Do you consider the elevation of Atanas Atanasov as Speaker of Parliament a personal victory? If you and Daniel Lorer had voted "as they should" last week, it would not have come to this.
Yavor Bojankov: My vote last week has very serious motives, I said them from the podium. The sanitary cordon around Peevski is not an indulgence for voting with "Vazrazhdane" on a key issue for the state, such as the election of the Speaker of Parliament and a potential caretaker prime minister.
It is not a matter of pride that I stopped the election of Silvi Kirilov. Yes, his biography is worrying. The configuration that stands behind him is even more worrying. I am perhaps a bit more extreme and radical than my colleagues and I say: No compromise, I will not vote. The most correct solution is for us, as a second force, to offer an alternative to the first. GERB is not able to gather a majority, so we must nominate a candidate and not look for a guarantee, a signature, touching talismans or a good word from parties like "There is such a people" and the Bulgarian Socialist Party. This victory belongs to everyone - to propose a candidate who authentically stands behind our European orientation and behind the declaration of a cordon sanitaire, because he is one of its authors.
Although it is not easy to take on this burden - what happened to me, I think we have returned to a more reasonable dialogue about our candidate and program.
Why were you unable to convince your colleagues that Silvi Kirilov's biography is problematic?
Yavor Bozhankov: We have a conceptual difference - they believe that the choice of Silvi Kirilov is technical. But this person may be an official prime minister, this may be for a very long time. And it means that all power will be in the hands of a person who has a questionable biography, to put it mildly. I have asked myself many times why we live in constant transition. One of the reasons is that for 34 years this swindling scheme has managed to find new metamorphoses. Will it be the romantic story of the Tsar who comes, and in the end it turns out that he is still working with the old State Security, or in this case "There are such people", who have overthrown parliaments several times. I am convinced that we cannot ally with some cops against others. Can we enter into an alliance with one Dogan's MRF against the other Delyan's MRF? Silvi Kirilov was in these circles, including in the leadership of Hristo Kovachki's "Leader" party. We know how close Kovachki was to the MRF. For me, the answer is clear: I do not want to enter into an alliance with some cops against others. And for my children to continue living in the vicious circle of this transition.
However, this creates a very serious problem - the formation of qualified majorities, for example, to fill the parliamentary quota in the Supreme Judicial Council. Without this, there will be no long-term effect from the possible suspension of the procedure for electing Sarafov.
Yavor Bozhankov: These two-thirds qualified majorities, introduced by representatives of the democratic community, have a very deep meaning - to prevent some temporary majorities from making changes in the judicial system. What is the outcome? To enter into an alliance with "Vazrazhdane" against GERB or with Peevski against Dogan is absurd. We must seek an electoral victory or a sufficiently strong result. How to win elections is the big question. If we ask ourselves this, all these topics are raised - how to reform the coalition, what its messages should be, who its people should be, should there be any change in the strategy? We have abandoned this conversation. The influence of Borisov and Peevski is both informal and formal. Their great power comes from the fact that they are the first political force. In a parliamentary republic, the first force has a leading role in choosing regulators, the Supreme Judicial Council, etc. The way out is to win elections. If we start towards unprincipled partnerships, our result will fall even further.
Does this mean opposition all the way and elections all the way?
Yavor Bojankov: This means that there is no need to come to power at any cost and every time. We tried once and saw how that ended. Today's situation is the result of many decisions made before. I was against many of these decisions, including forming a cabinet with political participation in what later became known as the "assembly" with Boyko Borisov and at one point very close to him - with Delyan Peevski.
Are you uncomfortable in front of your voters when it comes to allowing people like Kalin Stoyanov into the executive branch?
Yavor Bozhankov: People are people. Some are caught with compromising material, others are sold out, others are tempted. That's why I haven't made any serious accusations. My conclusion is that none of the leaders have taken responsibility for these decisions - I exclude Hristo Ivanov, who resigned. And now when they say: The greatest evil in the state is... I have the reflex that we must say how we got to this situation and admit mistakes. Including me, because I participated in majorities, even though I had reservations. Glavchev is in this position because he was elected head of the Court of Accounts. We elected him as such. If we admit this mistake and apologize, we will have made a diagnosis and we can seek treatment. The search for these palliative solutions - majorities with MECH, Dogan and "Vazrazhdane" - will not lead to a sustainable result, but ensures Rumen Radev's path to power in Bulgaria.
That is, the leaders of "Continuing Change" cannot take responsibility for their mistakes?
Yavor Bojankov: They have not taken responsibility for a single mistake. This is the literal truth.
Are there any sentiments among representatives of your coalition to break the taboo and seek a partnership with "Vazrazhdane"?
