The presidential campaign is already underway, and along with it, questions are being raised about the role of the head of state, the limits of presidential powers and the assessment of the institution's work. We have a record number of candidate-presidential pairs, we have a lack of convened meetings of the Council of State on topics that it should respond to crises… What should the conversation between the candidates and the public be like and what assessments should the contenders for the presidential post give about the current administration… Political scientist Kaloyan Metodiev speaks to FACTI.
- Mr. Metodiev, the presidential campaign has started with a record 28 candidate-presidential pairs. What is actually behind this huge number of candidates – real political desire for the presidential post or an attempt at media presence and positioning before the next parliamentary vote?
- There are several types of motivation. Some really want the power that comes from the institution. Others want to stay on the political field and count their voters - a solid core and a snapshot. Others want 20 thousand euro vouchers with which to pay for media time and become famous for their own purposes - singers, influencers, known for being famous. Others are probably "motivated" by someone to smear, scatter votes, and run a black campaign. That's more or less how I systematize them.
- You say that there is a "vacuum" in the presidential institution and that the big absentee in the price crises, the budget, the fires, and the war in Iran was the president. What specifically was the presidential institution supposed to do that it didn't do?
- One very simple thing. To implement the law. By law, the National Council of State Councils convenes every three months. Good or bad - it's a law. Yotova has violated it most brazenly. She has been president for nine months and should have convened 3 regular ones. Not to mention the extraordinary ones. For me, these are crises and require national efforts - prices, the budget, our involvement in the war against Iran by the government, the level of the Danube, which affects the nuclear power plant, trade, transport for all of Northern Bulgaria. Everyone along the way held government meetings or crisis headquarters. Here - zero. He didn't even veto the most antisocial and unfair budget in our recent history. I have no rational explanation for what the Bulgarian president was doing this year. Apart from going to the lyutenitsa holiday to stir the pot, some fairs and all kinds of celebrations and feasts.
- You define the presidential elections as a “huge stake“ for the governance of the country. What will change in the political model after October 25th – and do you think that these elections can have such an effect?
- Change is inevitable. Many scandals, incompetence, chaos and injustices have accumulated around the ruling party, and they are reflected in the presidential vote. They no longer have any useful moves. If the ruling party wins the elections in Yotova, it will be a Pyrrhic victory - with grips, machines, neighborhoods, clientele. The already enormous social tension that has accumulated will not be released, and so they will drive people out onto the streets. If they lose, it will be an assessment of the collapse of the government and they will again put people on the streets.
They have been going in this rut for five months now with the budget, the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria, international scandals, the cadres in power, insults to entire social groups, privileges, they raised their salaries, hiding the agreements with “Botash“, deteriorating social and economic indicators, a blanket increase in taxes, social security contributions, fooling around with pensioners, mothers, workers, the opposition, wild lobbying, oligarchic services (gambling, quick loans, medicines...), reneging on all promises, etc. They have no way out!
- All candidates must talk about the economy, budget and social systems. What are the three specific topics on which, in your opinion, the candidates cannot afford to remain without a position in this campaign?
- The campaign is for president. The position has its own powers and specifics. This is how it is constructed in the Constitution. To be a balancing center of power, a corrective, an anchor, an anti-crisis center of power (that's why the National Council of State is there). When a government does harmful things or outright stupid things - the president is there to point them out. When it does good, useful, fair things - to support them. He puts the final signature on the laws. The budget that was adopted is pro-corruption, pro-crisis. The European Commission, Fitch, banking associations, the Fiscal Council, the Ombudsman, all economists and financiers say so, we are in an excessive deficit procedure... The new budget that they are warming up to is higher taxes, taxation even on some food vouchers, new billions for scrapyard and obsolete weapons, chaos with the minimum wage, no reforms, no predictability, lobbying.
So this is the topic of today and it coincides with the campaign, right…
This is the most important law that affects everyone from babies to 100-year-olds. I want to hear an assessment from the candidates for the budget, the government and the incumbent president. Categorical and clear. What will they do with the institution after January 22?
