What will be the role of “Democracy, Rights and Freedoms“ in the government and how did their participation come about. Are there any red lines in the coalition… Levent Memis, an MP from the wing of the MRF around Ahmed Dogan, spoke to FACT.
- Mr. Memis, from the wing of the MRF around Ahmed Dogan, you entered the negotiations for government at the last moment. Why?
- First, I would like to congratulate you and your readers. As for our question - we entered the negotiations at the moment we were invited. Not because power is an end in itself for us, but because throughout the election campaign and after it we have repeatedly stated that Bulgaria needs a stable, regular government. Postponing the problems not only does not solve them, but also deepens the crises in which the country finds itself. In addition, we are obliged to our voters and the public to make maximum efforts to stop the vicious cycle of early elections. It is time for the country to gradually shake off the behind-the-scenes influences that have spread like metastases in its various institutions. It is no coincidence that immediately after the elections there was a call from our honorary chairman Ahmed Dogan, who was associated with this, for the leaders of the parliamentaryly represented formations to abandon their party interests and show statesmanship.
- The first cabinet “Zhelyazkov“ split the MRF, and now part of the MRF you are part of the second cabinet “Zhelyazkov“. What made you - your part of the MRF, change...
- Your question is extremely important and must be clearly distinguished. We are talking about two fundamentally different models of governance. In the first cabinet of “Zhelyazkov“ the decision was made unilaterally, with an authoritarian approach - without preliminary debates, without a clear vision of the policies that would be implemented. It was communicated to us at the last moment, without a real opportunity for discussion or corrections. In the second case, the process was completely different - the decision was made collectively, with a clear mechanism, debates and transparency. From the very beginning, we understood that the three political entities had already agreed on a coalition and were looking to us for a parliamentary majority. In response to this, we convened a meeting of the Central Operational Bureau and the Council of Presidents, where we discussed for over 5 hours and listened to all points of view. As a result, we signed an agreement that included clearly stated principled policies. The entire process was public and transparent. We have always defended the collective model of decision-making - both in the party and in the state government. This is precisely the main difference between the two situations. Currently, in the DPS (and in the state as a whole) there is a struggle between two different governance models - one-man and authoritarian governance versus the collective, transparent and democratic process.
- It is clear that without the votes of your formation there would be no government. Was this your trump card in the negotiations?
- I understand your question, especially in the context of the suggestions that some media outlets associated with the “KOY“ circle are persistently trying to impose - that we have wrung or are currently wringing our hands for various purposes. However, this is untrue. The truth is that Dr. Dogan has always taught us to think about the state first and to guide our actions precisely through this prism. That is why we are a predictable partner - we do not act on the basis of conjunctural interests, but on principles. By the way, this is nothing more than the meaning of the oath that every member of parliament takes at the beginning of his mandate - to be guided solely by the interests of the people. Of course, it is completely normal for each parliamentary group to have its weight in the negotiations - a weight that is given to it by the voters. It is on the basis of this mandate that each formation strives to implement its policies, as this is part of the democratic process.
- What will be the operational role of Ahmed Dogan in this configuration - GERB-SDF, BSP and ITN. Is he returning to the political game?
- The short answer to your question is - no. As he has repeatedly stated, Dr. Ahmed Dogan fulfills his role according to Art. 9 of the statute of the MRF as honorary chairman. He is a model of leadership and a role model, but he has always encouraged the development of the party without his direct intervention. True leaders give freedom for development. They do not rule through dependencies, force or fear. It is undeniable that such methods can be effective in the short term, but they do not lead to sustainable and constructive development. History shows that their end is almost always the same.
- It is strange, but the MRF - we are referring to only one part, after more than 10 years it is still in power. The other part of the MRF is the opposition. It seems that there is a good and a bad side to the MRF…
- The truth is that two different governance models are currently clashing in the MRF. On one side is the collective, democratic and transparent way of making decisions, based on dialogue and political responsibility. This model has always been at the heart of the MRF and is in line with the principles we stand for - protection of the constitutional order, Bulgaria's Euro-Atlantic orientation and clear rules in governance. On the other side, there are attempts at a one-man, authoritarian style of governance, decision-making in a narrow circle and pushing through policies through dependencies and behind the scenes - a classic example of plutocracy. This model is incompatible with both our vision of the MRF and the principles of democratic governance. In this context, we should be grateful that fate has given us the opportunity to preserve the authentic image of the MRF - as a democratic, predictable and constructive political force. Otherwise, the MRF has always strived to be a stabilizing factor that guarantees predictability, institutional stability and real policies for the benefit of citizens.
- Give the most precise definition of the status of Dogan's MRF in the government. What exactly is your role in the coalition - you have no ministers...
- Yes, we do not have ministers, but as we have already emphasized - for us, power is not an end in itself, but a tool for implementing policies that we consider useful for society. Currently, “Democracy, Rights and Freedoms“ is part of the parliamentary majority, and our role is clearly defined in the annex to the coalition agreement. It outlines the specific goals, principles and mechanisms of relationships in the government. This guarantees predictability, stability and transparency in the decision-making process.
- You are part of the ruling coalition and you do not have ministers, and the PP-DB say that your opponent Peevski has ministers in the cabinet “Zhelyazkov“. How is this possible?
- The prolonged political instability and the series of early elections have only strengthened Delyan Peevski's influence in state institutions, the judiciary and key repressive instruments of the state. This is an objective fact that cannot be ignored. Today we are in a complex situation – on the one hand we must guarantee the formation of a regular government, and on the other – to fulfill our role as a guarantor of the construction of a sanitary cordon against the backstage.
Our main goal is to gradually shake the state off these dependencies and influences that have become deeply rooted in the institutions over the years.
Of course, we give a certain amount of credit for trust, but we are closely monitoring the process and will not put up with practices that contradict our principles.
- What does “Democracy, rights and freedoms“ look like as part of the government, but in the eyes of the people who voted for you. What do they tell you?
- The voters and structures of each party expect it to be in power in order to realize its election commitments. This is the meaning of politics - to translate ideas into real actions. Currently, our voters and party structures appreciate the efforts we are making to form a regular government and stable governance. The state needs security, predictability and sustainable solutions – this is precisely what we strive to guarantee.
Of course, our decision was not easy and we remain with certain reservations, but our responsibility to society and to the future of the country prevailed. We must try and give stability a chance, but not at the cost of everything - we clearly state this. Otherwise, the alternative is a new cycle of crises and uncertainty.
- With the votes of the ruling majority, the parliament refused to lift the immunities of two deputies from your MRF – Jeyhan Ibryamov and Mario Rangelov. Why?
- Let me remind you that the voting on the two immunities was mixed and cannot be entirely attributed to the ruling majority. It is important to emphasize that each such case must be considered individually, with respect for the principles of the rule of law and through the prism of real facts, not political suggestions. Parliament's decisions on issues related to immunities should be based on objective legal arguments, not on political pressure or conjunctural interests.
- Is this part of the deal to have governance…
- There are certain media outlets that are trying to instill such a thesis. Before the vote, each parliamentary group held a meeting to discuss the issue and make its decision. Then, everyone voted according to the position adopted, with the arguments being publicly presented. After the vote, colleagues expressed respect for the decisions made, regardless of differences in positions. This is part of the normal democratic process in parliament.