The European Union is facing serious disagreements over the new €45 billion loan to support Ukraine. Bulgaria has also been placed in a difficult situation, as our country is subject to an excessive deficit procedure, while any new borrowing could have serious economic consequences. Meanwhile, preparations for a possible military conflict are intensifying in Europe, and public tensions are also affecting domestic political life… Here is what Associate Professor Dr Alexey Pamporov of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences also told Lily Marinova at the „FAKTI“ studio and on the „Razgovor“ programme.
- A serious confrontation is emerging in Europe between countries such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary because of the proposal for a new €45 billion loan to support Ukraine. Bulgaria’s participation in this mechanism is also being discussed. What position should our country take?
- First, it is important to say what the Slovak president emphasised—that this is a form of extortion and that it is not right to act in this way. I cannot guess what will happen, but the fact is that our prime minister stated that Bulgaria is subject to a deficit procedure. In other words, the European Commission and the European Union are monitoring what is happening, how we spend our funds, and telling us that we are spending too much and should not take out many loans.
At the same time, through this procedure we would be forced to take out a loan to provide to Ukraine because we do not have the necessary funds. The situation is that we are being told: „We will give you money if you take out another loan.“ This really is extortion against the weaker economies in Central and Southeastern Europe, as is the case with ours.
On the other hand, there are countries that are obviously very worried. I have spoken with colleagues abroad. We see Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, where special anti-tank installations have already been deployed along the borders. Large trenches are being dug. In other words, the Baltic republics and Poland are preparing for war, for a possible invasion by Russian troops.
I think that widespread panic can also be observed in other Western countries, where people are being told to stock up on essential products for emergencies. The other day, I even saw an advertisement on Instagram saying that if I paid a certain amount, they would send me a guide on how to prepare pickles, preserves, cured meat and bread that does not spoil.
A feeling is indeed being created and fuelled that we are on the brink of war and need to prepare with canned food. In my view, this borders on madness.
- Is it not dangerous to constantly create such a feeling of an impending war?
- It is not merely dangerous. In the social sciences there is something called the Thomas theorem. It was formulated by Merton and named after Thomas. It says that if people define situations as real, they become real in their consequences.
In other words, when we overarm ourselves and overprepare for war, a point comes when tensions become so high that all it takes is for a spark to fly somewhere for a conflict to erupt.
- What instrument could be applied to Bulgaria to make our country take a decision in favour of the European institutions? The Bulgarian prime minister’s first foreign-policy visit was to Germany, where he met the German chancellor. Will he be motivated to oppose Germany’s position, given that Bulgaria cannot do without European funds?
- Bulgaria has indeed been on life support in recent years. Our economy is weak. We do not produce enough to generate the necessary funds, nor do we have sufficient investment to attract so that we can support ourselves independently.
On the other hand, what the prime minister said is that we are in a very deadlocked situation. If we agree to participate in financing Ukraine, we risk exceeding the deficit. So there will probably be very serious discussions about what can and cannot be done, because the country’s credit rating also depends on this. If we enter a debt spiral, as happened with Greece, I do not know whether people realise what the consequences could be. There is something else as well. Economic data for this year show that the average net salary in Bulgaria is currently higher than in Greece, Romania and Serbia. In terms of this indicator, our country is doing best.
The issue is that we have enormous social inequalities. We have two or three regions or municipalities with a concentration of very high incomes and salaries, while the rest of the country is living increasingly worse. Enterprises are closing, and economic zones are being established that in fact cannot operate fully. Production facilities are being shut down. That is why this money is extremely important for Bulgaria.
- Was the visit of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Varna not part of an attempt to influence Bulgaria’s decision? There were also statements that our country had bowed its head and was not responding aggressively enough to the drones…
- I do not think we should take things out of context. Ursula von der Leyen did not come only to Bulgaria. She toured the region, visiting Romania and Turkey as well. Our position and what we are doing do not differ substantially from what Turkey is doing. Turkey is even more open, so to speak.
