/ world today news/ Recently, especially after the presidential elections, the term “change” has become very relevant. And all the politicians, as in a church choir, sang the prayer for change, change immediately and at any cost, change for change’s sake. People wanted change and we have to make that change. And here is the very serious reason for reflection and questions. Yes, for questions. And for serious questions. Questions that cannot be postponed for most Bulgarian political parties. And especially for the socialist party.
At the last meeting of the national council of the BSP, Ninova, in an intolerant tone and with some special aplomb, announced that “it’s time for questions” and that “people want change“. Yes, people do want change. And since the time for questions has come, we must ask the most serious of them.
The first question. What is the main thing in the change that people expect? What is the most important thing that needs to change? And since we are talking about parties and more specifically the BSP, the question can be specified in the form “What should be changed in the BSP?” And what do people actually expect? The answer I’m looking for is in the policy change. That’s really the main thing. The work of political parties and politicians is ultimately evaluated by the results of the implemented policy, i.e. “by their politics you shall know them.” And it is judged by the standard of living of the people, by the economic, social and spiritual-cultural development of the society. The change requires a rejection, a categorical rejection of the current neoliberal policy, a policy that has been carried out for over 25 years in Bulgaria. People (even those in the USA) are already fed up with neoliberalism, leading to endless impoverishment and expulsion from the homeland of young people, to the incredible enrichment of a certain circle of individuals, usually oligarchs associated with the Mutren era. Without changing the content of the policy being conducted in Bulgaria, the status quo will not be overcome. And who in Bulgaria no longer complains about the status quo? And what should be the policy that the BSP should defend? And the answer is given in Art. 6 of the Statute of the BSP: “… provision of reliable protection of the working people, the poor and the abandoned, the workers and employees…“. This is what is missing in the current policy of the BSP leadership and people feel it. Our left-wing party participates in right-wing administrations and works only to moderate, not to overcome, the economic neoliberal policies of the right. And this is a mistake not of the Statute, but of the first persons in the BSP (Parvanov, Stanishev, Ovcharov, etc.), who supported and carried out a social liberal policy in power, essentially supported neoliberalism and proposed mainly cosmetic changes in certain sectors of politics. The lack of a real left-wing policy led to the formation of “Syriza” in Greece (and the almost disappearance of PASOK), and in Spain – to “Podemos”. Changing the essence, the content and the results of the policy requires an uncle in the village and an uncle in the city. And all political parties in Bulgaria are silent about such a change. The BSP Executive Bureau is also silent.
The second question. How to form and what should the policy of change contain? Six months have passed since the Congress of the BSP, from the Congress which adopted a left-oriented Program Declaration. Already at the Congress, the newly elected Chairman of the BSP stated that the necessary bills will be submitted to the National Assembly from the very next day. Yes, but not? Not because he wasn’t ready for it. After that, they promised us that by September 2016, a new management program of the BSP would be developed with a view to changing the unfavorable situation in the country – overcoming the social and demographic crisis, etc. And again “yes, but no”. After the presidential elections, groups were formed to develop the projects for the management program. But is November September? Or did September become January? And how to shape this policy change – top-down or bottom-up? And again, as in the time of Parvanov and Stanishev, we are “developing” documents for change from above, and apparently the Statute (art. 13, para. 1) says something else: “Party members participate in craftingimplementation, protection and evaluation of the BSP’s policy.” And why didn’t the leadership of the BSP consult and give opportunities to the party’s members and sympathizers to express their opinion on the planned change? A new referendum should not be held, of the type recently held, the results of which were manipulated in favor of Parvanov, Kalfin, Petkov, Doncheva and their renegades. By the way, who and why, under whose instructions, manipulated the results of the referendum on pre-election agreements and unifications? And should the manipulators be members of the Executive Bureau of the BSP? BSP’s policy should be formed on the bottom-up principleand not according to the first new and Boykoboris model – from top to bottom.
The third question. Which interests will dominate the changed policy? Everyone is busy, but it is not superfluous to remind that a party means “part of society” and that the party expresses and protects the interests of that part of society that it represents. In order for there to be a real and not a cosmetic change, the developed policy must meet the interests of the working people, the poor and the unemployed, the workers, the toiling peasants, the employees, the intelligentsia, the production specialists and experts, the pensioners. There is no way to reconcile incompatible things, to reconcile the interests of the rich, of big business and wage workers. The change requires the leadership of the BSP to give priority to the interests and needs of the poor and the working wage workers, professionals, employees, teachers, doctors and other intellectuals in their developments for a new management policy.
