Comment by Emilia Milcheva:
Bulgarian paradoxes are like the Bulgarian cauldron from that joke - supposedly those boiling inside want to get out, but the result is that they remain fried in the cauldron.
A recently published survey by the sociological agency "Alpha Research" found that over 56% of Bulgarians prefer the EU as a strategic partner. But they put the pro-European political force - the PP-DB coalition - in third position.
Only 19% choose Russia as a partner. But Rumen Radev, the leader of the "Progressive Bulgaria" coalition, which leads in all surveys, says that "the Bulgarian people do not perceive Russia as an enemy" and criticizes the caretaker cabinet for the security agreement with Ukraine. "Vazrazhdane" shares similar views. It turns out that those looking to Russia are a minority in terms of attitudes, but will be a parliamentary majority after the elections on April 19.
A third of Bulgarians place the fight against corruption and reform of the judicial system among the most important priorities. At the same time, trust in the institutions that are supposed to implement it - parliament, prosecutor's office, court - remains persistently low.
Bulgarians want justice, but they do not trust either the mechanism that can provide it, or the institutions.
They prefer the European Union, but they choose Eurosceptic parties.
Reason and feelings
Rational choices at the level of attitudes do not translate into real political results. Psychology knows that decisions are rarely rational - they are emotional, and reason comes later to justify them.
For example: everyone knows that the economy, investments, security, even the huge share of emigrant money are connected to the EU. But at the polls, other factors often prevail - disappointment with the parties that have betrayed hopes, anger at the elites, a sense of injustice. Thus, the vote becomes not a choice "for", but a vote "against" - against the status quo, against the ruling party, against someone. This keeps Bulgarians in the "cauldron". Each person knows where they want to go, but in the end they stay in the same place and the circle closes.
The most striking example is Brexit. Many in Britain realized the economic benefits of EU membership, but in the end they voted to leave the Community. The decision was driven not so much by economic arguments as by emotions about sovereignty and "taking back control".
And a recent survey revealed that most Britons - 58%, would vote for the United Kingdom to rejoin the EU in a new referendum.
Emotions are everything
And yet: why don't people connect the choice of the EU as a strategic partner with a pro-European party? Because apparently these are two different modes of thinking.
When asked who is the best strategic partner for Bulgaria, the answer comes automatically, like in an exam: "Of course the European Union. Euro, funds, stability". But when the question comes down to elections and voting, the thinking is different: "The bills are rising, everything is getting more expensive, there is not enough money, who will fix this now?". And then the citizen voter turns to someone who promises to fix things or simply inspires more trust in him.
In the first case, a person chooses the healthiest diet, in the second he orders a doner at 11:00 p.m.
The algorithms on social networks, to which everyone devotes a significant part of their time, also promote emotions, not reason. The result is that we put an emoticon before we have thought about the content, and rational debate gives way to emotions such as anger, fear or indignation.
Periods of crisis bring out our irrational choices. During the pandemic, for example, content that instilled fear, distrust of institutions or conspiracies spread significantly faster than expert information. Algorithms don't distinguish between truth and falsehood - they reinforce what holds attention, which is usually strong emotion.
Why the paradox deepens
Even if people know what is right, the daily flood of emotionally charged content shifts their choices. And so the paradox deepens not because information is lacking, but because it competes with strong emotions.
Take Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman's theory, called prospect theory, which explains how people make decisions under risk, especially when money is involved. His research shows that people do not always act rationally, but are often influenced by the way in which the choice is presented to them. For example: even when two options are essentially the same, most people choose the one that sounds more positive and promises a better outcome. Instead of calculating probabilities and benefits, they react emotionally to possible gains or losses and prefer to focus on short-term effects.
Regarding the cauldron and the Bulgarians in it - it is not so much who will get us out of the cauldron that matters, but who will better explain to us how it is actually not so hot inside.