/ world today news/ Both before and during their holding, as well as when the results were announced, the partial local elections in Blagoevgrad caused justified interest and various comments. Among which, apart from the low voter turnout and a question from some readers of the information, why those voters who are negative against GERB did not come out to vote? Which is the specific occasion for this note.
If we approach the topic in accordance with the previously expressed opinion about them as a kind of rehearsal before the parliamentary elections scheduled for July 11 and consider them from such a point of view, including in relation to the organization, the problem of machine voting, possible violations of the election process, etc., we could draw several important conclusions based on the findings. Of which I will mention some here.
About voter turnout. Leaving aside the issue of legitimacy from the point of view of representativeness, the elections in question substantiate a conclusion that refutes the widespread view that low voter turnout would give GERB an advantage. According to the results, the candidate of this formation was not in the first or even the second, but in the third place. And by a significant margin. incl. after the independent candidate. It is true that he is supported by the BSP, which could also be taken as a test for this party. However, if the electorate of GERB was, in any case, motivated enough, even if he did not win in the first round, their candidate would qualify, just like first or second, at least for a runoff. That is, voter turnout in itself does not seem to be decisive. And there are other factors that are important. And such is the organization of the electoral process incl. ensuring, if not completely excluding, the minimization of abuses such as organizing a corporate, bought, under threat or any influence vote. As a result of such an organization of the election process, according to the results, the voter turnout was the lowest among that part of the potential so-called electorate, which, as the most dependent, is the most susceptible to influence. In this regard, it is essential to note the findings both that there is not a single complaint or signal of restricting the right of anyone or of violating the technology for conducting the electoral process, as well as the absence of any difficulties on the part of voters to exercise their right by machine. From such a point of view, the rehearsal can definitely be described as a success.
The millennial history of the Bulgarians has formed, according to some, in most if not a slave attitude, apathy. And in my opinion, healthy skepticism. Here I will not extend myself to consider skepticism from the point of view of philosophy as placing doubt at the foundation as a principle of thought. I would allow myself to define the behavior of not a few of those who did not participate in the mentioned local elections in Blagoevgrad, not as an expression of doubt at all in the sense of holding elections, which would undoubtedly also refer to participation in the direct decision of questions through referendums . And to the skeptic, who does not believe in the truth, but seeks it and thus forms the most carefully tested philosophy. Like Goethe, according to whom: “One must believe that the incomprehensible is comprehensible, otherwise he would not investigate.”. Therefore, I believe that after the mentioned rehearsal there is reason to expect, if not a significant increase in voter turnout both for the second round in Blagoevgrad and for the vote on July 11 from those who are convinced that, as a majority, they can make the desired change and decide where they want the country to go and develop. Because constitutional and legal changes are imperative, for which parliament is needed, incl. for some of them a qualified majority in it. With the looming tendency to fall, if not even further back from third position and with a low voter turnout of GERB, the question of participation in the elections on July 11, apart from the legalization of the supreme legislative body of the state, rests both on achieving the necessary majority of representing those wishing to change it, as well as to its legitimization from the point of view of representativeness of society. And also for control in the selection of the messengers in it. It goes without saying that without participation in the electoral process such cannot be replaced by anything but discontent. But as Beinsa Duno teaches: “Dissatisfaction is a state that follows laziness. They go together. In other words: laziness is the mother of discontent.”.
#conclusions #elections #Blagoevgrad
