Boyko Stankushev is the director of the Anti-Corruption Fund and a journalist with many years of experience. Ivaylo Noizi Tsvetkov talks to him:
DW: Can we generalize the world at the moment, especially with the obviously unstable Trump in my opinion? Do we need an equivalent of a reasonable Reagan to hold back Putin's new attempt at the USSR?
Boyko Stankushev: We cannot generalize the world at the moment precisely because Trump is unpredictable. And when the most powerful element in a system is difficult to define, the construct itself as a world is something unpredictable. And whether and how unstable it is, we will find out when the war in Ukraine is over. Still, I hope the dollar doesn't devalue, because the alternative is banknotes with hieroglyphs.
In your question, I sense a longing for Reagan, which I share. And there are at least two significant reasons for this. The first is known even to the simplest people - Reagan, who was initially considered by communist propaganda to be "weak brandy", destroyed the red part of the bipolar model on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and not a single gun fired. The second reason: he gave an open lesson to politicians on how words can be a weapon against evil. Ronald Reagan is the great communicator of the era, who managed to build a sense of incredible density of contact with both enemies and followers. It is no coincidence that he was elected by 49 states (in his second election appearance in 1984), which no one else could and no one will be able to do.
Yes, today civilization is simply crying out for a new and sensible Reagan, who would get in the way of the political posers, talkers and bureaucrats who are worryingly pushing us back to some dark times. Unfortunately, at the moment I have no trust, and even less respect, for anyone from the world elite. And what worries me most is the impotence and lack of ideas and vision of the European officials, who are spinning around like headless flies instead of hitting an insane butcher and misanthropist like Putin.
DV: Why does our Bulgarian attempt at democracy always seem to fail?
Boyko Stankushev: Because we actually have no democratic tradition. There have been few years since we became an independent state in which the intellectual potential of the nation has been free enough to move our destiny towards a social system in which democratic values are above all. The tragic image of Prince Battenberg, the mistakes of Ferdinand, some wrong moves of Tsar Boris III, including the ban on political parties, the pig-headedness of the simpletons who ruled until 1989 and brought the country to economic bankruptcy... After November 10, they managed to seize what little was left of the people's wealth. The hastily assembled democratic leaders (the first UDF) failed to understand in time that we will not build a new life with enthusiasm and optimism alone. All this led to our strange transition, in which the money remained with the representatives of the former nomenclature, which successfully mimicked and currently has about ten political faces claiming representation across the entire political spectrum.
The genesis of those represented in parliament is common, with some exceptions, which suffer from some kind of intellectual anemia and a deficit of working policies. The conclusion is that facade democracy will exist until the day when, in a purely quantitative aspect, all layers of citizenship, including the lower ones, do not make a categorical claim for honest and uncompromising political representation. And that in a pure way.
DV: Is there some kind of cognitive fatigue from the anti-corruption discourse, after the "generals" have been winning this battle for years and years? of corruption?
Boyko Stankushev: There has never been an anti-corruption wave in our country, only fleeting protests from a historical point of view. I assume, I cannot prove it, that when the power changes, some agreements have almost always been made about where and what should not be touched. As the people say: "A crow does not pluck out a crow's eye". Compromises have been made with political predecessors, which - if we use Trump's rhetoric - means only one thing: deals have been made. This became mercilessly clear when the BSP was returned to power in 1997. After the disaster of the Videnov government, should anyone take responsibility? Should anyone be tried for robbery and incompetent politics? Nobody!
"The red mobifones" (I quote Stefan Prodev) remained those who owned the national wealth. And everything is repeated to this day. So there is no fatigue from the anti-corruption discourse, because there has never been a fight against corruption in the high echelons of power. It is quite obvious that the institutions called upon for this are deliberately not working because they have been replaced and a key role is played in them by corrupt and dependent magistrates and all kinds of officials, leading the relevant agencies and other bloated and completely nefarious services. All published investigations by the "Anti-Corruption Fund", of which I am a part, unequivocally indicate exactly this. There are very well-established invisible mechanisms that guarantee the prosperity of the deep state, where the interests of politicians, shady and not so shady businesses, prosecutors, and recently some top judges are intertwined.
The money-making machine is served by scumbags of all calibers. As you can see, this is an unbreakable conglomerate of pure criminals. It will continue like this until something changes public attitudes - from observations to action. Some believe that this will only happen when it hits the nail on the head, i.e. when enough people painfully realize that stealing from the commons is stealing from your pocket as well. Until then, people will live in poverty and fear, and the influence dealers around Borisov and Peevski will do whatever they want.
DV: Is there a problem with the very statement of the problem - for example, the decisive difference between "piccolo" and "grande" corruption?
Boyko Stankushev: Petty corruption has existed for a long time. Bribery is a legacy of Ottoman times - an era in which you could not achieve anything if you did not give where you needed to. This mentality is literally screwed into our DNA. During the so-called socialism it was even worse - due to the chronic deficit, when everything material was acquired only with a bribe. From jeans and a cassette player to a note for state housing. So how can this people have a value attitude against corruption in general? "Grande" corruption, as you say, made its way after 1989 in a completely natural way. An aggravating, additionally burdening factor for progress was the inability of each one to protect and suffer for the people's wealth - a disease instilled by nationalization and the stupid planned economy on the Soviet model. In addition, the selective attitude of the GERB governments towards business - the type of "mother for some, stepmother for others", led to the bankruptcy of thousands of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, and this destroyed the belief in one's own capabilities in the minds of many. And this process continues in full force.
DV: Where and what are the so-called anti-corruption forces making a mistake?
