The presidential campaign did not offer a meaningful political conversation, and the debate between Iliyana Yotova and Andrey Gyurov failed to compensate for this deficit. Why did the main candidates face each other only before the runoff, what was left out of their conversation and to what extent will the election of the president become an assessment of Rumen Radev's political legacy? Political scientist Milen Zhelev spoke to FACT.
- Mr. Zhelev, before the first round you defined the presidential election campaign as devoid of meaningful political conversation, and the low voter turnout as a “malignant tumor of Bulgarian democracy“. After the first round and the debate between Iliana Yotova and Andrey Gyurov, did you change your assessment?
- Partly, because we finally had a meaningful conversation in a specific debate between the two favorites for the presidential post. The important topics that concern the entire Bulgarian people were touched upon, but the format of this debate was extremely inadequate for these sensitive topics. What do I mean? A debate between the main political opponents for the head of state could have been held even before the first round, where these topics would have been touched upon, and now, in this debate, they would have been further developed. In practice, we heard for the first and last time the main candidates and what they intend to do if they manage to win the presidential post of “Dondukov“.
I would point out that the format of this debate was not good enough, because in developed democracies for years there have been teams of fact-checkers to check the candidates' claims, and not leave this to biased journalists from other media. Still, the prestige and authority of public television can handle this task. But unfortunately, we had just one leading moderator and one studio with two candidates who faced each other in a deadly battle, but in the first and last debate to offer the people to decide who will be the new president of Bulgaria.
- Before the first round, however, we had many more candidates and the debate cannot be reduced to just two, three or four…
- There were indeed 27 presidential candidate pairs, and this record number is probably due to the loophole in the law that allows candidates with a small number of signatures to achieve their five minutes of fame and, of course, the subsidy of 20 thousand euros, which is quite appetizing.
There are indeed disadvantages in this format, but several presidential candidate debates can be organized very easily. In fact, the unwillingness of certain candidates to have such debates was the real reason we did not see them. I am referring not only to the debate between the presidential candidates, but also to the debate that did not take place between the vice-presidential candidates. In this case, there are no innocents for refusing the debate.
I am specifically mentioning the two presidential candidate pairs. Initially, Yotova refused Gyurov a debate before the first round, and on the other hand, when we talk about the vice-presidents, they also did not stand up for a debate because Andrey Gyurov's vice-presidential candidate - Georgi Kandev, also refused a debate. So there are no innocents in this case, and they owed this to Bulgarian society.
- One of the main clashes in the debate was the Russia-Ukraine war and security in the Black Sea. Yotova talks about peace negotiations, while Gyurov insists on clearly naming the threats. What are the real consequences for Bulgaria of these two different approaches?
- The real consequences will be visible as soon as the new president takes office. This is indeed a sensitive topic that leaves no one in Bulgarian society indifferent. But even if they had talked about it alone in a two-hour debate, they would not have had enough time, because the topic is extremely comprehensive.
In my opinion, both candidates - Yotova and Gyurov - deliberately avoided this topic in their campaign and in the debate it was also touched on very briefly. Yes, it was touched on, but not as much as I, as a spectator, wanted to see what they thought. I assume that a large part of Bulgarian voters would also like this.
They tried to include in the debate not only topics such as national security, but also the economy, as well as all other public topics, including relations with North Macedonia - for example, a topic that was neglected in the candidates' campaigns before.
- To what extent has the runoff that we will see turned into a kind of referendum on Rumen Radev's political legacy? Are voters choosing between two candidates or for and against the governance model?
- Look, we cannot avoid the topic of Mrs. Yotova being the unspoken candidate of “Progressive Bulgaria“. Because “Progressive Bulgaria“ is the ruling party at the moment and indeed, on the one hand, her possible victory would solidify their full majority, because they have one in the National Assembly. They would continue their broad horizon of action within a four-year mandate.
- But have we already seen this situation of having a president and those in power from the same party, because we had GERB and Plevneliev?
- Of course. Bulgarian democracy already has enough examples of both complete power – I mean GERB and Plevneliev, and the opposite - having a president who opposes those in power.
But let me finish my thought. If the eventual head of state is Andrey Gyurov, this will be interpreted by Bulgarian society as a signal of a decline in trust in the ruling party. This would motivate the opposition to organize protests, for example now, during the heating season, and thus try to prematurely overthrow this ruling majority.
- Andrey Gyurov is defined as an independent candidate, although he is supported by “We Continue the Change“ and “Democratic Bulgaria“, while Yotova has the support of the BSP and “Progressive Bulgaria“. Is an independent presidential candidacy really possible in Bulgaria?
- It is probably possible, because there have been many candidates over the years who have tried to take advantage of this opportunity, but in practice this is unrealistic.
I would say that the candidates are using the already clichéd and not so effective way of running for president through an initiative committee that presents itself as non-partisan. The leitmotif is used that the president is the unifier of the nation, that is, the head of state of all Bulgarians, and not of this or that party.
The second round of elections will prove that without the support of the main political formations, there is no way to elect a head of state, and this is quite natural.
- Before the first round, you criticized the candidates for not talking about the real powers of the president - the right of veto, decrees, referendums and the possibilities of influencing the political process. Did the debate change this picture?
- No, because we did not hear a single word on this issue. Presidential powers in Bulgaria are somewhat limited, but in the debate we did not hear these words: decree, referendum, right of veto. And last but not least, in my opinion, when talking about national security, international relations and foreign policy of Bulgaria, they can be the main function of the new head of state, if he wants to, of course.
And this is precisely what gives him a fairly wide perimeter of action, which is not so much described as constitutional powers as it is as real instruments for Bulgaria's influence on the international stage and for the vision towards Bulgaria's external partners and the whole attitude in which Bulgaria expresses its position.
The head of state has the opportunity for a fairly wide perimeter of action, if he knows how to use it and does not focus on the country's internal politics.
- Will the army of non-voters manage to recognize their man between one of the two candidates?
- No. The box on the ballot “I do not support anyone“ will remain as popular, regardless of whether 50, 60 or 100 thousand people vote for him, because a large part of the voters who are really interested in the political process in Bulgaria, but do not manage to find their candidate, do not always manage to find the motivation to go to the ballot box. But I would urge that there should be no such apathy. If a Bulgarian citizen who has the right to vote cannot choose his candidate, let him still find the strength, motivation and time to go and cross out the "I do not support anyone" box, because it is not just about voter turnout. It is about a civic duty with which he shows his attitude towards Bulgarian democracy.
There is nothing shameful in not finding his candidate. But every Bulgarian citizen must show that he is engaged in the political processes. This is also a signal to future candidates for head of state.