Author: Emilia Milcheva
DV: Mr. Enev, the cabinet resigned, but the draft budget for 2026, slightly adjusted compared to the initial version, has already passed its first reading. The chance of it being finally adopted is debatable, but in its current form, how is the burden of the measures set out in it distributed?
Zlatko Enev: The question is who pays the bill and who actually benefits. The initial draft, which sparked the protests, envisaged higher social security contributions, a doubling of the dividend tax from 5 to 10% and a significant increase in the burden on gambling. That is, there were elements of a fairer distribution - but presented rudely, without explanation and with the traditional distrust of the state. After mass protests, the government withdrew this project and submitted a revised one: there is no longer an increase in either the dividend tax or pension contributions, and the total tax and social security burden for 2026 remains almost unchanged.
In this sense, the new option protects the vulnerable rather indirectly - through promises of higher salaries and pensions - but avoids encroaching on privileged sources of income. In the country with the highest inequality in the EU and the fifth most unequal in the OECD according to the Gini coefficient, this means that the system practically cements the existing stratifications. So the budget can soften some of the sharpest wounds, but it does not change the architecture of inequality.
DV: Whose philosophy is behind this draft budget, defined by the outgoing Prime Minister Zhelyazkov as a “social protection budget”?
Zlatko Enev: The coalition was formally broad – “left” party side by side with center-rightists and conservatives. However, in the numbers we see not a synthesis, but classic survival mechanics: maximum preservation of the status quo with minimal social tension.
First: the refusal to increase the tax on dividends and social security shows that the priority is to appease business and the wealthier classes, and not an active policy against inequality. Second: the planned spending on wages, pensions and social benefits is sufficient to prevent open rebellion, but not to reverse the trend of impoverishment and emigration.
There is no clear vision for the three-year period – neither for what kind of economic structure we want, nor what public services we want to finance through the budget. There is a framework for the numbers, but there is no narrative for the country. This contrasts sharply with Rachel Reeves’ British budget, which – whether we like it or not – formulates a clear choice: more taxes on wealth and property against an ambition for stronger social protection. In Bulgaria, such a frank choice is simply missing. Rosen Zhelyazkov’s budget is far from the vision of a more cohesive and fairer society.
DV: The Eurozone and the “big conversation” – what do we actually see?
Zlatko Enev: Formally, from January 1, 2026, Bulgaria will enter the eurozone. In theory, this should be the moment when society asks itself the question: “Where to now?“ – what kind of country do we want to be inside this club.
In practice, we see the opposite: Euro membership is treated as the final stop of the Transition, not as the start of a new stage. The budget does not answer the question of how this larger fiscal and financial-institutional framework will be used – whether for poverty reduction, for investments in education and health or for modernization of the administration. Instead of “big talk” we have a small tactic: to put out the current fire, avoid sanctions from Brussels and distribute some additional money to key groups.
In a country where 19% of the population lives in severe material deprivation – three times the EU average, not having any strategic discussion about the direction is already a political choice in itself. Rosen Zhelyazkov's budget is far from the vision of a more cohesive and fairer society.
DV: Given the inequalities found in Bulgaria, there is a need for a left, but what "left"?
Zlatko Enev: Honestly, in our country the word "left" has been so historically compromised that it is better to talk about elementary standards of a modern European welfare state. Bulgaria is among the most unequal countries in the EU - both in terms of income and "inequality of opportunities", i.e. a person's chances depend to a huge extent on which family and region he was born into.
What we need is not an ideological “left”, but a pragmatic minimum: – a tax system that benefits not only capital but also labor; – strong public services – schools, hospitals, transport – also in poor regions; – an active policy against child poverty and early school leaving; – protection of the working poor, who today pay the bill for everyone. In this sense, Bulgaria needs more justice, not more “left” slogans.
DV: The protests have already caused the government to resign, but can civic energy lead to a transformation of the state?
Zdravko Enev: The latest protests have shown two things. First, that society still has red lines – when the state tries to shift the burden in the most brutal way, people take to the streets and the government backs down: the draft budget was withdrawn after mass demonstrations in Sofia. Second, sociological data showed that over two-thirds of Bulgarians support the protests, and support is particularly strong among the younger generation. This is an important signal that a new generation no longer accepts “no point” as an answer.
But protests are by definition a negative tool – they stop bad decisions, but they do not create good policies. For there to be transformation, a second stage is needed: formulating clear, realistic demands – who pays what, what gets in return – and political actors ready to turn them into consistent solutions, not election promises.
In other words: protests can be the beginning of meaningful change, but only if we move from “no, we don't want that“ to “here's what we want – and here's how we plan to pay for it“.