What are the political processes in Bulgaria and Europe against the backdrop of growing social tension, geopolitical conflicts and the crisis of trust in institutions. Are deeper problems related to the functioning of democracy, economic inequalities and the clash between different generations hidden behind the noisy political confrontations? Here is what else he shared with Lili Marinkova in the “FACT“ studio and the “Conversation“ show political scientist Toncho Kraevski.
- Mr. Kraevski, do you think that the protests of the youth in France and the protest wave in other European countries have anything to do with the mobilization of the electorate and the government's efforts to fulfill its promises?
– I think that what is being organized as protests against the government, which Radev himself called “incest“, shows that he wanted to say that those who are protesting against him are actually “the assembly“, but in opposition. How could he know? If this is true, it only confirms that he should approach with great suspicion all the former cadres of the “assembly“ at all levels — in the administration, in the services, in the judiciary and so on. To all those who are found. Is it possible to achieve a tactical truce or even strategic cooperation between the new and old authorities and their cadres?
– Judging by Radev's statement, I think he understood that he might have offered them a hand in concluding such a truce and mutual tolerance, but they rejected it...
- I noticed that Borisov is defending himself by stating that he is not the organizer of the protests and that he did not incite the protesters. This is also an important detail from a psychological point of view. In principle, Borisov is not an organizer of protests. This is neither his job nor his strong point. But those who organize them are certainly aware that he is quietly delighted with them and wants to see himself on the other side. Like Radev a year ago, Borisov can sit and wait, waiting for his moment when Radev will fall under the blows of the street and the protest wave. Then Borisov will come out and say: “Here, now we need elections“. This is the scene that is played out in the imagination. It has not yet been played out in practice.
- How do you explain the arrests of mayors from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, as well as the actions against the regional governor of Burgas? Should we accept the Prime Minister's explanation that they simply found brave prosecutors?
– How the fans of this party will vote is not unimportant, because they are very disciplined. It is wrong to think that these are people who succumb to pressure in this sense of the word. If the government does not want to risk them voting against it and its candidate, it should not undertake police operations before the elections. These people are mobilizing along this line and their attitude becomes negative. They will not vote for Radev or Yotova if they feel threatened and pressured by the state. I do not think there is only one possible logic for these arrests. They can also be seen as a continuation of Radev's promises to dethrone the oligarchy and mafia-like connections at the party level.
In addition, these arrests, especially what happened yesterday in Belitsa, have brought Peevski to a state in which we have seen him before, but which places him extremely badly in front of the public. This is very special when it comes to his imperious image. When people lose their balance, they show a different image than the one they usually try to present. Do you connect these actions with the promises of the ruling party to restore democracy and the rule of law?
– Yes, this is certainly in line with the promises that the ruling party has made. Besides, do you see how much they have eroded democracy and the rule of law in Bulgaria?
- To give a more comical, but actually tragic example - in the national media, in the so-called free packages for the elections, all kinds of obviously inadequate candidates appear. The national television is obliged to interview them, hold debates with them, and so on. I was impressed that journalists from BNT were raising the alarm that behind the initiative committees of many such candidates are the same people who collect the money from these packages, while the candidates themselves travel to Sofia at their own expense. This is a business with democracy on a relatively small level. But this same business is also carried out at the level of large-scale organized crime, where there are entire parties and political projects that enter parliament, but in fact represent organized crime groups. One such example is the party of Ivelin Mihaylov, against whom there are investigations for pyramid schemes and people who take out loans. Suddenly, a person who feels under the blows of the law creates a political project and enters parliament. This way, he can protect himself from these attacks while claiming to be a candidate for a certain office. But is he really a candidate for an office, or is he a person who wants to remain free at all costs? This is a very delicate issue for law and democracy in a country.
- How do we protect the political immunity of candidates, political pluralism and the prohibition of political repression, without allowing abuses of the constitutional system itself?
– That is the question. Our constitutional system is based on the protection of political pluralism and the prohibition of political repression. At the same time, we should not allow this system to be exploited in such a way that it ultimately leads to its destruction. This happens when politics and elections become a business or a way for people to hide from the law in the open — to hide in the plenary hall. They talk about one thing, but in fact do something completely different. They are not there to push ideology or public policy.
- How did the events in the Black Sea change the nature of the election campaign and the conversation about national security?
– The campaign seemed calm before the attacks on the ships in the Black Sea and their entry close to our economic space. What happened actually exacerbated the conversation about foreign policy and national security. This was welcome for the usual positioning of political forces. An extremely high bar was set by people who called themselves former presidents and prime ministers and announced that Radev does not protect national security well enough, that this is tantamount to capitulation. So we are once again faced with a presidential vote that counts us geopolitically. The two camps are very obvious, along with that of Kostadinov, who claims that Radev is not sufficiently loyal to Russia.
- Do you think that the geopolitical choice is the main issue of these presidential elections?
– It seems to me that this situation clearly shows that in addition to the two most vocal camps, which demand extreme and clear actions and words from the government, there is also a much more silent political center. One camp wants Bulgaria to speak in harmony with the European Commission, with Ursula von der Leyen and Kaia Kallas, with the way they speak about Russia and believe that they are defending the interests and position of Europe. On the other side are the people who expect Rumen Radev to openly oppose this position and declare that Russia is completely right and Bulgaria stands in solidarity with it in this situation.