The truth is that the passage of Russian ships through the Black Sea is linked to Turkey allowing them through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Obviously, Turkey does not restrict them in the way it is sometimes portrayed. Such incidents also occur in Turkey’s economic zone. They are two-way. If we look at the statistics, Russia is responsible for around two-thirds of the ships attacked, hit and damaged over the past four years, but the remaining third is the result of Ukrainian drones. In other words, there is indeed a conflict that has simply become much more visible in recent months. Russia has begun advancing much more aggressively on the front. It has captured several small but key towns, as well as several villages. It has resumed attacks on Kyiv, which at one point were not as intense. Very serious attacks on energy facilities have also begun, threatening people’s daily lives in Ukraine and potentially triggering a new refugee wave and a humanitarian crisis. Ukraine has also begun responding more intensively and has shown that drones can literally reach Moscow and attack refineries. Naturally, Ukraine has the right to defend itself. It is the attacked country.
- From Bulgaria’s point of view, where is the red line? What would have to happen for our country to be forced to respond?
- I think our position is that if there is a direct territorial threat, we are prepared to do something. But when it is on the border, when it is not directly aimed at us and there is no direct intervention on Bulgarian territory, matters stand differently. These are indirect damages along the border, right on the edge of the red line.
- Is the main concern that we might be drawn into the war?
- The main concern of everyone is not to be drawn in, because Bulgaria’s involvement would mean the involvement of all of Europe and NATO.
If the war escalates to the point where Bulgaria, Romania and Poland become directly involved, the Third World War will begin—perhaps it is already being fought partially, although not as visibly. We see what is happening in Iran. Iran unveiled a new missile city and said that in the event of another attack, Israel would be wiped off the map. There are serious warnings there as well. To sum up, China will be the major winner from all this.
- It is difficult to live in such an international environment, especially when domestically our country is also in a state of constant discord. The budget, protests and social insecurity are further increasing anxiety. What is your diagnosis of the political situation in Bulgaria?
- We live in an environment of aggression. My diagnosis is primarily related to the way people speak.
The election rhetoric was outrageous. In fact, there was no real debate. I remember the debates from 30 years ago, which focused on policies and principles. Now we talked about identities and ideologies. We heard messages such as: „If one of them wins, it will be a disaster.“ But it is not clear whether that would really happen. The same was said about the other candidate. Instead of talking about facts and policies, fear was being created. The claim that we would be taken out of the European Union is absolutely absurd. We have a prime minister who studied German and whose first landmark visit was to Germany. We have a new president whose first landmark visit was to France because it is connected to the Francophone world. And at the same time, people are saying that someone will take us out of the European Union. But nobody wants to remove us. If we leave, we will be left without cohesion funds and without a huge financial resource. This claim was absurd, and those who tried to build their campaign around it made a mistake.
- There is also talk of a danger that the prime minister could restore an authoritarian model of governance. This is one of the concerns voiced by liberal-democratic circles. On the other hand, he needs allies, and during the election support was sought from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms and Boyko Borissov. How will this affect the government?
- I do not think we will have an authoritarian regime. I do not think anyone would allow that to happen.
It is a fact that we are seeing decisions being made without coordination with the opposition. But the truth is that similar decisions were also being made by Boyko Borissov’s cabinets over the past four or five years. Whenever we have a government that does not depend on ad hoc arrangements, coalitions and behind-the-scenes deals, it makes its own decisions. I think this government has the right to make its decisions and, accordingly, to bear responsibility for them. Making difficult decisions, as we remember from Ivan Kostov’s cabinet, can lead to serious consequences for the respective government.
- You say that Bulgaria does not have a liberal community. Why do you reach this conclusion?
- As a sociologist, I am in the unusual position of stating that we do not have a liberal community because the people who call themselves liberals do not behave like liberals.
The fact that you are an economic liberal or a libertarian does not necessarily make you liberal. These people do not respect fundamental values such as human dignity.
