On November 10, 1989, one of the most significant and controversial periods in modern Bulgarian history began – the transition from socialism to democracy. What actually changed during these 37 years, to what extent were expectations of freedom, justice and prosperity fulfilled, and why did the date gradually lose its place in the public calendar? Here is what Prof. Iskra Baeva and Prof. Dimitar Denkoff also told Lily Marinova in the FAKTI studio and on the “Conversation” programme.
– Today we are speaking with Prof. Iskra Baeva and Prof. Dimitar Denkoff – researchers of the last Bulgarian century. The occasion is November 10 – a historic date about which, over the years, fewer and fewer people who lived through the events seem willing to talk. Perhaps the date has been overexposed and has already exhausted the energy associated with it. Who are the people who still have reason to be happy about November 10? Or are they already disappearing as a generation, and with them the spontaneous joy associated with this date?
– Iskra Baeva: A date such as November 10, 1989, is undoubtedly a turning point, because from that moment onwards transformations began in Bulgaria that changed the country completely. If we have to compare it with something, we should compare it with September 9, 1944, or March 3, 1878. In one case the state was re-founded, while in the other it underwent a fundamental change. If you notice, those dates – the Liberation and September 9 – have been celebrated throughout the years, without anyone renouncing them.
In the case of November 10, however, I am a contemporary and a participant in the events. I took part in the Civic Initiative Movement before November 10, and afterwards gradually became involved in the Bulgarian Socialist Party and served on the party leadership in the 1990s, when the major changes took place. So I can speak about those events firsthand.
– Was there ever a desire for November 10 to become an official holiday?
– IB: No, there was never any desire for November 10 to become an official holiday. The holiday system changed, just as everything else changed, but it returned to the history and historical holidays from before September 9. There was something else – a desire to commemorate November 10 every year. The date was marked solemnly, especially on its fifth anniversary in 1994. Something happened then that has stayed in my mind to this day – how we imagined it and how it turned out. Until that point, and afterwards as well, the date was marked by both sides. By the Bulgarian Socialist Party – as the successor not only of the Bulgarian Communist Party, but also as the party whose leadership removed Todor Zhivkov. Because there is no doubt that on November 10 Todor Zhivkov was removed by the leadership of the BCP. Dissidents had no part in this. I remember how everyone in the leadership recounted where they had been, how they had learned the news and how happy they had been. Until the fifth anniversary, until 1994, it was celebrated solemnly. Afterwards, this tradition gradually faded. In my view, the reason is that what happened after November 10, 1989, was not what all the more politically active people had hoped for. During the 1990s, reality gradually began to differ from expectations. In 1990, more than 90% of Bulgarians took part in the elections because they wanted change. Both sides wanted change, albeit in different ways. Now, in the second round of the presidential election, just over 28% took part. So the reason why today we mark November 10 so modestly and timidly, as the third, fifth or tenth item in the news, is the disappointment of Bulgarians. That is the main reason. I would like to make one more comparison. Thirty-seven years have passed since November 10, 1989. If we place this period after September 9, 1944, we reach 1981. If we go further back in time, relative to the Liberation, we reach 1915. In 1981, Bulgaria marked its 1,300th anniversary with numerous international events. There was a certain sense of uplift. In 1915, Bulgaria entered the First World War with enthusiasm, hoping to resolve its national question. Now, of course, this is merely a coincidence and means nothing, but unfortunately the top news today is a gigantic tragic catastrophe. So, from this point of view, we will mark this day as historians and as a turning point, but we will not celebrate it.
– What associations do you have with this date, Prof. Denkoff?
– Dimitar Denkoff: I also believe that November 10 is not a date for celebration, because fixation on dates can sometimes confuse common sense. Even before November 10, namely on November 9, Todor Zhivkov submitted his resignation from the Politburo. On November 10, the Central Committee meeting took place, when this decision was formalised within the party as a whole. Later, the National Assembly also removed him from the post of Chairman of the State Council. For me, Slavcho Trunski’s speech was remarkable. This is rarely mentioned, but he actually did something that was subsequently repeated throughout the so-called transition.
