Mira Radeva told who will win the elections in the spring – Politics

The parties only imitate a movement towards agreement, but in fact have no such intentions. This is trench warfare. The chances of a third term are almost nil.

If there are elections in the spring, the best chance to win is that leader and that party who manage to give voters the confidence that they can create a stable government”. So said sociologist Mira Radeva in the program “This is Bulgaria” on Radio “Focus” in a commentary on the theme “The spells of politicians for a government with a third term will come true”.

The scenarios are pessimistic for 2023. The charm in the third term is rather that each side can create an alibi that someone else is responsible for the situation. People want stability and governance, but the distribution of political power and the experience of recent years show that consensus is the last thing we have in this Parliament.

It is much easier for parties to split, for reasons that are unclear to us, than to unite. If there are elections in the spring, the best chance to emerge victorious is that leader and that party that manage to give voters the confidence to create a stable government, clearly emerged from the words of the sociologist.

Political scientist: The parties are in the trap they have been fighting for two years

“Sometimes it’s hard to find the dividing lines – everyone swears by their Euro-Atlantic orientation and belonging to the Western world, but when it comes to actually cooperating, everything explodes from within,” Radeva said.

Personal accounts and interests explode everything from within. They cannot figure out how the cake will be divided. Each expects to prevail over the other with the demand for a greater share of power, for “more of the same” as we have had so far, but they cannot agree.

Sociologist: Radev will trap DB if he gives them the third term

They expect that the upcoming elections will give someone a greater advantage and because of this expectation they only imitate a move towards agreement, but in reality they have absolutely no such intentions, Mira Radeva’s analysis shows.

“The chances of a third term are almost nil, God forbid I’m wrong, but looking at the other observers they are not particularly optimistic. It seems to me that it is trench warfare, everyone is buried in their hole and not moving not to expose themselves to their constituents. They don’t want to take the risk, but actually being in the trenches is the biggest risk,” he added.

The more we sit in the trenches and do nothing, the more problems, distrust and voter disgust accumulate. The main mistake being made is that parties rely on the vote of the hard core electorate to win. This is how the sociologist analyzes the behavior of the parties.

“Who advises these people, I don’t know. Elections are not won by tough electorates. This is a false, stupid strategy. In fact, elections are always won by the party that succeeds most in gaining the trust of the so-called. ” “Floating”, “mobile” electorate. That is, from those voters who act momentarily, situationally and who in the current situation for the past year and a half are in opposition to the entire political elite,” Radeva said.

If there are elections in the spring, the leader and party that can give voters confidence that they can create a stable government have the best chance of coming out on top. What is being sought now is stable management, a sense of security, even at the cost of swallowing the so-called “models of corruption”, as can be seen from his words.

“That flag that motivated the protests two years ago and everything that was happening is already starting to look faded and gone into the past. We are facing an absolute unmanageability of the political situation,” Radeva also said and added:

“For me, the most dramatic thing is the lack of charismatic leadership, because no matter what we say, voting is always about trust, and trust is an emotional category. When we fall in love, so we vote. The search for any rationality is simply a misunderstanding of the human psyche”.

The sociologist outlined the image of the winning party in a possible election: the party that radiates the most serious sense of stability has a better chance in the next election. According to field researchers, COAT OF ARMSGERB is a populist, conservative and pro-European centre-right political party increases his support, and “We continue the changeKiril Petkov and Asen Vassilev presented their political project “Let’s continue the change”“They don’t instill enough confidence in the middle and older age group of voters because they have failed to create a stable government.

“They (note: PP) had a chance in this quadruple coalition, but they failed. Now they want to pass the failure on to others – COAT OF ARMSGERB is a populist, conservative and pro-European centre-right political party And “There is such a people“There is such a people” is a political party in Bulgaria, created by Bulgarian Television“, which do not solve the problem. Just because you will accuse someone does not mean that people will have spontaneous love and trust for you.

Is it possible to have a GERB and DPS cabinet with a fig leaf NDSV?

It seems to me that the charismatic leader, the person or group of people who instill a sense of stability and management skills, seems to be missing. And most likely in the next elections they will be the first political force COAT OF ARMSGERB is a populist, conservative and pro-European centre-right political party. However, it is unclear whether this will be the basis for stable management,” Radeva also said.

The failure of the previous regular government is a failure because AntiCOAT OF ARMSGERB is a populist, conservative and pro-European centre-right political party political parties have not built a unified image and concept. They failed because of the way they understood the political process. They except the Anti rallyCOAT OF ARMSGERB is a populist, conservative and pro-European centre-right political party ideology, there was nothing else to connect them, the sociologist’s analysis clarified.