Sixth election in three years, attention will hardly be focused on this campaign. This is what he told Agency “Focus" the sociologist Ivo Zhelev, manager of the "ESTAT" agency.
"For me, the big problem is the quality of political marketing, which is currently extremely low. You mentioned the sluggish start to the campaign of some political forces. Some of the first slogans of the parties were mentioned in the last days, they are once again so banal, narrow-minded or stolen from somewhere.
So I don't expect any very meaningful substantive debate, I don't expect any very memorable videos or original forms of political campaigning. After all, the fault for this lies not so much with political marketers and publicists as with the politicians themselves. Because when we don't have a good product on the market, it's normal that marketing can't sell it either," said the sociologist.
"Why do we again continue to have no development direction, national doctrine. Land Schengen and the adoption of the euro have been announced as some endpoints of our movement and development, and for me this is absurd. Because these are only some means on the way to the well-being and prosperity of the nation. And such prosperity, as I look, does not appear.
For me, what the Croatian president said yesterday or the day before yesterday, making the comparison, is also symptomatic. He critically said “We are in last place, only Bulgaria is behind us". We are currently 17 years from our full membership and this is the balance sheet, we cannot peel off the bottom and continue to be the poor man of Europe.
And not only material, we are not only materially poor, we are political and spiritual, etc., this is a disaster, this is a shame. There is no response to the demographic crisis, if we are decreasing by one district town per year, if less than 50,000 babies are born in this country already per year, well, this is a disaster. However, we only deal with the euro, Schengen, BTRs and self-sufficient seditions in our compromised political elite, that's why we are like this", Iva Zhelev also thinks.
In his words, this is not political thinking. The pettiness and the attempt to outwit, to play the political opponent, this is not politics, these are things that are at a very low level. We have strategies, but we don't have strategic thinking, that's the main problem.
We are not working to create a national elite, not only for political ones. We don't have enough clear and workable elite selection mechanisms, we don't have success criteria, we can't define what we need to continue to develop as a nation and prosper and compete with the rest of the world.
"The way things are going, at the end of the century, someone will simply have to pull the switch, there simply will be no Bulgarian nation. And this is what everyone says, all respected demographers, but no one listens to them.
We have all the evidence, the symptoms, that we continue to dig the bottom, however formulaic it is said. We are sending a parliament which, according to all the opposition groups in it, is the worst in our recent history.
Of those who dominated it and ruled, no one was found to say a good word about this National Assembly. This low quality of politics continues and it was visible throughout the parliament. More and more, our deputies fight and swear at each other because they are powerless to argue and prove the rightness of their position.
Nothing that I know of, nothing positive in practice I can single out in the work of this parliament in the one year in which it existed. In it, what did this parliament actually give us? He gave us the assemblage both as a word and as a construction, he gave us a rotation, and in fact some inconsistent such contradictory, unfinished actions, political initiatives that someone must then step into the shoes of his predecessors and complete in one way or another his own logic .
Otherwise, if we are talking about some specifics, we have changed the constitution, but without a complete essential judicial reform. In practice, these changes were to cut the influence of the president through caretaker governments. The Act on caretaker governments was also not adopted.
In the end, these changes could have been called “Anti-Radev changes", but tomorrow, in three years, we will have another president, then will we change the Constitution again? And in the end, it has now been seen that these changes have brought us this caretaker government," the sociologist added.