Comment by Ivaylo Noyzi Tsvetkov:
Will you take a moment of your precious time to talk about the responsibility of choosing? Because the refusal to choose lately seems to be putting our very idea of democracy in danger. I could bring you whole buckets of “holy political water“ in seconds from at least nine intellectual and philosophical wells, i.e. from fellow thinkers on whose shoulders I have stepped, but I won't.
Because I am convinced that every well-built person should understand that the very right to choose should not be considered a rudimentary given, but something owed to society; people have died and continue to die for it.
Why do even smart people sometimes not understand relatively simple concepts
And then I asked myself: why doesn't the majority in Bulgaria vote? Is it because they are lazy on Sundays and feel sick from last night (super valid, at least 15% are due to this, I bet), or are we really pre-modern in this too, if we refer to fellow authorities like Gabriel Allmond and his “The Civic Culture“?
Is it possible that as a society we do not understand something simple - that civic awareness and activity are not limited to walking and shouting in the square (which in itself is another kind of responsible gesture)? That is, that the archetypal meaning of the square, unlike the 200 tantrums on Facebook, is to transcend one's own gesture and seek responsibility through the civic activism in question subsequently?
And also that not voting, although also an acceptable choice in itself, puts the main achievements of democracy in danger, especially now, when a Russian hybrid war is being waged against us “on the quiet front”? And that yes, the choice is not a generational category a priori, but at the current historical moment, April 2026, it may be, because - without opposing one social or age stratum to another - it is mainly expected of the younger and active (including the ridiculously stigmatized Gen Z) to also say “b”, after saying “a” in the square? Because the cop-oligarchy and the Borisov-Peevski model will very soon metamorphose into Radev-plus, i.e. the new one will also feed on the refusal to choose. Note the second capital „and“!
Can we be angry with those who refuse to choose
To be honest: I still don't care whether and for whom you will vote, I consider this a kind of modern sacrament in an almost biblical sense, i.e. no one owes anyone an explanation for what or whether they choose. However, I will throw at you just one philosophical idea that can be traced back to Jaspers, and in a teleological sense (i.e., with regard to the ultimate goal) to William James: choosing is, in fact, a heavy psychological burden, and no one should be angry with those who refuse to do so.
But we can be angry about something else - that not voting is a refusal to act, aimed solely at the present. If you want to change the medium-term future of Bulgaria - i.e. including what will happen to your children and grandchildren: “for me the choice is clear“, as the late giant Kiril Marichkov sang in “The Horseman“.
The choice, the choice. Since Pliny the Elder through Borges's reflections there, it has been at the foundation of existence: it is the very pillar of civilization, and its historical apogee is in modern liberal democracy. I divide it into two types: currently in our country: the choice of whether to choose or not (the rationalist and somewhat Cartesian, i.e. Cartesian and generally enlightened position), and the choice between specific, not particularly beautiful and meaningful options, because of which we usually argue in the style of “but there is no one”. Here I would prescribe Aristotle's “Rhetoric”, according to which – in general – every vital action most often falls somewhere in the trinity “ethos-pathos-logos”.
The first is related to how we are built as an upbringing and foundation, the second &ndquo; with the emotions that move us most often, and the third - with the reasonable articulation, even to ourselves, of the causal relationships that constitute reason and, with apologies, make us smart or not. Some fellow philosophers suspect that there is a fourth “something“, called “kairos“, and that the later Christian devil hides precisely in it. Why? Because “kairos“ sows doubt and laziness, i.e. the father and mother of failure. And the very refusal to choose.
Choosing is a responsibility
However, the choice, the civil one, today, is not and should not be susceptible to mythologemes, but remains entirely in the sphere of the intimate; I am a citizen and I am alone in my decision. Unless my existence depends on an employer, mayor, party secretary or the like, but that is a bitter topic for another analysis. And I summarize it like this: choosing is a responsibility, not just an opportunity. That is, choice is a responsibility and responsibility is a choice. I still care whether and for whom you will vote, I hate the simple maxim in the style of “if you don't vote, then you can't demand and be angry with anyone“.
Your act of voting itself will not automatically fix things. The only thing that is certain is that your refusal to choose will quite naturally make them worse.