The fist and the kick with a Cuban knife against the law – who is stronger? This pattern is particularly clear in the reactions to the murder of Georgi Kuzev in Plovdiv. This is an extremely serious case that caused strong public outrage because of the way in which, according to the information provided, the crime was committed, and because of the age of the young people associated with it – 15-17 years old. It is precisely such cases, in which the cruelty and humiliation of the victim seem incompatible with normal human behavior, that give rise to the feeling in society that the line has been crossed and that the institutions must give a categorical response. And when this response is delayed or seems insufficient, anger easily takes its place – and with it the temptation for someone to administer justice themselves.
There is an unpleasant regularity in the development of young democratic societies: when the law exists on paper, but too often is not applied in practice, not only the attitude towards institutions begins to change, but also the very feeling of justice of people.
Then the dangerous conviction appears that if the state does not punish the guilty, someone else must do it.
This is exactly where the explanation for the attraction of some young people to nationalist or radical groups that assume the role of judges can be sought. They start from a real social problem - the feeling of impunity - but come to a completely different and much more dangerous conclusion: if the law does not work, we will be the law.
Examples of crimes against children, serious assaults and murders inevitably generate anger. When society sees perpetrators who it believes are not receiving adequate punishment, or cases where justice drags on for years, a sense of injustice builds up. At such times, a specific case can become a symbol and a reason for mobilization.
This is especially strong among young people. They are looking not only for a political idea, but also for an example of action. When they see a group that demonstrates confidence, strength, and willingness to “restore justice“, the temptation to follow it becomes greater. And when the state seems powerless, the radical group begins to look like its alternative.
However, here lies the great deception.
Democracy does not mean that everyone can apply their own understanding of justice. On the contrary - one of the most difficult achievements of a civilized society is precisely the refusal of personal revenge. The state monopolizes legal coercion so that society does not turn into a collection of private courts, penal squads and people who themselves determine who is guilty and what they deserve.
The fist and the kick with a Cuban against the law are the exact opposite of justice, but who is stronger... They may seem like strength where institutions seem weak, but in fact they are an admission of the failure of the civilized order. Because the moment a person decides that his personal judgment gives him the right to punish another, the law is no longer a general rule, but simply an obstacle.
Therefore, the emergence of groups that "take the law into their own hands" is not proof of the strength of democracy. It is a warning that democratic institutions are not fulfilling one of their most important functions - to convince citizens that justice can be achieved through legal means.
This is not just a Bulgarian phenomenon. Similar movements and radical groups exist in different countries – including in Western Europe, the United States and Russia. Their ideologies may be different, but the mechanism is often similar: distrust of institutions, a sense of threat, a search for an enemy and a belief that the official state is too weak or corrupt to protect “normal people“.
Here too, Bulgaria has its own particular problem.
Bulgarian society is still building the institutional culture of a relatively young democracy. We are still arguing not only about what the laws should be, but also whether they apply equally to everyone. When one is left with the impression that serious crimes are not punished quickly enough and fairly, that victims are left alone, or that the consequences of a crime are not assessed seriously enough, a deep dislike for the perpetrators and for the system that is supposed to punish them emerges.
This dislike is understandable.
It becomes dangerous when it turns into an ideology. Because there is a huge difference between righteous indignation against a criminal and hatred for an entire category of people. There is an even bigger difference between punishment for a specific crime and persecution of people for who they are.
This is where a clear line should be drawn. Pedophilia and crimes against children are a matter of criminal law and the protection of victims. The sexual orientation of an adult is not a crime in itself and cannot be a reason for self-harm, persecution or violence. If this line is removed, the fight against crime can very easily turn into a hunt for the "different".
And this is no longer justice. This is the beginning of arbitrariness.
The true growth of a democratic society is probably measured precisely by this - whether it can bear its anger without turning it into violence; whether it can insist on harsh and effective punishment without abolishing the law; whether it can protect victims without turning society into a crowd of judges.
Therefore, the problem of radical groups should not be viewed only as a problem of "bad ideas". Sometimes behind these ideas lies a real and painful public feeling: that the state does not see, does not hear, and does not punish enough.
If this feeling is left unanswered, someone will inevitably offer their own answer.
First they will say: “The state cannot.“
Then: “We can.“
And finally: “We are the law.“
It is precisely at this moment that democracy is faced with one of its oldest questions: who has the right to punish?
The answer of the democratic state must be simple – not the one who is the angriest, the strongest, or the noisiest, but the one to whom the law has given that power and who is obligated to exercise it fairly.
Because if the law is not enforced, the solution is not to replace it with the fist. The solution is to make the law work again.