/ world today news/ In the last year, Bulgarian society has been occupied by a group of politicians, showmen, impudent bought journalists, etc. with one problem, the solution of which is essentially not the main problem of Bulgarian society, but a question of the way of formation of power. And as in any other public problem, there are multiple opinions, “expert assessments”, manipulations, demagogues, ulterior motives and actions, etc. And this is quite natural for a pluralistic society. But it is the duty and responsibility of the politicians and the leaders of the political parties to orientate themselves in the specific political situation and make the appropriate political decisions.
In modern society, there is no action that is unambiguous, one-way, that is only good or only bad. There is no action that benefits all and harms no one. Such is the discussed post facto problem for the majoritarian electoral system. Bulgarian society was not ready to pronounce on such an important problem. It was artificially directed behind the scenes and clearly imposed by a group of politically uneducated showmen-screenwriters, journalists, etc. Behind the scenes, the clear aim is to concentrate all political power in one party, which has continuously received the hidden support of another party for the last 4 years. With the exception of a part of the BSP leadership, almost all people who understand elections, law and politics are aware that the “pure” majoritarian system in Bulgaria currently favors two parties. One is with a ubiquitous strong presence throughout the country (GERB), holding almost all local government, executive and legislative power. The second (DPS) is covertly right-wing and very strongly regionally positioned and in the so-called “mixed areas”. She will have a big advantage there.
The non-acceptance of the draft law submitted by GERB for the majority elections became possible thanks to the split of opinions in the DPS. The deputies from the mixed regions were in favor of the majority vote, and those from the other regions of the country – against. With that, the first act of the political play “majority vote” ended. After the elections in France, when the Macronists with 15% public support won over 50% of the seats in the National Assembly, the fallacy of the full majoritarian electoral system became clear. Now two more political theater actions are being prepared in Bulgaria, aimed at perpetuating the electoral victories of GERB and DPS – the projects of the weak-willed “Volya” (improved project of GERB – absolute majoritarian system) and that of the BSP (mixed majoritarian-proportional system). The back-up action also appeared – a new referendum with the three possible combinations. The second action seems most realistic to be the discussion of the BSP leadership’s proposal for a majoritarian-proportional system. Because of this, a meeting of the National Council of the BSP is being convened.
In the leadership of the socialist party, there is a group of persons who clearly do not have a lesson in modern political history, do not understand the ongoing political processes, changes and specific situations not only in Bulgaria, but also in the world. This misunderstanding is for various reasons.
The political immaturity and unpreparedness of a part of the actors in key leadership positions of the BSP it was clear even before the referendum. The leadership of BSP underestimated the explanatory work. This topic was not in the vocabulary of TV actors from the BSP, it was not in mass events, pre-election meetings, party meetings and conferences. It’s like there won’t be a referendum along with the presidential election. Moreover, the narrow composition of the leadership of the BSP issued an order through the regional and municipal councils of the BSP that the party members and sympathizers in the elections vote in the referendum, but negatively for the majoritarian system, instead of the actual suggestion that the members and sympathizers of the BSP do not participate, due to inadequate the questions asked. In this way, the leadership of the BSP artificially increased the participation in the referendum by about 600,000 people.
Part of the leadership also incorrectly assessed the results of the referendum. This was evident even on the night after the presidential elections through the emotional rash and unrealistic assessment of the first results of the referendum by Ninova. In essence, the voting in the presidential elections was a negative vote, an “Anti-Borisov” vote, a vote with the hope of a change in the social situation. This attitude was mechanically transferred to the showmen’s referendum. The vast majority of those who voted for the referendum relied on the change, the change of the political pseudo-class, and not out of inexplicable love for the majority. The truth is that the leadership of the BSP succumbed to the journalistic pro-Gerber pressure. 2.509 million out of 6.865 million voters on electoral lists voted “yes”. Of these almost 7 million voters, only 36-37% supported the proposed majoritarian system. In Bulgaria, democracy is decision-making by majority or by minority? In Bulgaria, is democracy based on laws? And the law says (through the decision of the Supreme Court) that the results of the referendum are not binding. Should the BSP become a guinea pig for a group of showmen – pessimistic political screenwriters?
