Ralitsa Simeonova to FAKTI: Borisov is trying to demonstrate himself, but his behavior betrays helplessness

Have the interests in the cabinet been rearranged, or was there simply a need for a political game to understand who is who in the government. And what will happen after President Rumen Radev drove his personal car... Political scientist Ralitsa Simeonova speaks to FAKTI.

- Ms. Simeonova, what conclusion should we draw after the municipal council elections in Pazardzhik. Who showed us what in this vote?
- The first local elections in which Peevski's formation appeared after the split of the MRF, winning the most councilors in the Municipal Council, reinforces the feeling that the last parliamentary elections left, namely - about manipulation of the electoral process and distortion of the election results.

Doubts about the fairness and freedom of the elections are already a constant.

This further discourages citizens from exercising their right to vote, which, in turn, leads to even greater distortions of the election results, because it increases the weight of the controlled vote in their formation. Confidence in elections is set to become lower and lower, because citizens do not see any adequate reaction from the competent authorities in terms of preventing practices that distort the electoral process.

Low voter turnout serves the main political parties, so they cannot be expected to take measures to reverse this trend unless they are subjected to very serious civil pressure.

The elections in Pazardzhik provided yet another argument in favor of the thesis that GERB is losing positions and influence. The party's sixth place is humiliating, but also indicative of the state and prospects for this political entity. It seems that there are serious grounds for assuming that Peevski's "New Beginning" is gradually absorbing GERB. Although on the surface Borisov is trying to demonstrate strength and power, in practice his behavior betrays helplessness, because his actions ultimately always serve the interests of "New Beginning". So, by all accounts, he is in an asymmetrical relationship with Peevski, in this case - in a subordinate position.
With PP-DB, on the other hand, we are observing a struggle for survival and preservation of identity. It will be difficult for them to win this battle. On the one hand, they themselves have significantly contributed to the erosion of their political identity, agreeing to govern together with their main political opponent GERB, and informally with MRF. Thus, they not only discredited themselves, but helped rehabilitate GERB and MRF, which had lost positions after the 2020 protests. Now Peevski and Borisov no longer need them and will try to minimize them.

It seems that they are PP on target.

Probably the plan is for them to be depersonalized and deleted, and DB - stored and subsequently used again.

- After these elections, the rotation of the Speaker of the Parliament also came about, because “that was the right thing to do” - according to Borisov and GERB? Was this necessary?
- The change of the Speaker of the National Assembly can be viewed from several perspectives. On the one hand, Natalia Kiselova generated serious reputational damage during her presidency and this is probably one of the reasons why the parliamentary majority is looking for an alternative for this post. On the other hand, after GERB's humiliating result in Pazardzhik, the party needed some kind of rehabilitation, and the nomination and election of the Speaker of the National Assembly from its ranks played just such a role. The support of Delyan Peevski's “DPS - New Beginning” can be seen as a curtsy to Borisov in this context.
However, the issue here is more global. The principle of the rotating presidency largely undermines the significance of the status of the Speaker of the National Assembly as enshrined in the Constitution.

This is one of the most important public posts in the state and the turnover that we are observing is not in favor of democracy.

The Speaker of the Parliament, whoever he is, will be simply a figurehead in these circumstances.

- The BSP pointed to the election of Natalia Kiselova as Speaker of the Parliament as their success, and now what has changed?
- What has changed is that, in view of the drastic reduction in their electoral influence and potential, their prospects outside of government are not at all positive. Therefore, the BSP will now, without much resistance, swallow this decision if it wants to continue generating benefits from its participation in the executive branch. But in any case, there is no bright political future on the horizon for them.

- The Socialists have come up with some kind of position, and ITN is silent. How do you define their behavior?
- I define it as an admission of helplessness and dependence. And again it fits into the logic that also applies to the BSP.

- What is the role of the BSP and the ITN in government now?
- Their role is formal. In the future, the BSP and the ITN will have less and less influence in the decision-making process within the coalition.

The participation of the two formations in this government leads them to their end, which is clearly outlined, although slightly delayed in time.

Their real electoral weight is now negligible, and with it their tools to influence decisions in the coalition. Against the background of the trend "DPS - New Beginning" to generate an ever-increasing formal and informal power resource, and to dictate the agenda of the government,

BSP and ITN are becoming less and less important, as they are now just an appendage of the "Peevski-Borisov" model,

which at some point will probably become redundant.

- "DPS - New Beginning" will now attend the meetings of the Joint Governance Council, but without the right to vote… How do you view this?
- This can be seen as a step towards the formal inclusion of "DPS - New Beginning" in the ruling coalition, but it could also be simply a demonstration of Peevski's real influence on the government. We see that he often flaunts power and clearly has an affinity for such a model of behavior.

- “DPS – New Beginning“ and GERB “removed“ President Rumen Radev from the NSO cars. They took away his appointments in DANS… What's next?
- The limitation of presidential powers is a process that has been going on for several years. A large part of the changes were hasty, ill-considered and ultimately - destructive, because they created more problems than they solved. The very approach of making changes to the Constitution and key regulatory acts because a specific person is currently president is fundamentally wrong and is an indicator of political immaturity and irresponsibility.

I believe that the Constitution should not be touched with "dirty hands".

"Removing" the presidential administration from the NSO cars was actually beneficial to the head of state and gave him the opportunity to make political PR.
As for the changes made and being prepared in the laws affecting the security services, they are unlikely to have a serious impact on the system. And so far there have always been doubts about dependencies regarding the principals of the services, and not only for them, but also downstream. Beyond the demonstration related to the curtailment of presidential powers, I believe that it is right that whoever manages the services should also appoint them, respectively - bear all political responsibility. Another issue is that there are no effective mechanisms for democratic control over the services in Bulgaria.

- According to Delyan Peevski, the “Zhelyazkov“ cabinet will serve out its term. Will it be so?
- It is difficult to make an adequate forecast in this regard. Yes, the coalition indeed seems stable for now, but the geopolitical dynamics are great and it is not known how it could affect the domestic political process at a certain moment. In addition, there are too many socially significant problems that could also lead to upheavals in the government. The introduction of the euro is coming next year, which also has serious potential to provoke a crisis and social tension. There are too many challenges facing the government for us to be able to say with confidence that it will last until the end of its term.

- “Vazrazhdane“ introduced a draft law that would bar people sanctioned under the “Magnitsky“ from engaging in politics and holding public office. It was rejected, but was this simply a political move, or is there some kind of development plan in this direction…
- This is more of a symbolic act, from which it is clear that nothing substantial will come of it. With this move, “Vazrazhdane“ is pro forma stating a position. This move should be seen as part of the party's PR strategy to consolidate the support of their sympathizers, but beyond that, there is unlikely to be any other effect, and it is hardly sought.

- If after the New Year we run out of fuel, or its price skyrockets, because the topic “Lukoil“ was not foreseen, and the US imposed sanctions. What do you expect?
- Such a scenario is likely and definitely has the potential to create a serious crisis, respectively, and social tension, which could reformat the governing configuration and even lead to the fall of the government. We will have to see what will happen in the coming months and how the situation will develop.