The idea that the rector of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski“ should head the education system in Bulgaria sounds like a natural continuation of his career, even after his retirement next year. However, this has only caused protests from part of the academic community of his own university in just a few days and a wave of tension in almost all universities in the country.
There is even a petition that has leaked to the academic space of Bulgaria from the depths of the Alma Mater itself. The reason: Sofia University has been shaken daily by scandals in the last year and the internal distrust of its own rector is no secret to anyone in academic circles. This internal reason is reinforced, however, by the visible tension that is also maturing in dozens of other universities in the country, against the candidacy of the rector of our largest university for minister.
The arguments of professors and rectors from all over the country are related to the role of Prof. Georgi Valchev in the division of higher education institutions and his spineless attitude towards the policies pursued until yesterday by the former education ministers Galin Tsokov and Krasimir Valchev.
In the context of these arguments, a live broadcast broadcast directly from Boyko Borisov's Facebook page in the fall of 2025 is also recalled, which shows how the rector of the most renowned Bulgarian higher education institution puts a backbone to the political leader and, along with the trade unionist Lilyana Valcheva, who has a controversial reputation in academic circles, presents the President with certificates of gratitude taken out of a briefcase.
But Behind the apparent logic of both Prof. Georgi Valchev and his opponents inside and outside Sofia University, there are deeper questions: whether his candidacy for minister can ensure expert management or is it simply a matter of concentration of influence and whether the desire for closeness to everyone in power will not deepen the gap from academic authority to political power.
In this context, Prof. Georgi Valchev's candidacy for Minister of Education is not just a personal choice. It is a test of whether Bulgaria will manage its education as a system or as a network of influences. And if this debate seems sharp, the reason is not in the tone, but in the accumulated questions that cannot be ignored.
Duplication or takeover: the case of the new association, a parallel to the Council of Rectors
The creation of the Association of State Higher Education Institutions was presented as a coordination step - a kind of analogue of the associations of private higher education institutions and medical universities. However, rectors from private universities claim that their association has not been working for a long time because they find logic in the unity of the system, which was finally ensured by Acad. Lachezar Traykov and his successor Prof. Miglena Temelkova. Media such as „Sega“ and „Dnevnik“ notice the midwifery of Deputy Minister Nikolay Vitanov in the birth of the Association of Prof. Valchev, which automatically brings to mind political engineering on the part of the then Minister of the Coat of Arms.
At the same time, however, critics see in the structure conceived by Prof. Valchev and company a parallel to the Council of Rectors of Higher Education Institutions in the Republic of Bulgaria and a signal for division. Authoritative media examine the statutes of the two organizations and find almost 100% coincidence between them. In a number of articles, journalists also write about plagiarism of the platform of the Chairman of the Council as a preamble to the statute of the parallel association.
Ultimately, the result of the power ambition of the rectors of Sofia University, the Technical University, the Chemical Technology and Metallurgical University, the University of Civil Engineering and Architecture and the National Sports Academy, who once again remained outside the governing body even of the Council of Rectors, but conceived the parallel structure, provoked and continues to deepen the clear institutional division in higher education.
Different strategic lines and the logic of the division
The thesis about the different strategic lines between state and private universities, proclaimed by the creators of the alternative association and personally by Valchev, continues to generate tension, including with respect to the principles and logic of the Law on Higher Education, which does not divide the system into categories with different rules, but assumes competition in a common frame.
The thesis repeatedly shared by Prof. Valchev that state and private universities should develop as two parallel lines is not just an opinion. It is a request for a different regime. This is precisely the thesis that private universities do not accept as a concept, but as a framework that can rearrange the system. “If the rules are different, this is no longer a system. This is an architecture of inequality.“ – commented the rector of a private higher education institution.
Big vs. small: hidden hierarchy or small universities as a “side effect“
The division into “big“ and “small“ universities may seem analytical.
But when it becomes a political framework, the effect is clear: concentration. And the theses and behavior of the rector of the largest university in our country are one-sided - resources, attention and influence should be directed to several university centers, because everything else is peripheral. And there are many examples - when Sofia University needs money, the rector simply calls from national airwaves, and the money flows. Rectors also recall a remark by former Education Minister Krasimir Valchev to rectors gathered at the Ministry of Education and Science in 2024: “Well, agree that Sofia University should be given!“
However, the division between “big“ and “small“ stimulated so far by almost all those in power universities carries a risk of concentration of resources, marginalization of regions and long-term imbalances, which are already clearly evident.
Doubt as a political factor or when videos start to speak
The public image of Prof. Georgi Valchev was additionally burdened by a shared live from Boyko Borisov's page, also discussed in the podcast “Agenda“ by journalists Miroljuba Benatova and Genka Shikerova and reflected in Dnevnik. This clearly proved that the public image is not only shaped by policies. Sometimes videos also shape it.
