Sometimes political gaffes are simply an occasion for irony. Other times, however, they raise much more serious questions. The latest public appearances of Boyko Borisov and Tsvetan Tsvetanov are precisely of the second type, because they concern a sensitive topic – national security and the responsibility of people who have held the highest positions in the state.
Within a day, we witnessed two situations that deserve more attention than another political scandal. Borisov commented on information presented by the services during a meeting of the National Security Advisory Council (NSAC), and Tsvetanov decided to boast of a photo with Kirill Budanov – the former head of Ukrainian military intelligence and current chief of staff of President Volodymyr Zelensky.
At first glance, the two events have little in common. However, at the heart of both lies the same question: should every piece of information and every important contact become a public asset for political prestige?
Borisov and the information from the National Security Council: Should everything be told in front of the cameras?
The National Security Advisory Council under the President is not an ordinary political discussion. It is a format in which representatives of institutions and parliamentaryly represented political forces discuss issues related to the security of the state. Some of the information presented there may be sensitive and require a special work regime.
That is why public statements after such meetings must be carefully considered.
After discussing the situation with the stricken vessels in the Black Sea, Boyko Borisov commented on the information about them and raised the question of whether there were people or military cargo on board. Thus, the content of the discussion of a sensitive topic became part of the public political debate.
Yes, not every information presented to the CSNS is automatically classified. In order to claim that a state secret has been disclosed, there must be specific grounds and it must be clear what the status of the relevant data was.
But even without making such legal conclusions, the question of political responsibility remains. When services present information about potential threats in the Black Sea, its public interpretation requires particular precision. The assumption that the ships were carrying people or military cargo is not proof that this was actually the case.
If there are doubts about the assessments of the services, they can be raised before the competent institutions. If there are grounds for some of the information to be disclosed, this should also be done in accordance with the established procedure.
A political leader has the right to criticize, ask questions and seek answers. But this does not mean that every detail to which he has access in the performance of his political functions should be turned into a public message.
Tsvetan Tsvetanov and the photo with Budanov: Why does discretion matter?
The second situation is related to Tsvetan Tsvetanov and the photo he published with Kirill Budanov.
Budanov is a figure with a key role in the Ukrainian security system. He headed Ukraine's military intelligence and later took over President Zelensky's office. His name is associated with the war, intelligence activities and the conflict between Kiev and Moscow.
His visit to Sofia was sensitive from a security point of view and was carried out under increased confidentiality. It is in this context that the appearance of a photo with him, published by the former interior minister, raises questions about the need to advertise such contact.
Tsvetanov is not a random person in Bulgarian politics. He has held the post of interior minister and should know the importance of operational discretion, especially when it comes to representatives of a country at war.
Budanov is the subject of Russian criminal prosecutions and is a figure for whom security considerations are particularly important. This does not automatically mean that the publication of the photo created a specific danger. Such a conclusion requires facts about the circumstances surrounding the visit and the protective measures taken.
But the question of why it is necessary to turn such a meeting into a public demonstration remains completely valid.
When it comes to a high-ranking representative of a warring state, personal PR should not be the driving motive. Even when there is no violation of a specific rule, the question remains of judgment and understanding the sensitivity of the situation.
The Common Denominator: Politics as a Demonstration of Access
In both cases, the question arises whether the demonstration of awareness and access to influential people does not push the need for caution into the background.
For politicians who have held high state positions, responsibility does not end with the end of their mandate or their diminished influence. The accumulated experience should also mean a better understanding of when information should remain within institutional boundaries and when publicity may have unintended consequences.
This does not mean that politicians should remain silent on matters of national security. On the contrary - the public has a right to information, and the authorities must be held to account. But there is a significant difference between transparency and indiscriminate disclosure.
Transparency implies answers, verifiable facts and clear accountability. Indiscriminate publicity can create insinuations, reveal sensitive circumstances or question the professional judgment of people who should know the system inside out.
National security is not a prop for television appearances. It is not a means to show how knowledgeable you are, nor an opportunity to demonstrate closeness to influential international figures.
When you have been at the top of power, you are expected to understand these things better than anyone else. You are expected to know that access to sensitive information and contacts with representatives of foreign countries bring not only prestige, but also responsibility.
Because sometimes the most important proof of experience is not what you know and who you are photographed with, but whether you understand when you should not talk.