The way they insult their political opponents and the way the campaign was conducted show that they do not understand what it means to be a liberal and to value the dignity of another person. We can look at the campaign in the United States and the new senator from Michigan, who did not allow himself to use offensive epithets against his opponents even once. He was attacked because of his religion, name and origin, but he restrained himself and behaved as a democratic and liberal person should.
- Is what we are currently seeing from „Progressive Bulgaria“ concerning? To what extent does the formation live up to its name and its claim to pursue progressive policies?
- What we are seeing now is concerning because „Progressive Bulgaria“ is not progressive. For me, the correct label is „Reactionary Bulgaria“. It is deeply conservative and behaves more like a Christian-democratic-centre party.
What is being introduced and adopted as laws and budgets harms workers and the middle and lower social classes. I see nothing that harms big business, oligarchs or entrepreneurs. We have no idea of free healthcare. We have no idea of higher taxes on the highest incomes. The only exception is the issue of excess profits, which is being discussed across Europe. Huge profits were generated after COVID-19 and are not being taxed adequately.
- What is the size of these excess profits?
- I cannot give specific figures. I am not a macroeconomist. I assume that if you invite a macroeconomist or a banker, they will be more specific.
But I give this example to explain what progressive policy means. We do not have such policies.
- In your view, is the very name „Progressive Bulgaria“ more of a marketing position?
- I think it is marketing branding aimed at the upcoming European elections and at creating a political family that the formation can join. For example, the law on shlyokavitsa, as it became known, is one of the least progressive things you can imagine.
- Were its authors not from other political circles?
- They are from other circles, but in practice the advancement of the law and the possibility of its adoption at the moment are linked to the support of „Progressive Bulgaria“.
If you are progressive, when you see such a law you should say: „This cannot be adopted.“ The same applies to the idea of introducing religion in schools. If you are progressive, you should defend the principle of separation between religion and the state. This is enshrined in the Constitution.
The Holy Synod can organise Sunday schools and other forms of religious education, as happens in Germany. But religion and the state must remain separate.
- How do you assess the dispute surrounding the transliteration law and the way Bulgarian names are written in Latin script?
- This dispute shows that there is a profound misunderstanding of the issue. I watched an interview with Kostadin Kostadinov on the subject in which he tried to explain that his name was being written illegally on Facebook. This shows that he is unfamiliar with the transliteration law.
When the law was adopted, it was allowed for names that had already been transliterated and were known in a particular form to retain that spelling.
For example, my name is written with „h“ because that is how I published it in Germany, where I studied during a certain period of my life. When I received my new identity documents, my name was written this way because the law allowed such an exception.
However, the way the transliteration was carried out was not good. Not enough recommendations were taken into account. It was possible to use other letter combinations, as Poland and Serbia do, to render the sounds in Slavic languages more accurately.
We both adopted the American way of writing the sounds and failed to follow it completely. The truth is that we have a problem rendering sounds such as „ya“, „zh“ and „sh“.
People who have studied or lived in Germany, France, Spain and other countries have already adopted a certain standard for spelling their names. It must be respected.
- A clear expression of respect for intellectuals would be to change the attitude towards what they say. There are many cases in which petitions are written but remain without result. What do you think about the social wave sweeping across Europe? There were serious outbreaks of violence in Spain and Germany. Will these disturbances continue?
- These social disturbances have different foundations. We somehow say that all of Europe is protesting and rebelling, as if it were one common wave spreading like a virus. In some countries, the protests are predominantly left-wing. This is the case in France, where people want better schools and better healthcare. There is a clear social element there.
In Albania, the protest is anti-corporate and anti-oligarchic. It is directed against the ability of people with political connections and financial resources to acquire influence and property. In Germany, however, some of the protests are more right-wing. They are linked to violent acts committed by migrants or radicalised groups. This gives rise to another type of protest. That is why I would not place them under one heading. All these processes have different foundations.
- But is not economic impoverishment and the erosion of incomes the main reason for the growing tensions?