The effect is a fact: suspicion of political dependence is already in the public sphere. And in politics, doubt is currency. “Doubt is often stronger than proof in the public environment,“ notes an analyst. “Therefore, the transition from rector to minister always carries a risk.
Not only real, but also symbolic.“ – he continues.
The minister must be impartial, it is written in every political science textbook. However, when the system is divided and the minister is at the heart of this division, his impartiality is impossible.
The “Faculty of Medicine“ case - small signals, big questions
The debates about management, transparency and personnel decisions around the Faculty of Medicine at Sofia University further fuel the feeling of tension in the system. Even when there are no definitive answers, the accumulation of questions about lecturers illegally appointed by the rector, for draining the university through salaries according to the script of the theaters, creates a new system. And this system is not transparent. It is about concentration and control.
The “Denkov“ lesson: when the system strikes back
The case of Nikolay Denkov showed how complex the relationship between a minister and the academic community can be. During his ministerial term, there was visible tension in the system — including student protests from small universities, petitions in defense of academic autonomy, supported by tens of thousands of citizens, referrals to institutions such as the ombudsman, the international community, the EU, and the court. For the first time in years, the academic community reacted sharply, publicly, with an attitude to replace the minister. As a result – Denkov failed to push through any of his otherwise loudly announced reforms and remains to this day one of the most unwanted ministers by universities, schools, and kindergartens. An indirect victim of the spinelessness in terms of politics led by Academician Denkov was also Prof. Anastas Gerdzhikov - the then rector of Sofia University, but also the chairman of the Council of Rectors. Then the rectors did not re-elect him as their first among equals, although he was competing with himself. Thus, for the first time in its history, the rectors' association remained for several months without a legitimately elected chairman, which is a clear reminder of the irresistible power of small, specialized and private universities. The episodes with Academician Denkov and Prof. Gerdzhikov should be interpreted as a warning: when reforms affect deeply established balances, the system reacts, because the minister does not cease to be part of the academic system, but the system also does not cease to have its own priorities.
The system as a factor: an instinct for self-preservation or the lesson of recent reforms
„Reforms rarely happen in their original form. The system changes them.“, notes an analyst.
Education is a conservative system, but it is not a passive structure. It has its own logic and often its own instinct for self-preservation. “Every reform in education is confronted not only with arguments, but with institutional inertia.“, says a public policy expert. This instinct can stabilize the system. But it can also block change.
In recent years, several attempts at ill-considered and visionless deep changes have met with resistance.
Under Nikolay Denkov, topics such as consolidating universities, attestation, and increasing scientometric requirements were raised. Their implementation turned into a failure.
A similar dynamic was observed with Krasimir Valchev, when the discussion of fees for students in paid education led to a significant reformatting of the initial proposals of the minister himself in dialogue with the Council of Rectors of Higher Education Institutions in the Republic of Bulgaria.
It is interesting that in academic circles, the ministerial positions of both Denkov and Valchev made the rectors of the Sofia Alma Mater a byword for agreement and support of every high-ranking policy, despite the resistance from within their own university.
Tension in the present
At the moment, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski“ is a beehive about to swarm - tension, scandals, criticism and dissatisfaction are daily companions of the academic community, which does not seem to recognize its rector as a unifier. Against the backdrop of the sex scandal that has flared up in recent days at the Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, such an environment creates the conditions for escalation. However, it is obvious that there is a crisis in governance at the largest native university.
The conflict that does not disappear
This context is key for any candidacy for minister, including that of Prof. Georgi Valchev. Because the question is not only what reform he will propose, but how the system will react to it. If the handwriting is too confrontational — the system can block the change.
The ministry manages all universities. The rector comes from one. This creates not just a conflict of interest, but a conflict of trust. That is why the future minister must have the ability to look beyond the interests of the organization he comes from and not be a fool, because the storm will come.
Minister or center of influence
Ultimately, the question is not whether Prof. Georgi Valchev has expertise. It is undeniable that it is there. The question is what style he brings with him.
And if there is a lesson from recent years, including the case of Nikolay Denkov, it is simple: education reacts - sometimes sharply - when it senses that the balance is threatened. Because the education system has an instinct for self-preservation, which no ruler has managed to break so far. It does not tolerate division instead of unity, hierarchy instead of balance, influence instead of distance. Education cannot afford this. Because when the system starts working on the logic of rift, self-confidence, self-sufficiency and influence, it stops working on the logic of knowledge.
Food for thought...
The Minister of Education should not be the strongest person in the system. He should be the most balanced. And if there is any doubt that balance will be replaced by concentration,
this doubt is not a minor detail. It is a red flag.