Vote for Kostov, you get Borisov...

Before the elections, a for me completley unknown party called Nova Zora (New Dawn) ,bought advertisements on Youtube, saying "If you vote for Borisov, you will get Kostov". Ivan Kostov is the leader of DSB, one of the leading parties within the Blue Coalition. He was also Bulgarias premier minister 1997-2001. He is a highly controversial person, a fact that this video tried to exploit to prevent people to vote for Borisov.

The video failed, as we all know, and GERB won 40% of the Bulgarian votes. Since minority government is not typical for Bulgarian politics, observers expected Borisov to seek coalition partners, and most expected these to be the blue coalition. After all it would be rather difficult to regain European confidence in Bulgarian politics with RZS or Ataka as coalition partners.

Since the elections negotiations have been going on. Eventually Borisov published memorandum that he wanted all parties except for the socialists and the turkosh DSP tio sign, to guarantee support in the parliament, but to form a GERB minority government, open for individuals from other parties in case they have special competencies.

Today Bulgarian media announce that the blue coalition as well as RZS refuse to sign any agreement with GERB, but  say that they will vote for proposals that go along with their politics in the parliament... (eh? Would they vote against them otherwise?) Ataka gladly signed GERB's memorandum, though...

This might not mean anything in real politics, since Borisov will be more careful with support form Brussels than from Ataka, and all parties will likely support anything else than BSP+DSP. But online the discussion is rather hot, see for example Dnevniks discussion about the news and I would guess that tensions are rising between GERB and the blue coalition. It is just a guess, though...

I would be a little sad if I had voted for the blue coalition. You vote for Kostov (and SDS's Martin Dimitrov) but get Borisov... personally I would prefer Kostov.

Inconvenient thoughts

Thanks to my better half Annie, I encountered one more excellent example of Bulgarian social blogging - Neyjoten blog (Inconvenient blog)

In a post called "Why I will not vote for Bogo and Zelenite in the European elections", the blogger Svetla Encheva make some very important points.

Svetla is a personal friend of Bogo, Bogomil Shopov that I have often referred to myself. Bogo is now a candidate for Zelenite in the elections to the European Parliament.

The reason for Svetla to object is not that she can't agree with Bogo. On the contrary, she does agree with Bogo and Zelenite, and thank them for a number of things. Bogo has for example been one of the leading characters in the struggle for internet freedom in Bulgaria, that I have reported on before on Maladets!. But as Svetla says "I would rather see Bogo as a citizen than as a politician". This is a profound truth about democracy. A democracy needs active citizens outside the parliament to work. The most active citizen is not necessary the best politician.

The other reason, that Svetla discusses into lenght, is that Bogo is on the list of Zelenite, and she can't support them. For the following reasons:

Zelenite is, and should remain a social movement, not political party. In deed, as Svetla highlights, one thing that makes Zelenite attractive to many young voters is the fact that they are generally not regarded as politicians. The difference between social movements and parties, according to Svetla, is that the former defend the interest of smaller groups than the latter.

A party also verbalizes the interest of a group, but much bigger. For example it's difficult to generate support for a party for elderly, whereas groups defending the rights of retired are normal, and in deed necessary in society.

When Zelenite goes to elections, it does it as a competitor to the blue coalition, and since their political demands are close, they will generally compete for the same voters in stead of uniting them in a strong alternative.

There is no chance that Zelenite actually will make it to the European parliament. In polls Zelenite is not an alternative, but the alternative "other" usually gets between 1 and 2 %.

This is my summary of Svetla's text. The relevance is proven by the massive interest - the post, posted at 5th of May, today two weeks later had more than 67 long comments.

First of all - I believe that Svetla is wrong. There is a real chance for anything to happen, when 25% of the electorate claim that they will not vote or do no know. I would not be overly surprised if Zelenite and the blue coalition find each other before the elections eithe.

The critique she words against Zelenite I have heard before about the green party in Sweden, and I think this is the critique that every new party will face. All parties grow out of social movements. For sure they will have to evolve into something else later. Some do, some don't. But I can not see any reason why Zelenite would not.

But... Svetle is also right. The difference between a social movement and a political party is in real and vital. Zelenite must choose what to be, and if they decide to be a political party, Bulgaria definitely needs a social movement that can take their place. As a political party they will have to make compromises. But someone must be free to say the truth no matter of the political implications. To make a concrete exampe - the party Zelenite might have to prioritize which Bulgarian national park is the most important to save. A non-governmnental environmental organisation should not and must not do such choices.

As a party they will also have to choose their allies. For now the relationship between Zelenite and the blue coalition is rather unclear. There is a facebook group arguing for Zelenite to join the coalition, and it is difficult to imagine any other partners in Bulgarian politics. But a cooperation should either be more substantial than a Facebook group, or fair competition.

Thanks Svetle, for a thought provoking text! :)

Democracy is coming...

Democracy is a strange thing, in deed. Svetla Dimitrova, head of the election authority ЦИКЕП (read TsIKEP), have written a letter to the Parliament, expressing her discontent with a statement from the parliament dating to the 13th of April.

The parliament was not pleased with ЦИКЕП's proposal to raise the barrier for coalitions to 8 %, and as I understand this is what this is about.

The parliament which is increasingly defiant since the third government party, the conservatives, tend to go against their coalition partners in the parliament, and rather vote with the parties in the blue coalition.

With an 8% barrier, the blue coalition would risk ending up outside the parliament. According to the last polls* I've seen the blue coalition have around 6%. Most analyst's sees this proposal as a try from the government to unduly use their legislative power agianst the opposition.

ЦИКЕП's decision was eventually faulted by the administrative court, which is the highest instance in this case.

One could quite easily see a pattern here: The government parties and certain authorities vs. the parliament, the local authorities in Sofia and the administrative court. the pattern i strinkingly similar to the situation in Republic of Moldova, but there the parliament is under control by the communist government.

For sure there are also business interests tied to the government, I would guess that there are interests tied to the opposition as well. The economedia group, which published the high class newspapers capital and Dnevnik, are very close to the blue alliance opposition.

Many bulgarians engaging in the politics expect some kind of silent revolution from the elections, by voting in new voices in the parliament. The defiant parliament is already now appearing as somehow less corrupted than the institutional establishment.

Now, the point of Svetla Dimitrova's letter is that ЦИКЕП is the responsible authority in this case, and that it is not the parlimentary majority's role to mix up in her work... this is a point that can be argued I think.

The Bulgarian constitution prescribes a very high degree of independence for different institutions, much higher than in Sweden for example. Much critique has ben aimed at the juridical system, but in fact the Bulgarian politicians have very small power to change anything, since they are banned form interfering with the courts.

In this case one democratic principle - the power comes from the elected parliament is ocunteracted by another principle, fundamental to liberal democracy - the independence of courts and other instutions. Democracy is a complex thing. In deed.