For a number of observers and analysts, it is formed logically an assumption that behind the leadership’s position for a majoritarian-proportional (i.e. mixed electoral system) there continues to be behind-the-scenes external political influence in the BSP. This is most often associated with the influence of the circle around Gergov, but there are others interested in GERB being in power with the help of the BSP. Their calculation is simple. With 120 majority districts, the three parties – GERB, BSP and DPS – will win the most seats in them. The remaining 120 seats ensure, through proportional lists, that their leaders and those close to the leadership enter parliament, regardless of whether they are popular with the majority or not. And everything is okay. Yes, but no! (after P. Bocharov). The account seems to be without an innkeeper. The elections in 2009, with a self-serving push by Parvanov, in the interest of GERB and DPS, a majority vote with one mandate each in the electoral districts, showed that only these two parties won the majority mandates. And of these more than 30 deputies, only two or three were realized in politics and in the National Assembly. The rest were parliamentary filler for a majority. Now, even if this scenario is not repeated, the BSP will win a small number of seats in the National Assembly, but not more than a dozen (according to optimistic assumptions). And assuming that the current parties retain their electoral support, the BSP (in the most optimistic scenario) will have about 30-35 seats less, at most about 50 seats. United patriots and Volya will disappear from the parliamentary firmament. The current extra-parliamentary right can win no more than 5-6 seats. It is likely that DPS will increase its seats to about 35-45. GERB, maintaining the current level of electoral support, will have at least 140-150 seats. This, according to the calculated probable 160 seats under a full majority system for GERB (Prof. M. Konstantinov), is about 10-20 seats less. And naturally the suspicion arises that during the voting GERB will support the BSP proposal, just as the BSP supported the proposal to increase the low pensions, although it is otherwise against it.
In preparing the proposal for a majoritarian-proportional electoral system, BSP experts and leaders show an uncritical attitude towards past own and present foreign political experience. The reference to the 1990 model with 120 majoritarian constituencies is untenable. In 1990, the negative electoral practices, now very widely practiced, were absent. The first such practice was vote buying. Now on the electoral field there are established grandmasters (such as DPS and DOST) of buying votes, especially among the Roma. The second negative practice (most widely applied by GERB) is the buying of members and entire election commissions. The third negative practice is the buying of seats for list leaders (and why not as majority candidates!). And so appeared in the past a number of buyers in Ataka, individual buyers (sorry, sponsors) in almost all political parties, participants in parliamentary and local elections. Places are also bought in the rearrangement of the proportional lists. The fourth negative practice is the imposition of preferred candidates by local deribees. Most journalists have focused on Tsenko Chokov, but there are other disturbing examples. Reference to the football referee from Simitli in the list of GERB. And the fifth, the most popular, is the so-called corporate vote. In essence, it is a political company and state-institutional racket to vote for a certain political party. This phenomenon is most often associated with the “Leader” party, with the BDC, with the DPS (the hoops of companies), etc., but it is now practiced on the most massive scale by GERB. This corporate vote is manifested through the companies winning public contracts and through the threat to their employees that if they do not vote for the correct GERB party, they will lose their jobs. The picture is similar with those working in municipal administrations, where the mayors of GERB are ruthless. But such a practice already exists in countless central departments (agencies, commissions, etc.) and even in Ministries. It was this fifth negative practice that largely ensured the victory of GERB in the last parliamentary elections. It is not heard or read that in the BSP these negative practices are analyzed through the prism of the proposed change of the electoral system. The proposed majoritarian-proportional electoral system will strengthen these negative practices, greatly deforming democratic elections. It will allow, through GERB and DPS, and in a number of cases independently, at the initiative of local deribes, to enter the National Assembly, not only proportionally, but also with a majority.
The position that this system works well in Germany is also invalid. But it is forgotten that Bulgaria is not Germany. Germany is a large highly economically developed federal state, with independent (with their own governments and laws) provinces, with an effective independent uncompromising judicial system, with a high standard of living (providing a good life and without selling votes), with a well-established practice of limiting negative parties the majoritarian and the proportional electoral system.
The proposed electoral proportional-majoritarian model as an idea and as a development is logically correct and justified. But its practical implementation in the current political situation will deform it to the point of disgust not only for the elections, but also for democracy in general. A our electoral system currently needs a number of qualitative improvements aimed at limiting the widespread negative public and intra-party practices. Through the decisive improvement of the proportional system and the majoritarian arrangement of the lists, the negative sides of the elections are minimized. Therefore, the efforts of all parliamentary parties should be primarily directed towards this. After a radical change in the political situation and reduction of the mentioned negative practices, it is now possible to move towards the mixed majoritarian-proportional electoral system.
Now the eyes are fixed on the meeting of the National Council of the BSP. Not only and not so much because he belongs to the BSP, but because he can play a key role in changing the electoral system and practice in Bulgaria, essentially a negative, negative change. Let’s hope the reason of the experts and members of the National Assembly of the BSP prevails over the emotions and ambitions of the leader and her entourage.
#big #majoritarianproportional #illusions #View #Info