Yavor Bojankov: Some of my colleagues believe that this is just one vote. I have a different thesis: In politics, there are rules that have the force of physical laws. The majority stands behind the chairman. When Vezhdi Rashidov was elected, the same people who elected him later canceled the machine vote and returned the paper ballot. With the exception of one vote - mine. Today the question is: If the majority is even just thematic, what will it stand behind? A budget with a 3% deficit, the Eurozone, changes to the electoral code. We add the issue of the caretaker cabinet and the equation definitely points to a majority. Because parties like "Vazrazhdane" vote for Silvi Kirilov, he becomes caretaker prime minister and then what - Silvi himself will determine the composition of this caretaker cabinet? This is frivolous. If someone had studied what Silvi Kirilov is like - whether, for example, he is a convinced Russophile, which is key - they would have given an answer to the question of who the entire government votes for and in what configuration.
If we lose our authenticity, because we are the only authentic pro-European coalition in Bulgaria, the long-term damage will be enormous. We cannot count on either Borisov or Radev, with whom they unite, if we ourselves have done this.
I asked you if there are people in your coalition who are looking for an active partnership with "Vazrazhdane"?
Yavor Bojankov: There are people who believe that Peevski is such a goal that it is worth collaborating with "Vazrazhdane".
Is this topic being actively discussed?
Yavor Bojankov: This is the essence of the debate around the election of a chairman - can you have common moves with "Vazrazhdane" or not. My answer is that you cannot. Our group read a declaration that, according to the European model, there should be a cordon sanitaire around "Vazrazhdane". It cannot be permeable. We must stand by this position, otherwise we risk being disfigured.
Kostadinov constantly talks about a majority and the search for one. The pro-Russian party "Vazrazhdane" needs to come out of isolation and be legitimized as a possible partner once and for all. This is a strategic risk.
Are you saying this to Kiril Petkov and Lena Borislavova?
Yavor Bozhankov: It is obvious from the vote of the leadership of "We Continue the Change" that they do not see "Vazrazhdane" as such a strategic threat to Bulgaria. President Radev will also be the only winner from this long-term political crisis.
Last week, Natalia Kiselova could also have been elected chairwoman, after GERB spontaneously supported her. But your coalition does not vote for it because the BSP refuses to sign the declaration for a cordon sanitaire around Peevski. Why don't they?
Yavor Bojankov: GERB deserves attention because they are the big absentee from this debate. As the first force, they are responsible for forming a majority and electing a chairman, but they cannot, again because they refuse to sign this declaration. My theory is that they have achieved such synergy with Peevski's MRF that they cannot just give it up. In order for them to give up, they either need another option, or we are talking about such a severe addiction that even if they wanted to, there is no way.
The BSP refused to sign this declaration, which confirms my thesis - it is better to nominate our candidate who authentically stands behind these ideas, instead of wondering why the BSP does not do it.
But as a former member of the BSP parliamentary group, you should be the most aware.
Yavor Bozhankov: I think there is a contradiction there. The BSP has a chairman election ahead of it. They have a national council, this party makes collective decisions. As far as I know, the national council nominated Natalia Kiselova, but the BSP leadership wanted another candidate in the person of Petar Kanev. There is also no single opinion about the candidate and the philosophy that he should adhere to. Things in the BSP are neither stable nor predictable. That is where, in my opinion, these hesitations about whether to sign the declaration come from.
The elections in Romania shocked a large part of society there, and in Europe as well. One of the most popular explanations is that the traditional Romanian parties - the social democrats and the national liberals - never kept their promise to fight corruption. We are in a similar situation, isn't there the same risk of radicalizing the political landscape?
Yavor Bojankov: When you can't do a job for which you were elected - the most basic one is forming a government - someone else comes to do it. If we get to a situation like the Romanian one, there's no one to be angry with, we will all be responsible for it. Two terms ago, we and GERB had an independent majority. Then GERB said: We won't do a rotation, we're going to elections. In a situation of political crisis, populism erupts. And that's what happened - instead of strengthening the systemic pro-European forces, more populist forces like MECH and "Velicie" entered the field. If we now imagine that another election will bring a solution, that's not true. New elections should be held if there is a qualitative change in society that brings perspective. The perspective now is even more populism. We are on the brink of the abyss. We must realize that even in the most difficult situation, we must try to form a majority and a government. The economic situation at the moment is not bad, but if this also changes, there will not be a rise in populism, but a wave. I do not want to draw apocalyptic scenarios for then.
Does this mean that a compromise can be made and you can support a GERB prime minister?
Yavor Bojankov: I think that GERB is sabotaging this process. They supported the BSP without setting conditions, they are setting a condition for us that Boyko Borisov be prime minister, which they know very well is unacceptable. I suspect that their desire is another quick election. For what reasons I do not know - either dependencies, or another explanation that is not rational.
Author: Alexander Detev