In a vote and re-vote, the parliament first decided to remove the security from the NSO of the leaders of GERB - Boyko Borisov, and of “DPS-New Beginning“ - Delyan Peevski, and after 30 minutes voted to keep it thanks to a sharp change in the vote of ITN. Velizar Enchev, Ambassador of Bulgaria to the Republic of Croatia (1997-2002), university lecturer, doctor of International Law and International Relations, spoke to Fakti on the topic.
- Mr. Enchev, the leaders of GERB and “DPS-New Beginning“ – Boyko Borisov and Delyan Peevski will continue to use state security. Why do people who work for the people need security?
- In a normal democracy, a politician is not protected by the people. When an ordinary MP or party leader relies on permanent state security, this is not an expression of trust, but a symptom of a deep rift between the government and society. In most EU countries, state security is functional, not personal. It is provided to positions and only in the case of specific official commitments or a proven threat. Ordinary MPs are not protected by presumption.
In Bulgaria, the NSO has long been transformed into a service that protects not institutions, but biographies and dependencies.
The protection of Borisov and Peevski does not protect democracy, it shows that the authorities are afraid of their own citizens and are paying for this fear with public funds.
- What was the move of the PP–DB with the request that the NSO not protect ordinary MPs - political or pre-election?
- In the European parliamentary context, this is a completely normal political issue, not a scandal. This is a technical correction of the legislation. In Bulgaria, however, it was presented as a “pre-election trick“, because it affected real interests. Yes, the PP–DB extracted a political dividend, but this does not negate the essence of the question: why does a civil service serve individuals, not institutions? The panicked reaction of GERB, DPS-NN, as well as the behavior of the BSP and ITN, only confirmed that the problem is deep and systemic.
- Initially, the bill was adopted on first reading in the plenary hall, but after a revote, the ITN group changed its position and abstained. Thus, the support for the proposal turned out to be insufficient and it was rejected. Cabinet resigns - this is understandable, but is the parliament also "resigned" after this looping of ITN?
- In a normal country, such a sharp change of position, without any argumentation, would lead to resignations or at least to public explanations. In Bulgaria, it passed without consequences. The ITN's behavior was not hesitation, but a demonstration of political submission. A parliament in which decisions are changed not after debate, but after a “recess“, is a parliament that has abdicated its role as an independent legislative body.
- The BSP voted heterogeneously – “for“, “against“ and “abstained“. Does this mean that the group is no longer monolithic?
- This is not healthy pluralism, but an identity crisis. Such a split on such a clear moral issue is a sign of a lack of leadership and shameful conformism. A left-wing party that cannot defend the principle that state resources are not a personal privilege of the powerful of the day is a party that has lost its social compass.
With this vote, the BSP once again earned the name BSP-New Beginning.
And with the passionate speech of Natalia Kiselova, who pleaded for the NSO of Borisov and Peevski to remain guarded, we understood who was who in the Centennial. One thing is clear - in the upcoming special elections, if some miracle happens and the BSP sneaks into parliament, it will once again throw itself into the coalition embrace of GERB and MRF-NN.
- There was a break between the first and second votes, and after it the entire ITN group changed its position. How did the deputies “rest”?
- Obviously not for reflection. In parliament, recesses are for clarifying texts, not for changing the political will. The synchronous change of the vote of an entire parliamentary group shows that decisions are not made in the plenary hall. This brings the ITN closer not to parliamentarism, but to clientelistic models, in which there is an external center of decisions.
- In the second vote, the total number of abstainers increased by three more BSP deputies and one independent. What kind of position is “abstain“. What does this
show?
- In the National Assembly “abstain“ is a refuge for political cowardice. This is a vote that says: “I know it is problematic, I am aware that it is shameful, but I do not have the courage to resist and stop it.“ Thus, truth dies, lies triumph, responsibility is blurred, and the status quo prevails.
- The third term of government went to the APS. Is this the most optimal option for President Rumen Radev?
- Within the framework of parliamentary logic - yes. The last term is used not so much to form a cabinet at any cost, but as a political signal. With this move, the president breaks the mantra that Delyan Peevski is the only representative of the Turkish electorate. By electing the APS for the third term, the president hit Peevski. This also raises the rather low authority of the Alliance for Rights and Freedoms and legitimately helps it regain the electorate taken from it by Peevski. Even if it does not lead to a government, this choice has political value because it shows that behind the scenes is not without alternative. It was logical to give the mandate to “Vazrazhdane“ as a third political force, but the above considerations, which have their own logic in our mafia-ridden country, obviously prevailed.