Petar Vitanov to FACTI about the BSP elections: I hope the party will now be more consolidated

The BSP Congress elected Atanas Zafirov as the new chairman of the party's National Council. He appeared in a runoff with Borislav Gutsanov. As is known, Zafirov was acting chairman of the party. Where is the BSP heading... Petar Vitanov, a former MEP from the Socialists, spoke to FACTI.

- Mr. Vitanov, the BSP has a new chairman in the person of Atanas Zafirov. Everyone at the Congress says that the party is taking a new path. What is he like?
- Atanas Zafirov was acting chairman, he is related to participation in the government, so I don't see any cardinal change. The big question mark of who will lead the party has now been dropped, because it has been resolved. Pre-election passions have cooled down. I believe that from now on the party will be more consolidated.

- Very recently you predicted to FAKTI and Lili Marinkova that direct elections would be canceled. And so it happened. Why was it canceled?
- I know the party, I also know the attitudes of the people, but it is not a surprise to me.

- What changes in the elections themselves with this change?
- Back in 2016 at the Congress, I voted against direct elections. Even then, I saw the potential negatives of this election. So this is not a surprise now. Direct elections have proven to be a less than quality instrument, and there were no positive directions. The benefits of it were that the entire party was mobilized, that a wider circle, not to say the entire party active, determined the chairman. In this situation, the one who is at the head of the party has a huge advantage over everyone else. It is no coincidence that there is no direct election anywhere in Western Europe. But, in the end, this was the will of the Congress, which also demonstrated independence because it rejected other proposals of the leadership. For example, to abolish the term limit. The Congress had a different opinion. Look, this is an “internal factory problem”. The method of choosing the chairman is not that important.

- There were nearly 20 candidates for chairman, but during the Congress we heard recusal after recusal. What happened?
- It is always like this, if you observe the BSP congresses over the years. Why are there so many candidates? Because there is no clearly expressed leadership. There was such a timelessness, if you will, that predetermined a greater choice of candidates. Moreover, over the years, the great political dynamics created a lack of self-esteem in many people. This power elevator was taken very quickly by different people, and this created the feeling in many of them that they could be suitable for any position. The combination of these things may have led to this large influx of candidates. After all, the motives of the people who participate in the competition are different. Very often, those who are in third and fourth place have an interesting role. Just like in politics. For many years, the MRF was a balancer between the left and the right. Thus, the third and fourth can turn out to be a balancer in the election, because they can direct their votes in one direction or another. They can then get some position, for example. In this sense, the motives of the candidates are very different.

- Of the over 900 participants at the beginning of the Congress, a little more than 600 delegates participated in the runoff. This means that some of them either left, or deliberately boycotted the election for chairman, or... - There is hardly a boycott. It is always like that. The Congress was simply poorly and very poorly organized. The vote was supposed to be held on Saturday. On Saturday, the delegates waited until 12 o'clock to see if they would vote. After that, the election remained for a while, and then it dragged on. After all, let's not forget that there are people from General Toshevo, from Aydemir, for example, who are 5-6 hours away from Sofia. Some of them left, understandably, to go home.

- And finally, a runoff between Atanas Zafirov and Borislav Gutsanov - deputy prime minister versus minister. Did the post prevail... - No. Maybe the posts gave these two people an advantage. When you are in power, this gives you another type of tool through which you can attract support. Here, perhaps the personalities of the two mattered. But, look, the choice is like this. We saw that at the end there was some kind of comradely handshake. This most likely means that the vote is accepted.

- Both of them are part of the ruling majority in our country. From “never with GERB“, to “in the GERB cabinet“. What happened in the BSP to make this possible?
- I have said it many times that I was against participating in this ruling coalition. There is no need to argue for it. And I have shared my opinion on all sorts of internal forums. Perhaps what the BSP should do now is to explain to its voters why it is doing it. This is not being said clearly enough. The argument "not to go to new elections" is invalid. Rather, for me, the BSP's participation in power should be positioned and it should be clearly stated that the party can solve this, this, this and this problem. I am against the participation of a left-wing party in a right-wing government, because someone will pay the bill at the end of the coalition. But this happened. In the end, the opinion of those people in the party who think that there should be joint government prevailed.