- You consider Iliana Yotova an example of "what the president should not be" and you have severely criticized the pardons. What documents and facts stand behind your claim about five pardoned people?
- Official documents from the pardons on the presidency's website. The opposition is pulling out epicrisis reports, scandalous videos of dancing terminally ill drug lords, the Greek life sentences, the person detained again by the Ministry of Internal Affairs with kilograms of cocaine was pardoned by her. There is no way Yotova will get out of this scandal. It's too late. She cannot be a functional president. These are murderers on the streets, in cars, in homes, destroying thousands of destinies of families, children... Where do they pardon sellers of death like her? Only in Honduras. Let her go there to run. Here she has no moral right to be head of state. She is morally finished. What kind of president can she be? I am addressing the people in her Initiative Committee. There are several names with authority there. Leave! Admit your mistake. Otherwise, the stain will be on your careers for the rest of your careers.
- You said that Yotova did not convene the National Security Council despite important national security issues. What was the specific situation during her term in which, in your opinion, the convening of the National Security Council was particularly necessary?
- The war with Iran was particularly critical. The ayatollahs directly threatened us and warned that we were a legitimate target. Diplomatic notes were flying. The explanations of the progressives were ridiculous - there was only logistics. It's as if logistics is not part of the order of battle. There is no military operation without logistics. You can't even blow up an outdoor toilet, so what's left for large countries with a global scale. I said about the Danube. For me, this is an unfinished crisis. For prices. After all, we are in first place in the European Union in terms of fuel price growth on an annual basis - 35%. And with the minimum wage, at least liters of gasoline can be bought throughout Europe. Water shortages and fires. I would also call for youth aggression and gangs, which is a major social problem. The atrocity in Plovdiv was an occasion to bring all institutions together. But with Yotova and Radev, we clearly have different ideas about crises, about good and evil.
- Where should the line be between political analysis and active participation in the election battle?
- The things are connected. One cannot do without the other. Analysis is important for everything, and its use in the campaign is mandatory for everyone who has civil rights. Otherwise, it becomes plankton. Easy for manipulation, for propaganda. We have too many problems as a society to allow ourselves the luxury of making mistakes and wasting time.
- You claim that “throwing out the dirty water“ from politics is necessary. Which specific political practices and dependencies need to be eliminated and who is responsible for their existence?
- The mixing of business and politics. The oligarchy with which Radev ran his election campaign and then served through the budget. And he didn't even name a single name. Here is a wonderful and fresh example of behind-the-scenes, dependencies, bad practices, whatever he wants to call them. Using the judicial system as a bludgeon, to crush the opposition, to pressure, for political orders, to steal businesses. And this is a huge problem. In the summer, the progressives rejected the proposal that magistrate candidates for members of the Supreme Judicial Council declare membership in secret organizations and offshore accounts. Why? The responsibility lies with those who are connected to these networks of influence and owe their careers to them. They raise them and they put them down. I will cite a good example: psychiatrist Tsvetislava Galabova testifies to a meeting with Koprinkov, at which she was told that she had to participate in making a party out of the presidency (also a serious abuse) with the words: "The money is provided. Boyko's oligarchs are coming to us". That's it!
- Now that the campaign has officially started, what should be the conversation between the presidential candidates and the public in the next month, so that the vote does not simply turn into a clash of personalities and party campaigns?
- It should be an assessment of the current politics in the country. An assessment of the cabinet and parliament as actions. An assessment of the presidential mandate so far. How will the institution be structured in terms of staffing (team, regulators, Constitutional Court, generals), compliance with the law and the Constitution, use of powers (veto, pardons, citizenship). It does not have many powers, but it has the potential for a strong voice and influence in politics. Negative and positive. I think the example of the fist, abuses in party formation and party coups with state resources, the stolen protests that ended with a result of 131 deputies, proves my words that there is potential. It depends on how it is used. The statesman's talk in a positive sense is about order, rules, predictability, moral strength and security.