Mira Radeva to FACTI: Wasn't it played for some 21 votes to keep "Majesty" out of parliament...

Will the entry of the "Majesty" party into parliament change the comfort of the ruling party... Will we see a new role for the MRF - A new beginning... Sociologist Mira Radeva speaks to FACTI.

- Ms. Radeva, will the entry of "Majesty" into parliament shorten the life of the "Zhelyazkov" cabinet, or on the contrary - will it mobilize it?
- I don't see such a serious threat, because it is very difficult for these parties that claim to be the opposition to unite and find a common focus against the cabinet. They need 121 votes to overthrow the government. Given that Considering that the MRF - New Beginning also seems to have given up on their intention for quick elections at the moment and have obviously agreed in one form or another to protect their interests, I expect this cabinet to hold on. Of course, the big question that arises with the entry of “Majesty“ into parliament is that the sociologists' forecasts - including on election day, gave the opportunity for them to enter parliament. And we all ask ourselves whether this was not a bit played out in some way by politicians for some 21 votes to leave “Majesty“ out of parliament.

- With a vote of 3.9999%...
- For me, regarding the fact that the elections in our country are falsified, fabricated, some loud words that are spoken by many politicians, I have always reacted like this. If the elections are so manipulated and falsified, they should very seriously differ, once from the preliminary forecasts of sociologists and a second time from the forecasts made on election day. And we see that in all elections - especially on election day, the election results literally repeat what the sociologists and from various agencies have announced. So we cannot talk about a general change and falsification of the election process. In our country, this constant talk about how huge falsifications there are during elections leads only to one, unfortunately, very negative result - it increases the voter's doubt, creates enormous distrust in democratic institutions. This is a destructive approach.

The only thing I regret now is that a full count was not done.

Another thing. I hope that now this will serve and calm down the political passions around the election process a little. To convince voters that when everyone votes en masse, even if there are such deviations, they will be minimal. And another very important thing. If we think that somewhere in the world there are no such interventions in elections, we really are thinking almost like infants.

- But in this case, the counting of these 2204 sections changed 16 deputy seats, and that is no small thing?
- It is not small, but the thing is that these 16 deputy seats were changed on election day, because they depended on the entry of “Majesty“ into parliament. It was obvious to everyone that some 21 votes could very easily be shifted. I think that here there was rather some kind of manipulation to leave “Majesty“ out of parliament. Not that I like them or sympathize with them, but they got their votes. It's a pity for me that before you could enter parliament with 200-300 thousand votes, and now with some 100 thousand, that even under 100,000, you're already in. And this is due - let's face it, to the low voter turnout. It's simply the voter's choice not to participate again.

- Does “Majesty“ make the opposition stronger with these 10 new votes?
- No, because “Majesty“ itself is so unclear and chaotic as a party - and with serious suspicions of financial machinations and abuses. They don't have high public authority. The question is whether we even have one and which party has authority today. Somehow, over all these years that have passed, and especially over the last ten or so, the parties in our country have lost their attractive force. We already look like a society that is bored with politics, that is desperate for the possibility of making changes.

- With the entry of “Majesty“ and the reduction of the quorum that supports the cabinet, and as we hear from Boyko Borisov saying that now without Delyan Peevski nothing can be voted on… Does this make DPS – New Beginning a stronger player?
- I attribute this statement by Boyko Borisov to the fact that he is an emotional person. And this is so, because in order to vote on a budget or a law, the ruling party does not need an absolute majority, but they need a majority over the quorum. In this sense, Borisov's words are a bit overexposed for me. That's how I see things. For me, the real difficulties facing the “Zhelyazkov“ cabinet are less than they are trying to make them out to be. And in reality, they are not as numerous as Boyko Borisov portrays them in a very emotional story.

- At the same time, we see a reaction from Dogan's MRF, who even hinted that if Delyan Peevski's influence in the cabinet increases, they are considering their withdrawal…
- These are scumbags. Where will they go after they withdraw their support. Nobody wants elections right now. I think that there is currently a nervousness, a political dissatisfaction with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Yes, the situation is quite unconventional, new, but it is part of the democratic process. I think that the Constitutional Court acts according to the rules and the very fact that we have a unanimous decision means that the drama is not as big as some are trying to make it out to be.