Many political scientists, sociologists and analysts - in most cases supporters of GERB - call on the opposition parties and especially PP and DB to humble themselves and support a government proposed by GERB. Because Borisov's party won the elections convincingly. And because there were other, more comprehensive reasons, which can be summarized in a set of three slogans: "In the name of national interests", "For the good of society", and "For the good of Bulgaria".
This comments on "Deutsche Welle" Ivo Berov.
Contradictory appeals
These slogans have a strange feature: they can be used as an argument not to form a government, but also on any other occasion. In general, the arguments and explanations of most analysts are so full of contradictions that they have no particular meaning, except for propaganda.
Until recently, for example, they called (together with the president, "There is such a people" and "Vazrazhdane") to dismantle the "assembly" because it was detrimental to Bulgaria and led the country to a dead end. Now they are calling for a new assembly of some kind of "assembly", because its absence was disastrous for Bulgaria and led the country to a dead end.
Until recently, they called on the PP and DB to comply with the promises made to their voters and to leave a government that would freeze them as a coalition and parties. Now they are calling PP and DB not to comply with the promises given to their voters and to support a government proposed by GERB, because otherwise they will disappear as a coalition and as parties.
Who needed all this
All these analysts somehow distractedly miss a very important question: "Who needed the disassembly of the assembly, if now it has to be assembled again...?".
They pass it by because they would not like the correct answer at all: Borisov "dismantled the assembly" because he understood that after the constitutional changes and the proposals for the way to elect the presidents of the SJC, the services and the regulators, he could not only to lose power and influence, but also to become a target of the judicial justice desired by most Bulgarians.
Because the main contradictions in our society are not between the left and the right, although that is exactly what the supporters of GERB emphasize. The corrupt model of governance is fundamentally left-wing insofar as, just as it was under socialism, it leads to an unfair distribution of public funds to a ruling stratum, whereby right and left become blurred and lose meaning. Much more substantial is the clash between Euro-Atlantic and pro-Russian public biases, but it is not the basis of the current public division either.
The main conflict in Bulgaria
The main conflict in today's Bulgaria is between that part of society that rejects the corrupt model of governance and those who support and defend it - perhaps, for the sake of a more strongly desired but fictitious stability.
And here it is already clearly and unequivocally apparent, although it is not fully realized, that GERB did not win the elections at all. Or they won them with a lot of compromises - as long as the majority in the parliament, which reflects the prevailing public mood (assuming that the non-voters don't care) is against the corruption model. Even those tempted to support Borisov in forming a government agree with the attitudes of this majority - such as Slavi Trifonov's people, for example, who voted for the GERB-proposed Speaker of the National Assembly, so that if the mandate comes to them after that, to propose their own an expert government, which in fact would still be a government of GERB, DPS and ITN, only under cover.
Even if they succeed in their cunning plan, however, the basic conflict remains unchanged.
And it will be very difficult for GERB to form a government again, if they manage to form it at all. The reason for this is precisely this - the Bulgarian society as a whole is against the corruption model of Borisov and GERB.
The last word belongs to the voting Bulgarians
There is a separate issue that, due to their political differences, the anti-corruption parties also cannot form a government. Although this is not completely impossible - the quadruple coalition showed it. But they can act against corruption inside the parliament and without a government. By the way, this shows that, after all, the constitutional changes had a meaning, and not a small one.
There is no reason, for example, for the majority in the National Assembly not to accept the last four legislative proposals of PP and DB, aimed at fighting corruption and at absorbing the money under the Recovery and Sustainability Plan.
But the last word on the main question still belongs to the voting Bulgarians: stability in poverty, accompanied by a dubious and uncertain Euro-Atlantic orientation, or a final rejection of the corruption model in Bulgaria? There is always a choice.
This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial team and of DV as a whole.