Nearly 1.1 million votes for Iliana Iotova versus 750,000 votes for Andrey Gyurov in the second round of the presidential election. Iotova doubled her first-round result, while Gyurov increased his by two-thirds. However, at least half of Iotova’s doubled result came from other parties, meaning that in actual votes she received barely half as many as those who voted for „Progressive Bulgaria“ in the parliamentary elections in April.
At least half of Gyurov’s increased result also came from parties other than PP and DB, but despite this, he exceeded the result achieved by PP-DB in April. Therefore, despite all the qualifications regarding the accuracy of the exit poll data and the correlation between parliamentary and presidential voting, it can be said that the governing parties are steadily losing support, while the democratic opposition is expanding slightly.
Coalitions along the Russia–West axis
The dividing line between the two electoral blocs in the presidential vote is mainly geopolitical, along the Russia–West axis. On one side are „Progressive Bulgaria“, „Revival“, the Bulgarian Socialist Party, VMRO and „Greatness“; on the other are PP, DB, GERB and DPS. This main line of political grouping, referred to by both sides as a „coalition“, is also changing the picture of groupings along the other two main political divides: corruption versus anti-corruption and left versus right, not least because it normalizes them. And when „coalition“ becomes synonymous with all political groupings, it loses its stigma.
An anti-corruption coalition
The governing parties’ accusation that Gyurov, PP and DB engaged in coalition-building stems from the issue of corruption, insofar as GERB and DPS are regarded by both „Progressive Bulgaria“ and PP and DB as carriers of the corruption model. However, Gyurov’s refusal to seek binding support from parties, including GERB and DPS, was also a significant reason for his electoral defeat—otherwise, he could have received many more votes from their supporters. But this now leaves DB and PP free to form a coalition with „Progressive Bulgaria“ over the election of the Supreme Judicial Council and anti-corruption policies. At the same time, PB can pressure PP and DB to provide their votes in parliament on this issue, but it cannot reject the votes of GERB and DPS either. It could even itself face accusations of coalition-building with them if, for example, some members of the SJC are elected not merely with the participation of GERB and DPS, but with votes from GERB and DPS instead of from PP and DB.
Coalitions on the left and right
PP and DB split along the left-right axis as early as May. The divide was reinforced after the presidential election, when on the night following the second round PP leader Asen Vasilev did not even stand alongside Gyurov with the DB leaders and, in a separate statement, emphasized PP’s independent political and economic course. DB, meanwhile, often takes positions similar to those of GERB on the right regarding the budget and will probably also be closer to GERB than to PP on the new 2027 budget. PP will likely criticize PB’s budget from a more socially oriented position, which will bring it closer to the BSP and „Revival“.
PB’s political profile
The ideological profile of „Progressive Bulgaria“ remains two-faced—left-wing expectations versus a predominantly right-wing programme and initial steps in government that are not particularly socially oriented. It will take clearer shape with its new regular budget, but the party appears set to establish itself as a centrist catch-all party claiming to represent broad sections of society. Its leader, Rumen Radev, will continue to be the main source of legitimacy and connection with the „people“, but if the party follows the development of its predecessor GERB, it will have to do more than win local government next year in order to establish itself as a sustainable political formation; it will also have to build a more professional governing team at the national level, as GERB evolved during its periods in power.
New political platforms
Andrey Gyurov’s political capital after the election, amounting to 750,000 votes, cannot be squandered and should be invested. On the night after the election, he himself signalled this with his words that a genuine civic alternative had been created, providing a good platform for subsequent unification around common goals. What form this investment will take remains to be seen, but the options are varied: from a new party structure to a horizontal non-party structure that could bring together broader electoral constituencies both within and beyond the democratic community.
Political processes within the democratic community over the past decades have usually led to periodic electoral expansions through the emergence of new formations, which, however, have often come at the expense of the electoral absorption of previous ones, followed by a contraction in representation when new projects proved unsustainable. The current confederal state between PP and DB, in which centrifugal forces continue to run their course, appears to be the maximum possible arrangement for holding together the common electorate, at least on key issues such as geopolitics.
However, the emergence of a new party entity will probably once again come to a significant extent at the expense of one or the other formation. Therefore, the main task of a new „platform“ should be to strengthen the bridges already laid by the presidential vote to GERB voters and extra-parliamentary formations, as well as to the vast cohort of non-voters.
Thus, the legacy of the presidential election is far from being limited to the election of a head of state; it also involves opening up new opportunities for political groupings and winning supporters.