Todor Zhivkov fell as the party’s general secretary, but afterwards he continued to be head of state – Chairman of the State Council. When the National Assembly removed him from that post as well, Slavcho Trunski’s speech put forward all the theses that later became the basis for the assessment of so-called Zhivkovism. This label was attached to everything that represented Bulgarian socialism.
Naturally, November 10 is a date associated with the fact that the Bulgarian Communist Party, which constitutionally held power, removed its leader. But it also created all the preconditions that had existed long before that. For example, Decree No. 56 on economic activity, and the weakening of state control over foreign-trade companies, where the so-called custodians of state property gradually became its owners. Many of their children subsequently entered what was perceived as the Bulgarian perestroika.
Moreover, we must not forget that Bulgaria has never had a completely independent policy. What happened here was the result of a series of decisions taken, for example, by the Soviet leadership. In Bulgaria, fortunately or unfortunately, there were none of the great cataclysms that occurred in Poland, nor the difficulties characteristic of perestroika in the Soviet Union. There, every member of the Politburo received a country. We did not have so many countries to divide up, as happened in Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union. But the people who were close to the party leadership managed, behind the curtain of reforms, to benefit themselves and many members of their families.
That is why I sometimes find it very amusing when I see people who present themselves as anti-communists but forget their family background, their genealogy, and not only the positions but also the resources and connections they managed to create.
In this sense, November 10 is an interesting date, but overall it will come and go. I do not agree with Prof. Baeva that it will not be marked with any particular solemnity.
– Let us turn to the events of recent weeks, which you have not had an opportunity to comment on. The presidential vote showed that the government failed to avoid a protest vote. At the same time, the opposition is conducting an extremely active political campaign against the authorities. Why did Iliana Iotova win this election?
– IB: Frankly, I had no doubt that this would happen. First, the trend of Rumen Radev’s growing influence has not passed. In April, there were elections in which he received extraordinarily strong support – support we had not seen since 2001. Even the support in 2009 was lower. So there is no way this trend could disappear in just six months. In addition, the opposition is genuinely extremely active. It almost dominates the major media and constantly attacks those in power. Moreover, the attacks are often organised in such a way that several opposition representatives appear in the studios against a single representative of the government. Of course, some journalists justify this by saying that those in power do not want to take part in these discussions. Nevertheless, the opposition lost the election, and lost it very badly.
– Why do you think the opposition suffered this defeat?
– IB: Among other things, it thought that what it and its supporters believed was also the opinion of the entire nation. It also ran a very poor election campaign, beginning with the choice of candidates for president and vice-president. Somehow, it came to believe that everything could be achieved through PR techniques. It targeted young people and urban audiences, but young people are a smaller electoral constituency than older people. If you target only the young, TikTok and similar platforms, what do you expect? In addition, they chose people to represent them who were not politicians. They were up against a politician with a very long career. I mean Iliana Iotova, because her vice-presidential candidate does not have similar political experience. It became clear during the campaign debates that the candidate was not prepared for such a role. Not that he is entirely unprepared, but he is not a political animal; he is not a politician in the true sense of the word. We must also add the opposition’s internal problems – who should come to the fore and who should remain in the background. That is why, for me, the election result was largely predetermined, as many people expected. There were some surprises in the first round, but afterwards things returned to their proper place. As for the post-election attacks on various issues, I do not think they will succeed. The opposition appears so affected by the defeat that it tries to exaggerate on every occasion, even the smallest one. This may be convincing to its supporters, but not to ordinary people. If I were in their place, I would draw up a plan for a longer-term policy that would gradually build up positive support instead of attacking over everything. The right moment must be awaited, rather than seeking victory in every individual political dispute. Objective conditions do not suggest otherwise.
– Prof. Denkoff, how do you view the results of the presidential election and the low turnout?
