidential elections this fall. This leads them to seek consolidation formulas presented to the public as “principled” mergers.
– Do you share the thesis that the left and the right in Bulgaria are just concepts covering up some kind of political helplessness?
– I don’t share it. The very talk that there is no “left” and “right” is fodder for political helplessness. As one of my professors used to say, just saying there are no more ideologies is an ideology.
A frequent exponent of this tendency is populism itself. Every society needs left and right political alternatives, offers even. Political parties are compromised precisely because they run from ideologies, and they are ideological organizations by design.
In short, the political deficit in our country is covered up with the thesis that there is no left and right, which is not the case.
– The reformist block was the great hope of the so-called “right”. However, disagreements arose very quickly there, or even perhaps there were from the very beginning of the creation of this very complex political structure. Don’t you think that after the election of Meglena Kuneva as Minister of Education and the demonstrations by Radan Kanev and DSB, the Bloc practically does not exist as a homogeneous structure?
– The so-called reformist block was homogeneous only on the issue of power. From there, they produce interpersonal conflicts and “overshooting” on conjunctural topics, decisions, issues. The lack of a presidential candidacy thus far is part of that process.
The election of Meglena Kuneva as Minister of Education, in itself, as a technology of politics, was a decision that tightened the noose in the participation of a part of the Bloc in the executive power. The more different the positions of the various entities are, the more different the positions of the leaders in the Bloc will be, the dividing lines are more than the unifying ones.
The reformist brand is in the background. It can be said that there are some timid self-assessments such as: “We are the reformers, saying that the reforms are happening and happened, so it is so!”.
– Does GERB remain the winning party in Bulgaria? What’s going on there? Many say that Boyko Borisov is afraid to run for president and the right move in his interest is not to do it – because he risks losing what he has, and he has everything: money, power, party, post…
– GERB remains the winning party for several main reasons.
First, they win elections.
Second, they are currently in charge.
Thirdly, they do not meet strong opposition, however, this is a threat to GERB itself, when the comfort zone becomes too large, it will create vulnerability in the party itself.
For Borisov, it is normal for such dilemmas to arise, these are dilemmas in several respects – a dilemma of power, a dilemma for Borisov himself, a dilemma for the political horizon and the political future.
Our political system is such that the executive branch tempts, when you are there, it is the resource and operational branch. As for Borisov, he very often and skilfully sometimes takes on the role of president from the prime minister’s chair.
– Was the move of the Patriotic Front and “Attack” correct to raise a joint presidential candidate pair, with recognizable faces such as Krasimir Karakachanov and Yavor Notev?
– Yes, it seems to me an absolutely logical and correct move. I think I have somewhat answered by telling you that small entities adopt a strategy of self-preservation of their political existence, this is done through consolidation and merger. Separately, the presidential elections are a perfect volley for demonstrating a tangible patriotic-nationalist electoral base.
The topics are semi-adapted for their rhetoric, some of them are even a trademark of the Patriotic Front. Patriots will be comfortable talking a little more radical.
– Brief analysis of the latest parties: DOST of Lyutvi Mestan, “Bulgarian Spring” of Velizar Enchev, “Normalna State” of Georgi Kadiev. I am aware that they are very different and I do not put them under a common denominator.
– Yes, they are very different, but all three can be united in the form of a common denominator – broke away, expelled or disappointed by the parties where they resided.
I dare to say that the case of DOST is different for explainable and obvious reasons, after all, it is also about the until recently leader of DPS.
Velizar Enchev’s “Bulgarian Spring” somehow sank, remained below the level of dynamics, its breakaway itself did not produce news. Publicity marginalizes principled differences and their expression. This is partly explained by the fact that politicians are highly delegitimized, who a priori do not have principles and morals.
Georgi Kadiev’s “Normal State” is a reaction to the processes in the conservative left, Kadiev himself stayed there for a decade, but still expressed rebellious positions that are well known. This is also the main asset of Kadiev, it is a “snowball”, but let’s see how it will develop in the future.
In general, the swarming of political parties is a process to which we are already accustomed, it has been part of our political tradition since the restoration of Bulgarian statehood.
– And how do you evaluate new political figures such as Slavi Trifonov and Veselin Mareshki? Can a comparison be made between them? How do you see their role in the political process?
– Undoubtedly, the appearance of two such figures within the last year or a year and a half arouses interest. This happens at least because they came out on the ground with quite challenging offers, launching socially significant and pressing issues.
At first glance, the comparison between Trifonov and Mareshki is easy, but in reality there are different motives and goals behind their undertakings. On the other hand, it is popular that both of them primarily come from business circles, regardless of the fact that show business in Bulgaria is also somewhat distorted. Here comes the main difference.
Mareshki has already been involved in politics at the local level, so far this has not accumulated negatives for him, but rather has set the ground and direction for his initiatives. The fact is that his initiatives, especially the fuel one, caused a public effect, but most importantly, it caused a real economic effect, prices fell, the market recognized them, a problem, so there was one, the public applauded and the institutions remained silent. The question is what he will do from here on, the more difficult thing is to come – namely how you will present the political offer.
With Trifonov, in my opinion, one objective nuance should be taken into account, namely the fact that he may be from show business, but he was involved in politics – he and his team. Many political positions have been expressed from the public platform that it has, the writing team has taken a political side, this is actually doing politics. This is not to be underestimated because, as John Galbraith writes in Anatomy of Power, one type of power is “conditional power,” which takes place in the process of persuading the subject to perceive what the subject wants you to perceive. In other words, this is the power of the media, when it overflows into political positions, it is called policy-making.
Undoubtedly, these two initiatives – by Mareshki and Trifonov, are somewhat salutary for the political status quo, because they stir it up, create competition, and competition makes you work and strive.
– I deliberately left the BSP and the left for last. It has always been seemingly quiet there, but now, after the election of Cornelia Ninova as leader and the new Executive Bureau appointed by her, it seethes and boils. Should there have been a referendum to nominate a presidential candidate?
– The referendum in the BSP, which was supposed to give the guidelines for the future negotiation process, has done its job. As with any referendum, this one was abused. The thesis is launched that the leadership will impose its positions through the prism of the results of the referendum, that this will be a bottom-up decision. This was also the great mimicry.
In reality, the referendum was a background that was supposed to show that the BSP is the strong party and that there will be a principled negotiation process.
– Do you predict a new fragmentation among the political elite in Bulgaria? New unifications or disintegration processes in this or that party?
– I think political fragmentation has reached its peak. I don’t think it can yet, this of course does not rule out future political breakdowns.
But if I have to analyze cyclically, we are facing a process of “party consolidation”. It will be a top-down process. He is practically isolated from public sentiments and is not guided by them.
This process is directly related to the second phase of securing a political future for some elite figures – the first phase was secession, and now alliances are coming. It seems to me that these are also the political strategies with an estimate of possible early parliamentary elections in the spring of 2017
#Anastas #Stefanov #Early #elections #government #opposition