Boyko Stankushev: I have difficulty defining the term "anti-corruption forces". At least at the current stage. Since, as I said above, the institutions called upon for this do not work, what remains is what is different from the state. It has nothing to do with anything other than the non-governmental sector, protecting the interests of citizens, free media, individual authorities in various segments of society, and the odd influencer.
As for the existing political entities raising their voices in this good direction: first, they are still quite weak against the organized mafia state, and second, they are often wrong, because the first job of a politician with claims to honesty should be dialogue and building synergy with ordinary people. From now on, no one in Bulgaria will succeed if they do not hear the messages of even the most ordinary person, if they do not make an effort to speak in understandable, not powdered and artificial language. You may be a genius, but there is always a way for live communication with the people you also count on to understand you. Here is the place to categorically note that no compromises with the caste of thieves, let alone new "assembly lines", cannot be justified from any moral point of view. No matter how quiet and crushed the ordinary person is, the robberies from the highway and gas transmission projects, the "Chiren" and "Kovachki" cases and many others will not be forgotten and forgiven. It's just that for now the fear and life-saving apathy of the population prevails.
DV: And now a little philosophically - the anti-corruption drum in our country beats deafeningly and daily, but time passes and nothing really changes. It turns out a bit like Diogenes and the Cynics or like in Baudelaire's "Flowers of Evil" - l'univers est égal à son vaste appétit, i.e. in the BG universe we keep coming across this world, equal to the irresistible appetite for theft.
Boyko Stankushev: I don't think that the anti-corruption drum beats so loudly. A large part of the speakers in this direction say something sometimes, but limit themselves to some theorizing, which is fruitless. The cynical thing is that even the leaders of the most "grande" corruption have the audacity to also imitate concern for the state of corruption itself. The larger media spin and suck, but do not go further than the level of observation. The irresistible appetite for theft is naturally innate to a significant part of individuals, but in normal societies - where the powers are separated - there is a regulated regulation for everything, and citizens have the guaranteed right not only to speak, but also to demand, i.e. such ugliness as Bulgarian corruption simply cannot exist. And it is no coincidence that in old democracies there is respect for the rule of law. And since you refer to Baudelaire, I am giving examples of a real sanction from France. Were François Fillon and Nicolas Sarkozy convicted? They were. In our country, the dog barks, the caravan moves on. I mean, even the biggest fool doesn't do as much work as a small axe.
DV: How does a traditional liberal tolerate the new Trumpist world?
Boyko Stankushev: It's difficult for me to answer, because I don't think the world has become Trumpist. And that it is different from yesterday, and in this sense new, is rather true. What Trump is doing is clear, but it is precisely what gives rise to anti-Trumpism, and not everyone in this field is exactly liberal. A new fermentation of both values and politics, and especially of the geopolitical, is in process. In a state of threat, thinking people, even if they are some idealists, begin to construct pragmatic models. On the way to this, I notice a certain blurring of ideologies, including in our country.
I prefer to think of myself as an "untraditional liberal", because unconventional conservatism is going against me. Trump is not traditional, he has nothing in common with Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who said: "There are two paths - right and wrong!". Trump is a money changer-speculator who must be approached unconventionally. Reagan spoke to the world, Trump speaks to traders. But this is the work of America itself, which, in addition to not disappearing, will gain experience, lessons and strength from the show in the White House.
DV: How do you imagine the Bulgarian politician (or politics in general) of the near future? Let's say, within ten years?
Boyko Stankushev: Because of the corruption debauchery, the lack of even ideas for political philosophy and accessible ideologies, and because of the chronically crushed citizenship - I don't know, I can't answer within this framework. I can imagine that those who try to squeeze us with some form of dictatorship will actually unleash public energy sooner than would happen in the current state of prevailing whining and apathy. And enthusiasts for this exercise are even now hanging around the party top brass. I can also imagine charismatic and enlightened leaders who respect their people, who work not only for their proxies or voters. And I believe that such people have already been born and are warming up at the touchline. As for which force will put them on the field and whether it will be something other than universal popular anger, it depends on us. But it is also a matter of enlightenment to initiate this process.
DV: I envy you for this optimism, honestly. But why and how did the longing for the secondary Anglocentric Western world, otherwise passionate during the late socialist era through pop culture, but not only, become disenchanted in our country?
Boyko Stankushev: Yes, there is a crisis of longing, the first reason being that once something is already available, it is no longer a longing. Longing is always for some ideal image. Something like blind love. The second reason is related to the outflow of two million people precisely into that world. There they have rights, but they also have obligations. Their success depends on themselves, and they live in a more complex coordinate system than under socialist rule. Under socialist rule it was black and white, and the outside world is complex. But as we see, all these people do not return, because when they draw the line, they see where their interests and especially the interests of their children stand. In this sense, it can be said that sociology is on the border - wherever they go, it is better for them. By the way, I have acquaintances and even friends who have become millionaires in Europe and America, but they also sometimes grumble and complain. They are unlikely to be disenchanted and will return to realize themselves here.
DV: And finally: are you afraid of Putin? Do you pile up canned goods in the basement?
Boyko Stankushev: You should have asked this question first, because if I were afraid, this conversation would be unnecessary. I am afraid of the stupidity of those who are truly afraid of Putin. This is no less harmful than worshiping Putin. I am not afraid, but I have the tangible feeling that Europe cannot make sense of the war in Ukraine, does not react quickly and adequately, and although there will be nothing terrible like a second war, additional damage will be inflicted on the consciousness of the European peoples, because their trust in the strength of the union is collapsing. This, with the assistance of ultra-left and ultra-right idiots, will lead to a serious political crisis that will not pass in a year or two. For Bulgaria, as a country without any reserves and without a strong government, the damage will be very heavy. So, whoever wants it, why not stock up on canned goods?