/ world today news/ The leader of the Party of European Socialists (PES) Sergey Stanishev on the challenge of SYRIZA to the European socialists and social democrats, the state of the BSP and the policy of the cabinet, to “Trud”
– Did BSP raise its head again after the seminar that PES organized on weekends in Plovdiv, Mr. Stanishev? Did the asset believe in its strength, did it come out consolidated after this gathering, especially after seeing what it looks like from the outside – through the eyes of the experts, some of them right-wing, that you had invited?
– Absolutely yes. People in the BSP regained their self-confidence after this discussion, they felt that we have something to say, that we have views that we should stand for. It was seen that there is no disunity in the BSP, that the intrigues about how I almost want to take the chairman’s seat, Mikhail Mikov, have no basis. In any party, people want to be part of a winning team, a team that has a future. It is the same in the BSP. That is why I initiated this seminar together with the party chairman – the asset of the BSP to see that it can achieve more. The seminar became a turning point after the elections. Because every party gets depressed if it loses. Now we have shaken it off, raised our eyes and are looking forward. However, it is important that this energy that is obtained does not subside, but expands. People need to see that there is an opposition, that there is an alternative and that it is BSP. We must start the leftist narrative about Bulgaria. Not only in the short term – for this mandate, but also for the coming decades.
– You have already started this narrative by saying in Plovdiv that the neoliberal model has failed and the BSP will offer a new left vision. However, how do you distinguish yourself from this neoliberal model, since the BSP cooperated with it twice during its administration? And this “sin” is not only BSP’s, it is also a large part of the parties from the PES family.
– The neoliberal model is from the end of the 80s. It has been dominant in both economic thought and political practice for the past 25 years. Including in Bulgaria. But BSP is not the author of this model. On the contrary – we have always tried to humanize it, to preserve the rights of people who fall into difficulty under this market economy model. And we have been consistent in this policy. Before us was the alternative – either you remain in opposition, keeping yourself “pure and untainted”, or you try to change something in a complicated conjuncture. We chose the second path. The fact is that the most striking social policy during the transition was conducted when I was prime minister. Pensioners received a one hundred percent increase in pensions, maternity in Bulgaria became the longest paid maternity in the entire European Union. We should not give up our management achievements, which we tell very shyly, unlike GERB. We must build on them the vision of the future. Because this crisis that hit the world is a direct consequence of the dominance of the neoliberal model. That is why the right-wing neither in Europe nor in Bulgaria can offer a way out of this crisis. If you look at the government program of GERB, among all the projects and strategies, one thing cannot be hidden – it is a program of stabilizing the status quo. The noisy inaction of the government will cost every Bulgarian, this is a loan from the future. Only t.g. each of us credits GERB with BGN 1,200. out of pocket because of the eight billion new debt that the rulers took on. At this rate, each of us will pay 5 thousand in four years. BGN, so that GERB has a peaceful mandate. Are we going to let them do that?! Ask people if they like the status quo.
– And what does BSP offer?
– Our vision for Bulgaria in the next 15 years has several supporting pillars. It is for Bulgaria, which is just, social, enlightened and sovereign. These messages must be condensed. And I can give a lot of examples. It is not possible in health care that nearly one-third of the resources for hospitals go to private hospitals, while the state ones languish. Our model is – public money – in public hospitals. The same goes for education. And what does GERB offer us?! To fund private schools, provided that public schools are short of funds. This is absolutely unacceptable to the left. We must say – the state must ensure access to quality education for every child. Because this is the foundation that sets the odds in life.
– What is SYRIZA for the European left – a temptation, an example or a threat?
– A bit of all three. SYRIZA is a response of the Greek people to being brutally brought to their knees, to being sharply impoverished for several years. And I’m not surprised by the results. There cannot be a radical response when you humiliate a people and threaten their life prospects. The question is whether such outrage will spill over to the radical left, as in Greece, or to the radical right, as in France or the Netherlands, where the disaffected go to anti-European, xenophobic parties. SYRIZA is not an anti-European party, they want reform, change in the EU. The Barroso policy and the right gave birth to SYRIZA, but it must be clearly said that during all the years of the crisis, the European social democracy opposed the right, according to which the way out of the crisis consists only in tightening the belts. We said: this is a road to nowhere, it destroys the very fabric of societies, it makes people anti-European, because they suffer from lack of work, from lack of income, from lack of future. But we did not make it categorically and clearly enough. Now the European socialists are drawing our new vision for the next five years and in it we will propose a different model of Europe.
– Why did you compare GERB, a right-wing party, with SYRIZA?
– I mean GERD from 2007-2009, I am comparing them only as an environment, not as an ideology. Then GERB appeared as an alternative, as a desire to change the elite. They had a charismatic leader, they promised bright holidays, BGN 2,000. salary and people believed them. Today, however, GERD is not that, GERD is the status quo.
– You don’t say anything categorically about ABV, as if you are bypassing the call of its leader Georgi Parvanov for a union in the local elections. Why, is the pain of separation still so strong?
– The leadership of the party will make a decision, it is not my job. But the questions to ABV that were heard in Plovdiv seem very logical to me. Is ABV a leftist party? Is it a new party? By participating in a right-wing government, ABV lost its image as a left-wing party, lost its claim to be something new on the left. It is obvious to me what their proposal is about. First, both to consume power in a right-wing government, and to remember – we are on the left, and when it is useful for them, to be left-oppositional. Second, to use the local elections through the alliance with the BSP to expand their influence. Because the influence of ABV is very uneven. And then next year they will say – look, we cooperated in the local elections anyway, let us cooperate in the presidential elections as well and for this purpose support our candidate. BSP should be the winner of votes, and politics should be set by ABV. As the Euroleft wanted at the time.