The fourth question. Which persons should be involved in the development, implementation and evaluation of the new amended policy? Since the announced change, the leadership of the BSP puts emphasis only on a change in the composition of the deputies in the National Assembly. The National Council tells us that statistical norms will be introduced for the formation of the lists for the next National Assembly, classified, grouped and ordered according to features invented by the apparatchiks: age, gender, etc., as well as norms for duration, i.e. . for banning certain BSP politicians and mayors from running or, more precisely, for their candidacies to be nominated for the National Assembly. The percentage meter is running. Are three full terms too many? Are they few? And why not incomplete mandates? And should a new norm be written for four or five people? Is this the main problem of BSP? Who can tell you? And when I asked him in the village what he was worried about, the answer was a silent shrug of the shoulders and the eloquent answer – “It’s still my job.” And an uncle in the village, as well as an uncle from the city, want something essential to change, so that some images (politicians) in the National Assembly are not simply replaced with other images. In the National Assembly, there really should be a change in the composition of the deputies. The question of the questions is: how to do it? Is it natural? Is it with the statistical-restrictive method? Or not with a complex criterion that includes the answer to the following questions:
1/. What is the quality of the MP’s legislative work so far, does he have the necessary training and expertise?
2/. What is the candidate’s political and legislative position on current political, economic and social issues and problems, and does it correspond to the socialist idea?
3/. What is his personal authority in society, the level of his public appearances, his ability to contact people, to listen to their opinion, to publicly resolutely, clearly and precisely defend socialist policy and the authority of the socialist party?
4/. Are there manifestations that harm the authority of the BSP, the party body such as: participation and support of oligarchic groups; committed offenses and clean criminal record; participation in and benefiting from thuggish market and worker-manager privatization; participation in unprincipled contracts and agreements with other political parties (i.e. participation behind the scenes) and especially with SDS, GERB and DPS; participation in Masonic lodges, participation and personal ownership of offshore companies; voting for Delyan Peevski and others.
The determination of the candidates for people’s representatives of the BSP can and should be based on quality and not on quantity. It is right to have more young people, youth is not a vice but a hope for the future. But experience and the quality of knowledge and actions are more important. The National Assembly is not a school for politicians, but a place for quality defense of socialist ideas and policies. And here there is no place for any statistics, for any limitation by gender, age, duration of work in the National Assembly, mayorship, etc. The important thing is who can do the job well, not who takes the place. It is in Bulgaria’s interest that every party, including the BSP, put its best people in the National Assembly, not henchmen, not protégés of the leader, not unprepared and without the necessary expertise.
The fifth question. Shouldn’t the change also cover the governing bodies of the party (BSP)? We must boldly admit that there are individuals in the current governing body of the BSP whose appearance on the screen, in their endless exposure on national and cable television, repels and repels tens of thousands of people, potential voters of the BSP. The poor people, almost three-quarters of the people living in the country, cannot like people with palaces, with huge fortunes accumulated in some speculative way. In Bulgaria, people do not believe that with honest work someone can have a palace, wealth, villas in the country and abroad, hotels, factories, etc. The millions of people who work abnormally long hours and with abnormal intensity and barely make ends meet, live in a panel house or in a dilapidated rural or urban cottage, do not trust the rich. It came it is time to reassess the place of millionaires in the BSP. They can forever declare that they are socialists by conviction, but by social status they are capitalists. And people can’t swallow that. Let these people (capitalists) become members of the BSP, pay their membership fees, go to meetings, speak out, propose, etc. as well as all other members of the BSP, but they should not decide on behalf of the poor, the ordinary members of the BSP, both in the National Council and in the National Assembly
I remain convinced that through the call for change a big one is cooking replacement. And it is a rejection of the left-oriented course of the BSP, approved by the last congress, and a return to Ovcharov and Parvanov’s favorite social-liberal course of collaboration with the extreme right in the management of the state. And the surest way for this is to remove from the National Assembly the strongest and clearest supporters of the left, of the true socialist course of conducting politics. The National Assembly and the parliamentary group of the BSP will not gain anything from the fact that Mikov, Stoilov, Bozhinov and Donka Mihailova will not be people’s representatives. But the BSP will undoubtedly lose several real socialists, stable experts in the parliamentary battles for a new effective socialist left social policy, a policy designed for the people, not for big business. In the party, in which about 90% of the members are true leftists, with leftist convictions, to exclude the representatives of the left movement in the BSP from the National Assembly is a political oversight or a manifestation of political caprice. And on a personal level, Stoilov, Mikov, Bozhinov and Mihailova can do without the National Assembly.
And one more question. With the proposal made not to include groups of people (with three mandates or mayors) in the National Assembly election lists, how can they explain to me (not only me) that I do not have the right to propose and elect quality candidates of the party for “election state positions” (art. 23, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Statute), because they do not fit into any statistics? And how do the proposed texts limiting the right to propose and choose relate to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bulgarian Constitution? Is there no violation of the requirement for equal rights of the statistically “shot” and of ordinary socialist voters and sympathizers?
In conclusion, in my opinion, the Executive Bureau of the BSP probably misjudged the political situation in the country. Now we need not only television and parliamentary appearances and strong words against GERB, but also primarily a thorough, concise and clear new management policy of the BSP, new substantive pre-election messages, corresponding to the decisions of the last Congress. The selfish change of the composition of the deputies is a preparation for a new, more violent social liberal course of the new leadership of the BSP, contrary to the aspirations of the vast majority of members of the socialist party.
#change #replacement #View #Info