– DD: I would begin precisely with the long-term perspective. Regardless of who won – in this case Iliana Iotova – the participation of around 30% of eligible voters is a problem. In fact, we cannot have complete confidence in the electoral rolls, since they include even deceased relatives, but that is another subject. Nevertheless, this very low percentage of politically active citizens shows the growing lack of interest of Bulgarian society in its political representatives. It is hardly a source of great joy even for the current president, Iliana Iotova, that she was elected with such low participation. Therefore, not only the political class but Bulgarian society and the media as well should reflect on this. What is happening to the people who do not take part in elections is much more interesting. If we take a broader view, we will see that from the United States through Western Europe to the border with Turkey, voter turnout is constantly declining. Even in Serbia, where there were very serious protests, participation was around 60%. This shows that in our part of Europe there is a growing traditional lack of interest in public affairs and a retreat into small communities. That is why the so-called parties have begun to multiply. The largest party, which for a long time was associated not only with the transition but also with the period since 1915 – the communist party and later the socialist party – has actually reached very low percentages. Other parties began multiplying; new ones keep appearing, including some that no longer call themselves parties but projects. The issue is not so much a lack of ultimate goals as a lack of a long-term horizon. That is precisely why figures such as Rumen Radev stand on something of a pedestal. In my opinion, this is also connected with his military background. Generals are the highest form of military hierarchy, but they are almost always alone. Behind them, however, stands a very large pyramid. Unfortunately, the pyramid politically behind Radev is very small. One person cannot do everything without a serious organisation that believes not merely in the person it likes, but in his ideas, plans and vision for the future of government. Unfortunately, we no longer see such a thing in Bulgarian politics. The long-term horizon has disappeared, and that is why decisions usually come from outside – whether from Germany, the Soviet Union, the United States or the Euro-Atlantic partners. This also connects us with the other problem – major geopolitical upheavals. The connection with November 10 is also found in Todor Zhivkov’s statement: “We will lie low.” We continue to lie low sometimes, while at other times we show our horns.
– In your view, is there a sufficiently serious political organisation behind Rumen Radev that could turn his personal popularity into a sustainable political project?
– IB: Radev is exactly as Prof. Denkoff described him, but we must not forget that he is repeating an already established model – that of Boyko Borissov, who is also a strongman, although from the police rather than the army. When Borissov won the election, he also did not have a party behind him. The party was created later, and not by him personally but by people around him. I mean Tsvetan Tsvetanov. At present, Radev is the person people vote for and like. But whether his people will manage to create a party remains to be seen. His political longevity will depend on this. As for foreign policy, I know that much of the opposition does not like this, but Bulgaria is currently trying to become a factor rather than an object of Brussels’ policy. The difference with the Central European countries, which we often describe as disobedient, is that Bulgaria is doing it quite moderately. It is not opposing either NATO or the European Union. It simply has a particular view that it is trying to defend, including in talks with Ursula von der Leyen. The idea of peace is being repeated – we all want peace, although I do not know to what extent this applies to the other side as well. So Radev is acting much more diplomatically than Orbán, the Kaczyński brothers or Fico.
– Could this position be connected in some way with the American leadership and Donald Trump’s line, given that he is extremely critical of European policy?
– IB: He is suspected of something like that. I cannot say, because I have no information. I am a historian, after all, and I like to work with facts. We will see in the future. We must also take into account Donald Trump’s electoral defeat in the United States, but it cannot be compared with the defeats here in Bulgaria, because the American political system is stable. These are midterm elections, when the other party usually gains an advantage in Congress. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the United States has never had a president like Trump. He measures everything according to his own business instincts. He makes deals; he does not talk about agreements but about deals. That is why he is unpredictable. Despite the limitations he faces, because Congress is now entirely against him, they concern domestic policy more than foreign policy. So he will continue to have freedom of action in foreign policy. He is primarily interested in Iran and Israel, but also in the negotiations currently taking place in Abu Dhabi with the mediation of the United States. Is what Radev is doing connected with the United States? As I said, I cannot claim that. But I do know what it is connected with – the prevailing attitudes in Bulgarian society.
– And what allies could Radev find? Will he manage to attract people from other parties and build a stable political structure?
