There is nowhere to go - everyone will be with me. Whether now, or the next parliament, because people decided that “DPS - New Beginning“ is the second party, it may even be the first in the next elections. This was commented on by Delyan Peevski to the media in parliament. Is there a new situation in the National Assembly that would be expressed in support for the “Zhelyazkov“ cabinet… Political scientist Ralitsa Simeonova speaks to FACTI.
- Ms. Simeonova, whether they want to or not, the parties in parliament are leaning towards DPS - New Beginning and Delyan Peevski. How did this happen?
- A special dynamic we observe in the parliament. It is also evident in the budget vote, when some of the texts were not supported by the MRF-DPS, but received the support of Peevski's "New Beginning". In this sense, the ruling majority (GERB, BSP, "There is such a people" and MRF-DPS) no longer seems consolidated and stable, as the participation of Dogan's MRF has been questioned, especially after "Majesty" entered the National Assembly. In this context, the role of "DPS-New Beginning" - as a supporting party for the government, is becoming increasingly important for its functioning and survival.
- The role of MRF-New Beginning is now clear – they are indispensable as votes, but where is Dogan's MRF left. Are they needed for governance?
- In the process of forming this government, Dogan's MRF was used as a screen to conceal Peevski's influence in the government. Obviously, MRF-DPS are not getting what they want, being part of the ruling majority, and this could lead to their official withdrawal from it and from the cabinet. If this scenario becomes a reality, the cabinet will have to rely on the support of dynamic majorities and Peevski's "New Beginning" will truly become an unavoidable factor in terms of its survival.
- We have an adopted budget so that the state can pay its bills. Will we now see clear ruling and opposition parties?
- And now it is officially clear who are the ruling parties, who are in opposition, and who plays the role of a supporting party. But the question is whether this ruling majority will not disintegrate in the short term, what is the capacity of the opposition and how long the cabinet will govern. So far, we do not see any long-term management strategy, it is rather prioritized and acts ad hoc. I believe that this government will continue to exist until the moment when Peevski and Borisov decide that it is more profitable for them to govern through a caretaker cabinet, instead of a regular one. And this decision also depends on geopolitical dynamics.
- The “Majesty“ party entered the parliament. How do you view this - there are now 9 parties…
- Every political force that has received enough votes to have parliamentary representation must be in the National Assembly - regardless of whether we like it or not. We have yet to see what the behavior of the “Majesty” party parliamentary group will be and how it will position itself in relation to the governing configuration. Regarding positioning, the options for a political entity are to be an opposition, a "supporting party" in relation to the government or to become part of it. For now, "Majesty" has chosen the role of opposition. However, since the ideological profile of this party is not entirely clear, and we can hardly trust their preliminary statements, it is too early to make assessments of what the behavior of their parliamentary group would be in the future.
However, the question is more fundamental and concerns the extent to which the last parliamentary elections were fair, free and legitimate. We witnessed massive violations, manipulations and voter substitution. As a result, reasonable doubts arose about the credibility of the results and trust in the electoral process was seriously shaken.
With its decision, the Constitutional Court seemed to have created more problems than it solved. He both admitted that serious electoral violations had been committed and rejected the request for a complete annulment of the elections. Thus, he not only failed to contribute to restoring citizens' trust in the electoral process, but became an accomplice in undermining it and concretizing political apathy. That is why the question of the legitimacy of this parliament and, respectively, of the government elected by it continues to stand.
- Another small party, MECH, has collapsed. What is the role of the small ones in parliament?
- The dissolution of the MECH PG left the feeling that it was more of a subjective political act that was not synchronized with the applicable institutional logic and the spirit of the Constitution. We will see what its consequences will be, but what is happening is definitely destroying the little trust that remains in the parliament as an institution.
However, we see that MECH is skillfully taking advantage of the situation, consolidating support and solidifying its opposition image.
Beyond appearances, it may turn out that this situation works well for the party. If nothing changes and its MPs remain independent in the future, it will be interesting to follow their parliamentary activities and whether they will continue to act in sync or some of them will be used situationally to ensure the ruling majority in key votes. Nothing is now ruled out and such a hypothesis is permissible.
And as for the "small" in parliament, this is a question whose answer depends on the specific situation. Usually, the weight of individual political forces in parliament is determined by the number of their parliamentary seats, but when, for example, a given governing majority depends on the votes of small parliamentary groups, then their importance increases significantly. In such a hypothesis, they can even dominate the process of making political decisions and successfully impose their personnel, as well as their own political agenda, turning it into management priorities and a program. So, not always "the small" are "small" and not always "the big" dominate.
- „DPS-New Beginning" provides support, but for how long. With their votes, the cabinet is stable, but if they suddenly stop…
- „DPS-New Beginning" will support the government as long as they have an interest, i.e. while they manage to push their own political agenda and recruit through it. They are unlikely to become part of the ruling majority, for at least three reasons. First, because GERB, and the other parties represented in the government, would hardly agree to such an official collaboration, as they would suffer very serious reputational damage. Second, because Peevski's formal participation in the government would generate a strongly negative public reaction. And third, because there is no need. We see that even now Peevski manages to influence the decision-making process within the government. This situation still seems quite uncomfortable for Borisov, who is very ridiculously trying to distance himself from the government, shifting all responsibility onto the Prime Minister. This, of course, is absurd, since GERB is a mandate holder and is the largest party represented in the government.
- What is the alternative to BSP and ITN as participants in the cabinet. According to recent sociological research, the ITN is on the verge of or below the threshold for entering the government. What does this mean...?
- They do not have many useful moves. With their decision to become part of the current coalition government, both political parties ignored the commitments made to their own voters, preferring to generate some situational political dividends. If we accept the hypothesis that early parliamentary elections are about to be held in the short term, both would probably suffer serious electoral losses.
It would not be surprising if they fail to pass the 4% threshold.
Such an expectation follows normal political logic, that the decision to participate in this ruling coalition does not correspond to the previously launched messages and requests by these two parties. This lack of consistency has certainly disappointed a significant part of their voters. But since we saw what massive violations, vote substitution and manipulations we had in the previous elections, the real electoral weight of individual political entities no longer seems to matter much. We are left with the impression that it is not the vote of the voters that determines the election result, but other factors that determine which political forces will receive parliamentary representation and which will not. Taking into account these circumstances, making predictions becomes difficult and sometimes pointless, because the relevant scientific methods cannot be adequately applied where the political process is subject to systematic deinstitutionalization and is guided not by the rules, but by the interests of informal centers of power with an oligarchic character. In this sense, I would not rely on sociological surveys as any kind of guide.
However, a distinction must be made between the ITN and the BSP. While the ITN can largely be seen as a leading party with a populist character, the collapse of this political formation would hardly have fundamental consequences for the party system, because its place could quickly be taken by another similar entity with a similar profile. We see that there are already a surplus of such. But as for the cataclysms in the BSP, they could not only lead to a total and long-term collapse in support for this party, but also to a vacuum in the left-wing political space. At this point, no entity with the potential to occupy this niche is emerging. It remains to be seen whether all this peculiar political dynamic that we have been observing recently will not lead to a reformatting of the party system at some point.