"The real opposition will appear in the parliamentary elections. The more the state agonizes, and it is currently agonizing, the bigger the wave will rise". This was stated to the Bulgarian National Radio by Prof. Daniel Valchev - Dean of the Faculty of Law of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski".
According to him, the presidential elections will not measure the state and support for the government.
"The big question is whether there will be a president in opposition to the current government or someone who is more of a sympathizer of the current government. A candidate who is against this government has a better chance".
"Participating in active politics is not my dream", said Valchev regarding the inclusion of his name as a participant in the elections.
"Theoretically, I do not rule it out, but I see very, very little chance of getting involved in such things".
According to him, the ruling majority is not conservative, but corporate:
"Borisov managed to keep two quite different wings in his party - one is quite pro-liberal, and the other - people who are more associated with conservative ideas. This is a great achievement, because they are difficult to keep in one organization. By keeping them, he can combine with both - as he pleases. And whoever is deceived into joining, he gently embraces him, tickles the python - crunch and he ends. As will happen now with the BSP, with the ITN. Peevski is a little big for him. I don't know what will happen - who with whom. This is not an ideological majority".
"A country makes its policies through the budget", Professor Valchev also pointed out and explained:
"We can understand what kind of government is governing us by what kind of budget it will adopt. This is an inertial budget - spending without growth, spending for the sake of spending itself, there are no policies, money is given to certain groups. There are extremely inflated revenues. The deficit will probably be well over 3%. We continue to go into debt. And it is not clear why we are doing all this. We live in very high inflation".
For him, the president is very late in raising the issue of the euro referendum. However, Radev is emerging as the main alternative.
In an interview for the program "Politically Incorrect", Prof. Daniel Valchev emphasized the idea of the separation of powers. The point of this is that people are afraid that whoever they give power to, he may act in the wrong way and therefore he should not be able to do everything, he explained and added:
"The National Assembly should not be able to do everything, someone should be able to stop it. The president should not be able to do everything, someone should be able to stop it. And what are we doing? We are going in the opposite direction - towards an omnipotence of the parliament".
He noted the changes that are made because at a given moment a certain person is not liked. But in a year it will not be him, but someone else, Valchev warned and added that this applies to the president, to the services, to the anti-corruption commission. He is categorical that the commission must be closed immediately.
Parliaments, no matter how they are formed, are a snapshot of society, the professor said. In his words, almost nowhere in the world can a law be passed in one day.
"It is not democracy itself that is to blame, but our reading of democracy. Let's just say this is a Baiganovian reading, which is presented as a global liberal achievement".
I always vote, declares Professor Valchev. According to him, the issue is that people do not vote not because they are not interested in what is happening, but because they do not believe that anything depends on them. This is present in all liberal democratic societies, he pointed out. According to him, people do not identify with those who are at the counter.
According to him, the weight of the technological vote is very great in Bulgaria. People do not believe that their vote will change anything in particular, he is categorical and added:
"Will we Bulgarians somehow manage to find a common ground so that society has a relative balance. Unfortunately, the faults have become such that they are already at the household level. We do not know how to conduct a dialogue, to listen to the other, to see if there are rational things".
Prof. Valchev highlighted 3 important things on which we must have a consensus:
"A society develops well if there are policies in the field of infrastructure, the human factor and order".
"Social differences are starting to affect health status more and more. These are serious things that will sooner or later spill out onto the streets,", he believes.
According to him, in Bulgaria we do not impose order. The rules must be for everyone, otherwise the rest creates conflicts, he pointed out.
"I'm not very optimistic that this type of civic energy - gathering in the square, who knows what will decide. Real civic energy should be in elections and everyone in their place should be intolerant of the things that are necessary".
Is democracy to blame or do we not know how to apply democracy?
"The easy answer is that democracy is very good, but we are stupid as a people and that is why nothing works out for us - this is the wrong answer. What we have been living in for the past decades is not just democracy, but liberal democracy. There is a basic contradiction in it between democracy, which is the collectivist principle - it stipulates that a society is governed either by the majority or with the consent of the majority. Liberalism, on the other hand, is an individualistic doctrine. This means that this majority cannot cross certain boundaries. This ratio between the collectivist and the individualist is not so easy. Western societies have not found a universal solution to these issues either. Such crises are constantly everywhere. "We have Balkan characteristics," commented Prof. Valchev.
He emphasized that democracy together with the free market provide much greater opportunities for human expression. However, from the years we have been living in this new system, a bad taste has remained in a large part of the population, he noted and explained:
"The large redistributions of wealth, according to a large part of Bulgarians, were carried out in a dishonest and non-transparent manner".
In 1989, there was an argument about how fast and deep the change should be, the professor reminded. And he continued his comment: "We did it slower than others, but in the end we made the change with the same depth".
Today the faults are not like that - they run between activist liberal globalism against nationalist conservatism, he emphasized. According to him, those in parliament do not express any deep ideological positions:
"These are party constellations that manage to gain temporary supremacy either through technological votes or propaganda".