Tatyana Burudzhieva in front of FACTS: A new Triple Coalition is not emerging

The election in the parliament has started, but will there be a cabinet… Is a new Triple Coalition looming... What will be the role of “Majesty“… Political scientist Tatyana Burudzhieva spoke to FAKTI.

- Ms. Burudzhieva, the Triple Coalition ruled until 2009, and then we heard from Borisov how they were to blame for everything. 15 years later, will we have a Triple Coalition again?
- Given the vote for the Speaker of the National Assembly, a new Triple Coalition is unlikely to emerge. And other. The triple coalition, however, was a classic coalition - between the top three parties by result, and the result of these parties in terms of the number of votes was close to seven figures, not six figures, as they are now measured. In politics, it is normal and moral to have rules. We often say that there is a morality, but it is not the morality of the common man, it is not the morality that is measured by the rules that have been made. Traditions and political culture are built on what larger groups of people accept and approve of, not individuals. Then we also have more compromise in politics. Now we see that in the current National Assembly - as we have elected it - there is no room for any compromises. In this sense, I think that it is not very logical to simply make some kind of coalition, because Borisov clearly stated that he would not allow himself to rely on any floating majorities, on agreements that must be made in progress for one or another priority. We already played this, we saw it during the “assembly” that even large majorities - as was the case with the constitutional majority, the majority itself is not a guarantor and is not able to guarantee the stability of the governance process. Now politicians have said that there must be accountability, that the people want a government, that they – the politicians think they will have to do what they have to, that things are different, but they are not. We'll see what happens.

- The fact is that only DPS and ITN met with the GERB contact group…
- That's not in the rules either. It's okay to say no. It is normal for any party that is in the parliament to pursue its goals and what it promised to the voters, but to refuse a conversation and a meeting on the main conversation… In this sense, the parties that refused, what did they say to their voters, to the rest of the Bulgarians – no, but without hearing the arguments why you can't accept one or the other. Somehow this has nothing to do with the political process. Politics in a democracy is done with others, with the different, with those who think differently than you. Even when we talk about majority rule. Here the key point is what are the rules, what happens, how do we convince, how do we motivate people who don't want to accept our decisions.

- Parties go to elections to govern...
- This is exactly the logic for holding elections. They are related to management.

- Then finish the question. And in our country it happens that after the elections everyone wants to be in the opposition. Why…
- This is grossly abnormal behavior at the political level. If it was on an individual level, other specialists would comment on it and make diagnoses. In politics, the battle is about who, how, why and with what share will participate in governance. The battle is not who will show how angry he is, how he is greater than others, but you see, others have not appreciated him and so on.

- GERB announced that there should be a cabinet of shared responsibility, and we heard from Hristo Ivanov that it will be a cabinet of shared abomination. When did Hristo Ivanov realize that GERD and DPS are disgusting? Before drinking Turkish coffee or after…
- The period in which Hristo Ivanov understood this thing is lost on me somewhere. Let's go back to his action on “Rosenets“, then the protests… Then he kept convincing us all that this thing was his credo. Then we also saw the moment when he needed these parties – GERB and DPS, in order to realize his “dreams” for changes to the Constitution. Surely then GERB and DPS I was not disgusting. But he also came, at some point, to the basic rule in politics that you go to parliament to do business with others. And the skill is how you negotiate and how you do this work. You don't go into politics to prove how bad some are and how good others are. That thing is up to the voter. The bad thing is that in politics we haven't seen people who go to work for a long time. People arranged the parties. Thus, a part of the people, when we talk about elections, continue to wander in search of some exotic politicians. I mean the hit of “Greatness“ in the parliament. This is how people show their disappointment with politicians. There is no point in choosing them except to choose them to do a job. Otherwise, there is no logic in the existence of politicians and parties.

- In this sense, what kind of work can Nikolay Markov from “Velichie“ do, who said that he did not take an oath because during the oath he left the hall. What a case study this is…
- “Majesty“ is an engineering project. The sociologists missed them, the others did not understand that they would come. It's like in the cooking process – if we assume that all the pariahs will cook, understand that someone has left to wash, that he does not participate in the general process. “Majesty“ are the type of parties that are a business project. That was the case with the Business bloc at the time, like Yane Yanev's RZS, like Barekov's party. In Bulgaria, there is a group of people who are more extreme, who succumb to accepting more extreme messages, to give a chance to such parties that broadcast similar messages that the savior is coming. You can always find such more extreme parties to attract more extreme voters, and this is the reason why we periodically see projects like “Greatness” in parliament. From whether Mr. Markov will sit in the hall or not, he will understand why such a project was created.