Comment from Daniel Smilov:
How much can the Bulgarian citizen tolerate and why does he do it? These are the two questions of this campaign, which daily tests the nerves of people who want to live in a free democracy. The irritants are mainly two.
Umbrella and club combination
The first is "The New Beginning" of Delyan Peevski, which is trying to deal with its competition in the DPS through the instruments of the state: Supreme Administrative Court, CEC, prosecutor's office, etc. The situation here is reminiscent of 2013 and 2020, when state institutions were similarly instrumentalized. In fact, there is no significant difference between the appointment of Delyan Peevski to DANS and the promotion of Borislav Sarafov as the only candidate for chief prosecutor - the same dependencies, the same mechanisms, the same results in the sense of a combination of umbrella and clubs. This combination in 2013 provoked serious protests and led to a large civil mobilization. Now (at least apparently) nothing like that is happening, although the catalyst of the processes is still there.
Fascist performances of "Revival"
The second irritant is the fascistic performances of "Revival", which went from cutting cables and introducing repressive laws in parliament to harassing teachers in the capital's elite high school. The case may seem comical, because an MP from "Revival" acted on the complaint of the mother of a low-achieving student, who looked for the cause of his failures outside of him (and especially in an assignment about the Istanbul Convention). But there is nothing comical about the desire of politicians to impose their own (in this case primitive and dangerous) ideology in schools.
The defenders of principles and freedom, however, are not many in both cases. And they are scandalous and potentially dangerous enough to cause a civil backlash. But nevertheless, at least for now, it is not happening.
The reasons given by otherwise reasonable people are usually the following:
"We are tired"
It is true that the upcoming elections are the seventh in a row, which may be some excuse for low turnout. But still, thinking people should consider that with relatively little effort they can oppose serious dangers. And these dangers will only grow if they are not curbed while they are smaller. "Dorde is a tiny snake, come let's get together..." - this is a valid argument in the present case as well;
"Dogan deserved it, he likes it"
It is a very popular opinion that Dogan cannot become an object of protection like the people's favorites Boyko Borisov (2013) and Rumen Radev (2020), because he created Peevski and his machine and took advantage of them. If one thinks about it, even the people's favorites are not so undeserving and innocent, but civic sentiment worked when they were chased away by the repressive machine in question. The one favorite - Borisov - is currently also part of this machine, insofar as he gives it a (silent) political backing. It is more important, however, that it is about principles and not about personalities and favourites. And the principles should work for Radev and Borisov as well as for Dogan, Dragan or Petkan. And to expect that the mafia networks will clear themselves and free the ground for healthy forces is infantile: they will simply redistribute their territories. Therefore, gloating observation from the sidelines is a wrong policy;
"There is no one to vote for"
This argument of frustration is also very popular, but it is difficult to understand. The PP-DB, for example, is certainly a complex political structure, in which there are also internal tensions. No one likes everyone, but on the other hand, there is someone for everyone to like. However, the most interesting thing is that people using this argument are ready to let far more unsuccessful and compromised MPs into parliament by not voting. And that cannot be rational. There is another paradox: the complaint that certain parties "can't" has some validity, insofar as their representation in parliament is relatively small and they have to reckon with everyone else to get anything done. But the answer to this problem is not not voting for them, but quite the opposite - with stronger representation, they will be able to do much more.
"Nothing will change anyway"
This is perhaps the central fatalistic argument - there are trends in society that are as inevitable as historical materialism. Things will happen because that's the way the world works. We have to experience them, and then we will see. Let the elections pass, and then we will think about him. People should know, however, that these are self-fulfilling prophecies. Those who do them, if they become many, change reality as well. Inevitability comes from despair, not the other way around. At least that's how it is in democracy.
The Seirdzhi attitude - neither insightful nor responsible
In fact, behind the officially mentioned arguments or rather excuses for not voting, there is one that is not mentioned, but which is a very serious motivator. The economic situation in the country is good and due to the new fiscal policy the income of many has increased. This creates a sense of a certain individual comfort, or at least does not create an acute sense of the crisis of the situation. When a person is not directly threatened, he can afford to look at "political seir". Until the next election, which may not be too far away - or so the mantra goes. Needless to say, this attitude is neither particularly prescient nor particularly responsible. But on the other hand, it seems to be a fact.
Ultimately, the fatalistic and seirjian position is not acceptable for two interrelated reasons. First, it is grist to the mill of corruption networks and fascists who are actually part of the same pattern. "So that the fascists don't come, put up with the corrupt" has been the name of the political game in Bulgaria for many years. The problem is that this game ultimately sets the stage for autocracy because it compromises democracy as a whole. And not voting only strengthens this process.
Citizens or consumers populate Bulgaria?
Secondly, in a democracy there must be a balance between citizens and consumers. The consumer acts entirely from the point of view of his own interest, and if he does not see a direct benefit to himself from something, he simply remains passive. The citizen is motivated by the common interest and is moved by issues such as freedom and democracy as goods affecting all. Perhaps we are in a period in which civic attitudes are in retreat at the expense of consumer attitudes. But these are not natural processes, but things for which everyone is responsible.