– DD: The question of Radev’s allies exists regardless of what people he attracts and how successful he is in appealing to conformists who might leave their parties to join “Progressive Bulgaria”. He must have allies, just as Borissov used parties that subsequently barely survived. I do not know what allies he will find, since the party system in Bulgaria is in a rather swampy state. It is difficult to say whether there are already parties with clear programmes and ideological messages beyond short-term interests. Even Radev’s party presented a programme that placed it somewhere in a peculiar centre-right spectrum, although it managed to attract a large part of the former left-wing electorate. Many MPs and leading figures of the Bulgarian Socialist Party also went over to him. This is characteristic of Bulgarian political life and is generally connected more with the pursuit of personal interests. I do not think he will achieve all that much as a party leader, since, by temperament, the Bulgarian people have recently been unwilling to commit themselves to such political projects. They have been disappointed too many times. When we recall how many parties were created after November 10, we see that old ones were restored and new ones appeared. There were numerous factions within the BCP, which after renaming itself the BSP gave rise to alternative socialist parties, movements and organisations that later became parties. It is enough to look at the presidential candidates as well – there were an extraordinary number of them, sometimes even to a comical degree. This creates a comical picture of Bulgarian politics, in which one can find an extremely broad range of people – from Slavi Trifonov to Rumen Radev – who have political messages, and some of whom have even won elections. In this sense, I think Bulgaria is in a very serious state politically. The state of social life as a whole is also difficult, because the differences in the country are enormous. It is no coincidence that people speak of the capital and the provinces. It is no coincidence that it is pointed out that people in the capital earn more than elderly people in the villages. But when we see the political commitment of those in power to the country as a whole, we understand how great the problem is. Outside Sofia, the wider central region and several larger cities, we have seen serious destruction of the country’s economic, human, educational and every other kind of infrastructure. Bulgaria will face a very difficult task in restoring its unity. This is not about media unity but real political unity. That is why it seems to me that political formations are appearing that speak of a progressive Bulgaria. But what progress can there be amid this severe demographic collapse, the difficult economic situation and dependence on foreign suppliers – from tomatoes to the industries that are supposed to support Germany’s failing car industry? Do you know what is interesting evidence of the crisis in Bulgaria’s political system? Of the parties that began the transition and fought during the first years of change, today almost none remain in parliament. If we exclude the Union of Democratic Forces, which remains mostly as an acronym, and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, the picture is telling.
– Against the backdrop of the major geopolitical changes, negotiations on the war in Ukraine are also beginning, in which the European position is effectively not represented. How would you define this absence?
– DD: I think this is already an expression of the new geopolitical division. Once again, we are talking about three powers, only this time they are not Rome, Berlin and Tokyo, but Washington, Beijing and Moscow. They have evidently decided to reach some kind of agreement on their mutual interests. In my view, there are two very important reasons here. I spoke about Bulgaria’s demographic problem, but this is also a problem for Europe. Europe is in a severe demographic crisis. When we look at politics as a view of the future, we are not talking only about the statements of Trump, Xi Jinping and Putin. These are projections of very large political, financial, military and strategic groups that think in terms of decades. Over the next 50 years, they do not expect much resistance from Europe, which is in demographic, economic and intellectual decline. Look at what happened with China – a communist country that made an enormous leap in about 15 years and became a leading force in almost all industries. It managed to show that this type of governance is possible. The same is happening in the United States, regardless of the jokes circulating about its president. It secured its backyard in Latin America, where there is a young population, and established a certain degree of control over parts of Africa. Russia must not be underestimated either. As has been said, it can easily exist on its own, because a large part of the deposits in Siberia have still not been developed. These are the harsh geopolitical facts that turn Europe into a kind of province of its own past. It has great achievements in science, the arts and technology, but demographically it does not have a particularly bright future. That is precisely why right-wing and nationalist ideas are beginning to emerge, such as those we see with “Alternative for Germany” and in other European countries. The question is what we will do about migration. We cannot solve the demographic problem through political declarations alone. There must be people who have children. Do you know what is saddest for Europe? At these negotiations, which have begun and will continue, Europe is effectively not represented. It has sent its representatives, but they are not taking part in the negotiations themselves. They will meet separately with the Ukrainians and the Americans, but that is entirely different. What does all this mean? Europe is paying the main price for the war, because even the supplies from the United States are being paid for by European countries. Yet when negotiations on ending this war begin, Europe is not represented. This is perhaps the saddest testimony to the loss of Europe’s geopolitical weight. Nothing like this has ever happened in this way before. Even the negotiations for peace in the Vietnam War, which was fought between the United States and North Vietnam, were held in Europe. Now Europe is sending representatives on its own, without being invited, while simultaneously paying for the war. This is a major problem for us.
Watch more from the conversation in the VIDEO.