What does the impossibility (or reluctance at the moment) to elect a Speaker of the National Assembly show us. Is this how parliamentary democracy works and who positions himself how… Political scientist Ralitsa Simeonova spoke to FACTS.
- Mrs. Simeonova, has the buying of votes in the elections been successfully completed? It is still being talked about and, as it were, we already accept it as a typical Bulgarian trait?
- The answer to this question implies knowing whether the results reflect the goals set by the vote buyers and whether they will allow them to realize their ambitions. But it seems vote buying was massive.
Controlled voting, in all its forms, can hardly be prevented entirely. But in the last elections in our country, it was carried out on such a scale that gives serious reasons to believe that it significantly influenced the election results. Adding to this phenomenon the numerous electoral irregularities related to vote substitution by transferring votes from one party to another, the strange last-minute changes of a large number of members of the sectional election commissions and the lack of video surveillance in many sections, we could hardly to regard these elections as legitimate, free and fair. In this sense, the topic of cashing them is absolutely adequate, as well as the topic of the legitimacy of this parliament.
- And deputies have already collected signatures to cancel the elections. Is this possible?
- Since the Constitution allows such a hypothesis, then it is possible. However, whether it will happen is a separate question. Requests have already been submitted to the Constitutional Court for partial and complete cancellation of the vote. The important point here is that when contesting the legality of the elections, the request to the SC must contain allegations of specific violations of the electoral process and evidence of them. And there must be such violations that affect the result. On this basis, the SC pronounces.
It is essential how the submitted requests are prepared, how seriously this process was approached and whether cash is really aimed at or it is all a PR move and an attempt to soften and quell the strong public reaction. Not all political forces seem particularly alarmed by electoral manipulation. Unfortunately, we also have to take into account that none of the other subjects, who according to the Constitution can appeal to the SC (President, Council of Ministers, SAC, Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General), do not take advantage of this power.
In any case, we should not get used to such violation of the rules, because it destroys the trust in one of the fundamental attributes of democracy - elections. For voters to see sense in voting, they must be convinced that there will be real, not fictitious, sanctions for not following the rules, that the competent authorities are doing their job in good faith and adequately, and that their vote will ultimately be counted correctly . Unfortunately, this is currently not the case.
- Will we see the Speaker of the National Assembly from GERB again? The first to vote had the right… This is what we hear once again, but three attempts have already failed?
- The right is on the side of the one who gathers the necessary majority in support of his candidate. In this case, we see that no one manages to consolidate such, and there is no clear perspective in this direction. Even the very fact that GERB set as a condition for possible negotiations for a government that the President of the National Assembly be elected from their ranks is an imperative that does not help to find a compromise option and get out of the stalemate.
We must bear in mind that the post has acquired additional weight after the 2023 constitutional changes, as the Speaker of the National Assembly is among the subjects from which the acting Prime Minister is elected. This raises the stakes. And we see that "grips" have begun to be applied during the election, which are not quite in the spirit of the Constitution. Not to mention that it has already become a practice to "stretch" the first meeting of the National Assembly. in time, so as to meet the requirement of the Constitution, which explicitly requires the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers to take place within the first session of the National Assembly. The selection of these positions is a mandatory condition for starting the procedure for forming a government, since after it the parliamentary groups are announced, which is important for the president to start handing out mandates.
Beyond the obvious conflict lines and oppositions of political forces, it would be difficult to abstract from the feeling of procrastination. It's like there's something waiting to happen.
In any case, what we are observing with the election of the Speaker of the National Assembly is part of the symptoms of the political crisis.
- Which party how is it positioned in the parliament given the vote we see for the speaker of the parliament…
- We see that none of the political forces represented in the parliament are backing down from their positions. Bearing in mind that usually the election of the chairman of the National Assembly is seen as a test - a check for a possible ruling majority, we can outline several starting points for analysis.
