What did the early parliamentary elections show and what is the will of the Bulgarian citizens… Party “Majesty“ is seventh, but enters the parliament, and the sociologists missed her. Why? “There must be a regular government to stabilize the state,” declared DPS co-chairman Delyan Peevski and attacked President Radev, whom people expected as the new “messiah”. The head of state replied to Peevski: “I expect a thorough and frank analysis from the participants in the elections as to why they expelled the voters from the polls. I'm not commenting on panic attacks, the word is medicine. How to convene the parliament - some leaders hid on Facebook, others ran to the villages, others took to the forest - I'm waiting for them to come back!“ And the main question is will we have an office… Sociologist Yanitsa Petkova from “Gallup International“ spoke to FAKTI.
- Mrs. Petkova, why the “Majesty“ “dropped out” from sociological research?
- This is a question that will be very difficult to answer, but I will try to give a few guesses. First of all, purely technologically, sociological polls, which are announced immediately before elections, were conducted a week to 10 days before the end of the campaigns. That is, there is a segment of 10 days that is a “blind spot” because a large number of voters decide really at the last minute whether to vote and for whom to vote. Because of this, we witness surprises sometimes. There are attitudes that register at the last moment, and cannot be captured by sociology.
- But here I should add that sociology starts from the first day of the campaign and every week a different agency gives results…
- That's right, but there are a few more things here. One is that supporters of a party like “Majesty” may not respond or indicate their intentions in a survey – precisely because of the profile of the party. Another thing that could probably be given as an assumption is that quite often the voters who sympathize with this type of parties see in these parties alternative, opinions that are not popular in the public debate. Such type of parties express “punitive“ or “hidden“ vot.
In general, the theme of why “Greatness“ did not show up in the research of any sociological agency is a food for thought for the party, for its profile, as well as for the research technology.
Thirdly, we can point to the campaign of “Greatness” and her way of communicating with potential voters. The campaign of “Greatness” was mostly conducted online, they bank on this type of messaging, looking for specific niches, specific voters that cannot be captured in a nationally representative survey with such power. In order to catch them, targeted research, qualitative methods are needed to study exactly this type of voter.
- Seven parties in the parliament, but will we have a cabinet?
- I think that everything possible will be done to have a cabinet, not only because the analyzes and recommendations of the researchers point in that direction, but also because the first party – GERB will receive the mandate. They are in a situation where they cannot afford not to offer a cabinet! If GERB fail the first mandate, the probability of going to new elections becomes very high. If this happens, most system parties – not only GERB, will receive an additional sanction from the electorates – i.e. more apathy and less activity. Or even looking for a radically different alternative. Thus, GERB will give grounds for criticism from the opposition parties that they have failed yet another attempt to form a stable government – that is, the responsibility lies with them, and the responsibility is great. And I think they will most likely propose a cabinet and do their best to form a government. There is another. In view of the political alternatives that are emerging, the emergence of parties like “Velichie“, the growth of far-right anti-European parties across Europe… these are trends that are also valid in Bulgaria.
So GERB are on a roll, a tough roll, but the question is how they will play it.
Whatever the government is, whatever government is formed, I suspect that it will most likely be unpopular. GERB are still silent because they are considering all options and are careful not to step on the wrong side.
- But have we already heard a request from Delyan Peevski, who called for responsible behavior and forming a cabinet?
- It was quite a shrewd move on his part - to be the first to announce this position, to call GERB to cooperate and to try to head the government formation processes. Obviously, Peevski wants to be a leader in the process of forming a cabinet, he wants to lead it and dictate the way the debate will take place, but he is walking on thin ice.
- Is this comfortable for GERD?
- For Peevski, this is a double-edged sword if we start thinking about the behavior of leaders. Boyko Borisov is also a person who always wants to lead, to make the first move, and for the other political parties to react – that is, he sets the debate, he sets the topics, and he sets the agenda. What is happening now - the reaction of the DPS, and especially of the leader Peevski, positions the DPS in the center of political events. The trick here is not to overdo it. We have seen it before as a process in our country. The society should be apathetic, any statements and actions should pass without any particular reaction. Peevski feels strong, but at some point it is possible that something will happen to push the Bulgarian society in the “wrong place” and apathy to turn into discontent. I.e. may overdo it. On the other hand, Peevski put himself in a very comfortable position to have said first, to have called first. Such a position is convenient both because it will provoke a reaction from the other political parties - mainly from GERB, and it is also an attempt to somehow legitimize the DPS as a major player in the Bulgarian political system, which will be supported by international partners, because we know that there is a problem there. In any case, Peevski is walking on thin ice at this stage, but he is setting a strong position.
- We have witnessed resignations after the vote. What a sign that is…
- The resignations of Hristo Ivanov and Cornelia Ninova are a normal reaction. Almost all political forces that entered the 50th National Assembly were sanctioned by the public and their electoral support has dropped regardless of their results. GERB are first, with a serious lead, but they are losing votes.
DPS realizes its long-term ambition to be the second political force, but they also have fewer votes.
All others – and PP and DB, BSP and Vazrazhdane, are sanctioned by their rigid electorates. ITN is growing a bit. When even the hard cores reduce their support, this is a symptom of destroyed trust between political parties and society, somehow the dialogue and communication in general is broken. From this point of view, the most logical thing is for there to be a resignation, a change of leadership, to experience a crisis that will be like a healing period and thus be able to regain this thread of trust between the parties and the voters. If they manage to turn it into a recovery period at all. And there is another. This is not the first time we have seen these resignations – neither by Mrs. Ninova nor by Hristo Ivanov. It has happened before. It seems to me that this time will be the last time. I believe that both of them will remain active in terms of interaction and communication with their parties, but their gesture shows an acceptance of responsibility, which is the most logical thing.