Yesterday I was at the event on the occasion Kostov's new book. I have yet to come back to it by reading it - but now let me pay attention to his following words.
According to Kostov, the reason for the decline of the SDS is that for most of its supporters in the 1990s, the cause was not democracy, but anti-communism. And it was enough for them that the communists were not in power. Membership in NATO and the EU is taken as a guarantee that the communists will not return, and the cause becomes the personal kelepir offered by the behind-the-scenes parties, to which a huge part of the old sedesars migrate. And achieving a developed Western-type liberal democracy was never their goal.
This commented on "Facebook" Yevgeny Kanev.
I disagreed with Kostov about many things, and about others he decided to write too late - after they had been repeatedly analyzed. Immodestly, even during his administration, I noted this trend with a critical article in v. Capital.
But I absolutely agree about the difference between anti-communists and democrats.
Many decent people already at (almost) retirement age could not shake off the opposition of the 90s between communists and anti-communists. Despite so many disappointments from “their own”, who once in power - no longer differed in their thinking and actions from the “enemy”. This in no way changed the bloc thinking.
The sign “anti-communist” - evidently - it did not become a certificate of democracy, even less of integrity. The real difference between Bulgarians is in the division between those with European and Soviet thinking, as people from both groups, but in different proportions in each party.
These people failed to overcome their biographical past and measure people according to their actions and their real benefit to the good of society. The most recent example is Terziev's candidacy, against which the anti-communists from GERB voted, supporting the communist Vanya.
When personal interest is already leading in politics, then you enter into an alliance with the people of the social vote, who vote for you, so that they also get something from the pie at the expense of others, of society. And the people of the civil vote, of public causes, become the enemy because they interfere. This is the difference between the parties of the status quo and the parties of change.
I already mentioned the recipe for the right choice yesterday.
People who have done something selfless for society before entering politics or at least made a name for themselves in their profession with hard work and talent are voted for.
Otherwise you are voting for a candidate who is in politics to fix his life, not yours.