Why is it important for PP-DB to have a common mechanism for making political decisions AND a common communication policy?
In order not to get into similar situations where ill-considered statements create a real risk of losing political support.
This is what Radan Kanev wrote on his Facebook page as a comment on what Kiril Petkov said earlier, first, that there will be negotiations with "Vazrazhdane" for a cabinet and a little later that it was not understood correctly. Here is more from the MEP's comment:
1) The issue of interaction with “Revival” is originally political, not communicative. I, for one, would never vote for a political force that allowed interaction with “Revival”, under any conditions, enforceable or unenforceable. I am separately convinced that “Revival” they have long proven their pro-Kremlin nature. That is, on the path of empirical logic, they could not prove the contrary…
And this is a matter of a clear, uninterpretable, collective political decision of the political force seeking my vote. As in the EP, I am categorically in favor of placing the group in which "Vazrazhdane" participates, behind a solid and unconditional "sanitary cordon". - which will happen.
2) Only after this decision is made, which is of paramount importance, should there be a general discussion of HOW to communicate it. So that there is not the slightest danger that the voters of the coalition will be left with the impression that it opens the door to "Revival", under some imaginary conditions. And be sure that the way in which it is communicated does not allow misleading media headlines.
In general, it is good for the leaders of the coalition to understand that the general, collective decision-making process, as well as the general communication policy, are precisely for their benefit, protection and interest. An open and democratic political organization gives its leaders strength, support and support.
Chaos in making and communicating decisions is killing them. Not always slow.