- It is a fact that Europe has fallen into a severe crisis. We have reached an absurd situation in which we are currently buying diesel from India that is actually Russian. India buys it from Russia, refines it and then we buy it from India. Of course, this is much more expensive than buying it directly from Russia.
The United States, for example, told us: „That’s it, you are not allowed to.“ They hold the monopoly and decide what will happen, who will buy and who will not. At the same time, they continue to make concessions and extend deadlines—another six months, another year.
American companies work jointly with Russian companies and extract oil in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. We have a very peculiar and unpleasant business game. The major winners from all this are the military industries. There are many critics of Donald Trump in the United States, but the American military industry has never operated as successfully as it is operating now.
- Do not all military industries benefit from the current situation?
- All military industries have been profiting lately. That is true. Our military industry is also continuing to operate.
But perhaps people did not properly hear or listen closely to what Rumen Radev said. He did not say that we would not provide weapons to Ukraine. He said that we would not provide weapons free of charge. In other words, if Ukraine wants to come and buy 155-millimetre shells, it will be able to do so. If it wants to buy Kalashnikov assault rifles, spare parts and ammunition, it will also be able to purchase them. If it needs body armour and protective vests, it will be able to buy them.
There is a certain political hypocrisy here. It has been announced that private sellers can sell everything, and they do. Even through Israeli companies.
One of the ships that was hit was travelling from Israel through Egypt and other routes. All of this continues to remain a state secret.
- During the election debate, the issue of pardons was raised and demands were made for documents from the Pardons Commission to be presented. Is it possible for such information to be publicly disclosed?
- There are documents that cannot be extracted and published. The Pardons Commission contains sensitive personal data protected by law. There is also classified information related to the State Agency for National Security, as well as opinions from various institutions. I spent two years on the Commission for Combating Human Trafficking, and I have seen similar situations there. There was a trafficker from Kosovo with a fake Bulgarian passport and drivers from Plovdiv. The Swiss authorities alerted us and told Border Police and us to let him believe that we had not recognised the passport and did not know who he was because they wanted to track the entire channel.
There are situations in which operational information cannot be publicly disclosed. Moreover, when documents are marked „Secret“, you simply cannot publish them. Before the vice president makes a decision, there are opinions not only from the health institutions but also from the State Agency for National Security, the prison director and other institutions. When all these documents show that something is possible and permissible, they cannot simply be ignored.
The services have the right to protect classified information. Intelligence and military units are within their rights not to disclose certain data. This is not something that should be published on the website of the presidency or the Council of Ministers. We have turned politics into a circus.
- This was the main argument behind the political attacks by Kandev and Gyurov. Will the issue of pardons be abandoned in opposition rhetoric?
- It was clear to me that this was a dirty political attack because the pardon being discussed had taken place four years earlier.
If they had known about the case throughout all these years and had ministers connected with healthcare and justice but remained silent, it is clear that this was not a matter of principle. Moreover, I consider it criminal to attack the institution of pardons itself.
A human error may be made. If we have five criminals and pardon four of them, one may turn out to be a serious recidivist and commit another crime. But the other three will have been given a chance. When we discredit the work of the commission and the entire institution of pardons with questions such as „How can you pardon criminals?“, we forget that this is provided for by law and the Constitution. There is also something called humanity, which must be taken into account in certain situations. We also know the case of the mayor of „Mladost“, who was pardoned. This happened after the relevant commissions reviewed the documents and facts. I myself am serving a second term as a member of the Commission for Granting Asylum. I know what set of documents we review—facts from Border Police and the State Agency for National Security, as well as opinions from church councils that advocate for refugees or people seeking international protection. When we consider whether asylum should be granted, there are different grounds—it may concern humanitarian protection or refugee status. I know how much time the work of such a commission takes and how seriously all the circumstances are examined.
That is why it is absurd to look for a way to smear someone when we cannot find anything substantial against them. Then we try to find some minor administrative fact from four or five years ago and say: „Look what happened. Where have you been all this time?“
See more from the interview in the VIDEO.