In the conditions of prolonged political instability and growing public distrust of institutions, the Bulgarian political system is once again facing a key moment of rearrangement. Against this background, the topics of leadership, legitimacy and the future of governance are coming to the fore, and the role of President Rumen Radev is increasingly seen as a factor with the potential to transform the political space. What to expect… Prof. Dr. Rosen Stoyanov, director of "Political Analyses and Forecasts", speaks to FACTI in "Gallup".
- Prof. Stoyanov, you have repeatedly spoken about a chronic crisis of political representation in Bulgarian politics. In the current situation, are we observing a new stage of this trend?
- In fact, leadership is the main deficit in Bulgarian politics. Not so much political representation, which in the current parliament is at an unprecedented level, in terms of the number of parties, but political leadership. This particular, complex process represents an emanation of power – the possibility of exercising influence, which is realized rather through the authority of decisions made, the ability to form majorities and bear responsibility, but also a bearer of value justification, as a projection of public attitudes.
- How do you assess the composition of the caretaker cabinet? Do you see in it primarily an expert profile and a pragmatic approach, or rather political positioning in view of the upcoming vote?
- In the current caretaker government, I see the impossibility of President Yotova to form a government for which she would bear personal responsibility, forced to implement the absurd changes to the Constitution. With one or two exceptions, Andrey Gyurov's government is sewn from various pieces of political requests, ambitions, nostalgia, careerist perspectives, self-sufficiency and an attempt at political intrigue. There are experts, but politically tied, pragmatism is also present, but rather with the potential for revanchism under the justification of changing the status quo. And yes, there is indeed a hint of probing the ground for possible short-term prospective political restructurings in view of the alleged rearrangement of political layers in the future parliament.
- Rumen Radev is increasingly clearly positioning himself as an independent political center of influence. In your opinion, is this a natural development of his institutional role, or are we already talking about building a long-term political project?
- At the moment, Radev is positioning himself as a modern populist, lying in wait, waiting for the situation to develop, tactically patient and pragmatic. But unlike the opportunity to take a proactive position, Radev did not resign, which would lead to the fall of the “Zhelyazkov” government and early elections, but stepped down from the presidential chair after the government resigned. The only president of the republic in Bulgarian history to voluntarily resign from his post, and at the very end of his second term, but with the request to enter party politics. Thus, Radev deprived himself of the comfort of institutionality, but also of its inherent high level of approval. And in order to understand what his potential is in a sustainable plan, it is necessary to understand his political program, platform and "fellow-party members", as well as the results of his participation in the first few elections in which he will appear.
- Sociology indicates the likelihood of a parliament with 4 or 5 parties. Is this a signal of stabilization of the system after years of fragmentation, or simply a temporary "tightening" before a new reshuffle?
- Correct public opinion surveys are yet to be conducted in order to understand with some certainty what the picture will be in the next parliament. For now, it is only possible to assume, with some degree of probability, the possibility that Radev's political project will seize a significant part of the electorate of the patriotic-left, Eurosceptic and progressive political entities, as well as part of the protest vote. The intervention of a new political player with good potential will undoubtedly recalculate political representation, and this process will also represent a motivation and argument for a kind of consolidation of the political space, consolidation of the party through coalition agreements, and the expulsion of exotic conjuncture projects from the parliamentary sphere.
- The data shows about a 10% lead for the project around Rumen Radev over GERB. Is it possible that this difference will be maintained, or will it logically melt away during the campaign, when clearer positions and direct clashes begin?
- I'm not sure what data you're referring to, but before Radev's party project is officially announced, before his political platform and program are announced, before his leadership, candidates, and expert and human potential are presented, everything is in the realm of deliberate biased interpretation, not to mention manipulation.
Radev will be able to attract support - from the dissatisfied, the dissenters, the protesters, the disappointed, and the non-participants.
And they have been voters for everyone so far. In the course of the campaign, forced by law and circumstances, the new project will provide the public with concrete details, as a result of which the process of erosion of the initial euphoria will begin. I believe that the upcoming political election campaign will provide Bulgarian citizens with the opportunity for a rational choice. We all expect debates, a leadership clash of ideas and visions, of values and ideologies. The dynamics of this campaign will be different, the result too.
- You often emphasize that uncertainty brings electoral dividends, but also risk. To what extent is the “unspoken” around Radev currently working in his favor – and when can it turn into a weakness?
- When we talk about pragmatics in politics, we are talking about strategy, especially when it comes to communication aimed at the media and, accordingly, the public. But when Radev declares himself as different from the status quo, as new, as transparent and democratic, as honest and fair, the use of PR tricks, "modeling" of information and tactical techniques enters into direct confrontation with the image he wants to form in his followers and future voters. The postponement in time of specifying the political views, values and ideology that his formation will defend, but also the announcement of his political associates, "saves" the possibility of them being attacked by his opponents. However, this makes it impossible for voters to rationally assess the candidates, to support not on the basis of love and hate, but on the basis of a pragmatic choice of whom to delegate the right to represent them.
- The relative silence of the MRF-New Beginning in this phase is striking. Is this a strategic wait, an attempt to minimize damage, or preparation for a later intervention in the campaign?
- What exactly is the idea of the MRF – A New Beginning, only they know. One thing is clear – accustomed to their daily meek statements, briefings and posts on social networks on every domestic and foreign policy issue, in recent weeks we have observed a definite decrease in their public appearances. We can only guess what this is due to. One thing is clear – we are on the threshold of a new political situation, with the potential to rearrange the political space, but also to redraw political and state priorities. In this sense, each of us must be especially vigilant and careful in assessing what is useful and what is not – for him, for the community, for society and for the state.
- If we assume that we are entering a more concentrated parliament with fewer parties, what type of coalition culture can we expect - pragmatic and programmatic, or again based on tactical compromises and situational majorities?
- The fewer parties and, accordingly, coalitions - the more stability in forming a coalition government. This is a thesis that will be tested in the nearest future. In the future parliament, in order to realize the requests of many for the so-called judicial reform, and not only, majorities of over 160 deputies will certainly be needed. This in turn obliges political entities to show more persistence in forming majorities, more diplomacy, compromise and search for common ground, in order to achieve the public interest.
- Parliamentary elections in April, and "2 in 1" elections in November, together with the presidential vote, because then Radev will already have a party, how does that sound to you...
- We should not rule out such an option, which will depend on several results. First of all, the results of the upcoming vote in April. Second, the possibility or lack thereof of forming a stable government in the version that these results will provide. And lastly, the ambition to absorb all power, by establishing, possibly, a center-left-far-left government in the executive branch and nominating an electable candidate in the same aspect of the upcoming presidential vote.