It seems that GERB-SDS and “DPS-New Beginning” are in isolation. In the case of GERB-SDS, it is rather due to their imperative approach, in which the election of the Speaker of the National Assembly from their ranks was tied to the possibility of forming a government. The stated refusal to hold governance talks with the second and third terms also makes talks difficult. In addition, GERB-SDS announced that they will not rule with the "New Beginning" either. of Peevski, nor with Dogan's APS, nor with "Vazrazhdane" and SWORD. They open space for cooperation only with PP-DB, BSP and ITN. Probably, GERB-SDS consider that they can afford to set such demands, as it would be almost impossible to form a governing majority without them. At the same time, the formation hardly considers new elections as a particularly negative scenario.
”DPS-New Beginning” is in more serious isolation.
They turn out to be an unwanted partner for all other political forces, because the latter are aware that cooperation with Peevski would bring them severe reputational damage.
The readiness for joint action of the PP-DB and the "Alliance for Rights and Freedoms" is impressive, which outlines a prospect for a more serious collaboration between these political forces. It remains to be seen whether these expectations will be confirmed.
PP-DB proposed a "sanitary cordon" around Peevski and set this as a condition for holding talks. This corresponds with the approach of the "Alliance for Rights and Freedoms", who predictably announced that they will not support a government formed with the overt or covert support of the "DPS-New Beginning". At the same time, they insist that maximum efforts be made to broadcast a government that is an expression of readiness for talks and compromises.
From “BSP-United Left” gave mixed signals, but in recent days it has become clear that they would support an "expert cabinet".
Here is the place to recall that the term "expert cabinet" it is not part of the formal political science conceptual apparatus. It should be clear that every cabinet is political. Behind every cabinet is the support of specific political forces that make its functioning possible. In crisis situations, it is particularly important to know who bears political responsibility, and trying to hide this is not in the interest of democracy.
MECH has already announced that with GERB-SDS and “DPS-New Beginning” they will not work and would be opposition if some new "assembly" is formed.
So far, ITN seem ready for talks, although they too have announced that they will not under any circumstances accept Borissov as prime minister, nor will they work with “The New Beginning” of Peevski.
"Revival" are also formally included in the polls for a majority, initiating talks with the political formations, but without GERB-SDS, "DPS - New beginning" and "Alliance for Rights and Freedoms" (APC). "Vazrazhdane", PP-DB, BSP, ITN and MECH have a total of 122 mandates in the National Assembly, but still the chance of forming such a majority is very small. Let's not forget that "Revival" and MECH are hardly seen as acceptable options for coalition, especially by PP-DB.
- Front against Peevski, sanitary cordon. Will this work, could it be some kind of solder?
- From the point of view of Peevski's isolation, this is working so far. But I don't think that PP-DB argued clearly enough how and why Boyko Borisov became more acceptable than Peevski. Until recently, in practice, they ruled with GERB-SDS, using the support of the DPS. There were even claims that Peevski had changed for the better. How is Borisov different from Peevski? Wasn't the fight against the model embodied by both of them? There is no answer to these questions.
- PP-DB are second. What role does this give them in the conversation about putting together a cabinet?
- The role of the second... Of course, we have to keep in mind that the management mandates are given to parliamentary groups, so we should wait for them to form before making more serious predictions. It is expected that the largest parliamentary group will be GERB-SDS and their candidate for Prime Minister will receive a mandate to form a government. If they fail, the mandate will go to a candidate of the second largest parliamentary group, which is expected to be PP-DB, if no split occurs in their ranks. If they also fail, the mandate will go to one of the other parliamentary groups.
At this stage, bearing in mind the approach to conducting the talks, their structure and nature, rather the "red lines" that the political forces set become clear, but not what should be the goals and priorities that the next regular government should realized. When the emphasis is on what divides rather than what unites, it is difficult to find intersections and agreement. In this sense, at least for now, it seems that we are heading for new elections.