– But in a battle BSP – GERB there is a possibility that GERB will win everywhere.
– There are very serious risks facing the BSP, but they are also facing Bulgaria. The democratic system in Bulgaria needs a strong left, democracy will fall if it walks on one foot. Yes, GERB submitted a request for a total victory in the local elections. The BSP must not only work hard to present itself solidly, but also find the approach, messages and people to gain the trust of the citizens. To do this, he must think outside the box. In 1999 we did it successfully and surprised the then prime minister Ivan Kostov, who, like the current one, wanted a complete victory(a ringing on the phone interrupts the conversation, the leader of the Polish Social Democrats, Leszek Miller, is calling).
– Presidential elections are coming up in Poland in the summer, the Social Democrats have an attractive candidate – Magdalena Ogurek, did you talk about the campaign with Mr. Miller?
– Yes, and for that. At the beginning of March, PES organized a seminar in Poland on the role of women in politics. She will be a key figure at this conference. Currently, PES holds forums in many European countries on all important issues of European development, preparing our vision for the coming years. On February 21, there is a meeting of the leaders of the parties from our family in Madrid in support of the socialists. At the end of March, a PES conference is coming up on our economic alternative for Europe, which is based on the need for public investment, new jobs, and an active social policy. Such events are coming in the Czech Republic, in Italy. Federica Mogherini, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, will also participate there. One of my tasks as PES leader is to make the parties of our family more visible and popular. That’s why we talked with Mihail Mikov about having a second PES seminar in Bulgaria – in March, dedicated to the local elections. We will invite our mayors and local BSP leaders to it. I committed to invite experts from the PES parties to share their experience of similar campaigns in other European countries.
– You talk about a sovereign Bulgaria in Europe, but it was also seen at the seminar that many people and the BSP have an ingrained understanding that decisions about our foreign policy are made somewhere else, and our governments are just executors.
– I can give many examples when I personally and the BSP have taken clear positions and defended them in Brussels, in Washington, and in Moscow. Such was the case with “South Stream” during our administration. It was somehow conveniently forgotten that one of the key demands of the Russian side, from which it did not back down, was 51% participation in the project. We insisted on parity – 50 to 50. And our arguments were accepted. Now I hear accusations that BSP did not do enough to have “South Stream”, “Belene” NPP and “Burgas – Alexandroupolis”. But not long ago none other than the deputy prime minister in Boyko Borisov’s office, Rumiana Bachvarova, put an end to the dispute about who stopped them. She made it clear: Mr. Borisov is the prime minister who stopped three Russian energy projects. BSP should not be afraid to say what it thinks regarding the conflict in Ukraine. We believe that this conflict must and can only be resolved by political means. Sanctions against Russia have no effect. Escalating sanctions only deepens the conflict. A political effort is needed to negotiate an end to this war. And the fiercest negotiations are better than a day’s war. And in Eastern Ukraine there are already more than five thousand dead, dozens wounded, maybe a million refugees. The responsibility of politicians is first and foremost to protect the lives and peace of the people. And Bulgaria also has a specific interest in Ukraine. There are 300 thousand ethnic Bulgarians there.
– Should Bulgaria give asylum to ethnic Bulgarians from Ukraine if they ask for it?
– First of all, they should not be forced to seek asylum. That is why Bulgaria must be active. And one of the aspects of this activism is the search for a political solution and peace. This is what the ethnic Bulgarians in Ukraine want. We have to explain this to our European partners as well.
#GERB #buying #political #time
What key aspects of GERB’s program are aimed at maintaining political stability in Bulgaria?
Ded questions to explore the given topics:
1. GERB’s Program:
a. What is GERB’s plan for stabilizing the status quo?
b. How is it benefiting or harming the Bulgarian people?
c. Is there anything positive about GERB’s current policy?
d. How do you think the public perceives GERB’s actions?
2. BSP’s Alternative:
a. What is the BSP’s vision for Bulgaria’s future?
b. How does it differ from GERB’s policies?
c. What changes would you implement in healthcare and education if elected?
d. Can the left offer a better solution for addressing the anti-European sentiment in Bulgaria?
3. SYRIZA and the European Radical Left:
a. What role did SYRIZA play in Greece’s political landscape?
b. Do you think SYRIZA’s rise is indicative of a broader trend within the European left?
c. Should the Bulgarian left learn any lessons from SYRIZA’s experience?
d. How would you address the appeal of radical left-wing parties in Europe?
4. ABV and Potential Alliances:
a. Why do you think ABV is reluctant to form an alliance with BSP?
b. How might an alliance benefit both parties?
c. Are there any concerns about the potential backlash from former ABV supporters?
d. Should the focus of left-wing parties be on power or principle?
5. Bulgarian-Polish Relations:
a. How does the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party interact with its Polish counterpart?
b. What are the similarities and differences between the Polish and Bulgarian political landscapes?
c. How can the BSP learn from the Polish Social Democrats’ experience in promoting female leaders?
d. What role do you think Bulgaria can play in shaping the European political discourse?
6. Sovereignty and Foreign Policy:
a. How does the BSP define “sovereign Bulgaria in Europe”?
b. What is the party’