These are two small camps. In the middle of all this stands a much more silent, inarticulate center of Bulgarian politics.
Both camps accuse Radev of populism because he refuses to take sides between them. But is it populism to lean on the far larger political center and seek to represent it? This is one of the functions of democracy - first, so that you can gather a majority and govern, and second, because this center expresses the sentiments of the majority of society. The problem is that the majority finds it difficult to articulate these sentiments well enough and in an organized way. It is also difficult for the government, but for different reasons. It has to make decisions, which is a great responsibility, and at the same time it is limited in how much information it can share and what it can say. Every time it refuses to reveal details, it is perceived as either fear or hypocrisy. Do you think that the majority of society supports Radev's more moderate position, including people from the Euro-Atlantic camp?
– I think the majority is not just made up of people who consider themselves pro-Russian and who are perhaps disappointed with Radev. It also includes the broader center between the two camps, as well as the reasonable people from the so-called Euro-Atlantic camp.
- I don't think they are particularly impressed or inspired by the rhetoric of Ursula von der Leyen and Kaia Kallas. And this is not because they necessarily take one side or the other in the conflict. Regardless of their personal attitudes, people find it difficult to trust someone who speaks passionately and strongly, but clearly lacks the capacity to act in accordance with their words. The most worrying thing about the leadership of the European Union and many of the leading European countries is the discrepancy between the strength and aggressiveness of the rhetoric and the real military and economic capabilities of Europe to act according to what is stated.
- How do you assess the government's reaction to the incident in the Black Sea?
– In my opinion, the government's reaction is reasonable, as long as Radev is trying to conduct politics and speak in a way that realistically corresponds to the capabilities of his country. When you do not have a large navy in the Black Sea, it is good to wait for all possible investigations before stating who is behind an attack. You need to make sure that it came from one side and not the other, that it was intentional and not accidental, and clarify the circumstances before making accusations. This is important because regardless of your moral attitudes on a given case, the real capabilities of the state are limited. I don't think even the supporters of the so-called Euro-Atlantic camp feel confident when their leaders use strong words without real capacity for action behind them. Shouldn't the main emphasis after the incident in the Black Sea have been placed on Bulgaria's defense capabilities?
– After a similar incident with drones and sunken ships in the Black Sea, the normal leading topic should be how Bulgaria can acquire more modern air defense systems as quickly as possible?
- We need to prepare materially, technically and strategically for a situation in which the war could escalate and in which a deflected missile or a deliberately organized provocation could hit civilian targets.
- Where are the material prerequisites so that we can then have a conversation about which side we support and how vehemently we should state our position? First, we must have the means to defend our country. The protest wave in France began with the participation of young people and spread to other European countries. How do you explain this process?
– The protest wave is spreading to other countries because they have similar problems. In France, these problems are probably the most acute, since the country has been in a chronic budget crisis for years. The adoption of the budget is always accompanied by great difficulties and complications. The expenses are very large and funds must be cut somewhere. One of the biggest items, in fact the biggest, is related to the redistribution of funds for pensions, social expenses and other similar payments. However, pension expenses can hardly be affected because of the deep and almost unbreakable political consensus on this issue, as well as because of the fear of electoral backlash. The majority of voters are either retirees or people approaching retirement age.
Can it be said that behind the protests there is a structural contradiction that will gradually turn into a generational clash?
– I would not call this a class or class issue, but there is an obvious structural contradiction here that will gradually turn into a generational clash. It is no coincidence that it was precisely the cuts in education spending that ignited the protests...
- Of course, if you look at education spending, it hasn't been drastically cut, nor has it been that low. But the feeling in many Western societies is that the redistribution of wealth is increasingly taking place from young working people who are starting families to older generations. In France, this contradiction is particularly acute. According to economic data published earlier this year, the age group of retirees between 65 and 75 already has a higher disposable annual income than people between 30 and 39. And this is the generation that should be in its most active age, starting families and raising children. When you look at where the tax burden is going and from whom to whom the funds are being redistributed, it turns out that they are being redirected from people who should have children to those who are already retired, many of whom have one child or no children at all. To quote Ivan Krastev, who recently wrote on this topic in The New York Times, democracy was not designed to function this way. When modern democracy emerged, for example during the French Revolution, society looked demographically very different. Today, young people are so few that even if everyone hypothetically voted for one party, they could not win the election. More and more of them may begin to lose faith in democracy as a legitimate system, because they do not see how the problems that will define their lives for the next half century can be solved now.
- Do you foresee a generational clash that will deepen and be different from previous social conflicts? How does it relate to migration?
– There is a similar contradiction that we should consider separately from the migrant problem, although the two issues are related. There is a widespread belief that migrants will fill the demographic gap and help finance pensions in the future. But this thesis does not fully correspond to the data. The net budgetary effect of migration in France since the early 1970s does not show that migrants have become the productive force that can compensate for the shortage of young people.
See more of the conversation in the VIDEO.