The shooting of Robert Fico was embarrassingly commented upon and analyzed over the past 24 hours.
This opinion was expressed to FOCUS by political scientist Toncho Kraevski.
"For the first time I see the consensus breaking that political assassinations and murders of politicians who represent voters – in this case, the representative of the most voters, the prime minister of a country, could be killed because he had sowed division. I will remind the people who speak in this direction – I don't want to quote them because they are too many, that politics is creating divisions and managing those divisions.
Republic and democracy consists in tolerating this division with some restraint when we are not in power and to be able to condemn unequivocally when the life of a politician who represents a part of his people is encroached upon. This is a fundamental condition for democracy and for the republic. The moment we say that a prime minister has somehow become a victim, he himself is to blame for his own assassination, that means we have lost all moral conscience, we are not morally qualified for democracy as a form of government. We are simply not capable of it", explained Toncho Kraevski.
He said that because of the case of Robert Fizzo, he draws the main conclusion that the collapse of the democratic political system cannot be allowed, pointing out several problems: "This means that there is a section of politicians and journalists who, because of their political leanings, tend to take a backseat to all other considerations, including the most fundamental and most sacred – democracy, which is the political immunity of our representatives.
So tomorrow they may say that certain MPs, because of the way they speak, should be censored or should be arrested. Or, this is the worst, if someone on the street, because Bulgarian politicians are walking on the street, I meet them in the center of Sofia, we all see them, if tomorrow someone takes their life, because it is not impossible, it will will be commented polar, that is, there will be opinions "for“ and "against“ and whether he is guilty or not guilty. This cannot be allowed," the political scientist was emphatic.