Prof. Stoyanov to FACTI: The presidential elections are a realistic horizon for the life of the "Zhelyazkov" cabinet

Is there peace for the Rosen Zhelyazkov cabinet after 100 days of government and what is the role of „DPS - New Beginning“… Prof. Dr. Rosen Stoyanov, Director of Political Analyses and Forecasts at „Gallup International Balkan“, spoke to FACTI.

- Prof. Stoyanov, 100 days of the „Zhelyazkov“ cabinet. How does the government look to you?
- During the first 100 days of the government of this regular cabinet, a management program was adopted, more importantly - a budget, and even more importantly - were two votes of no confidence were overcome. The government proved to be able to work effectively and cope with the challenges of governing even without a majority in parliament, further proof of which is the deal of the last few days for the purchase of modern rolling stock for BDZ and the saving of a significant amount from the Recovery and Sustainability Plan (RSP). Through public appearances, especially by Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov, and through good communication, a balance was achieved in presenting the priorities of the government and the stages of their implementation. And this is of particular importance in maintaining public trust on the one hand, and on the other - in this way the government gave a categorical statement about the Bulgarian position on some foreign policy topics and manages, at least so far, to create a good basis for restoring our acceptance internationally with a sustainable and predictable foreign policy.
But the hundred days are over, and with them the standard tolerance for the actions and decisions of the current cabinet must also end. From now on, it is necessary to monitor every action of the cabinet and ministers with extreme care, reacting critically to every going to extremes, non-compliance with preliminary requests, lack of transparency and actions detrimental to the public interest.

- The cabinet went through two votes of no confidence. What did they show us…
- Votes of no confidence can be viewed as indicators of several different political states. First of all, a vote of no confidence can reflect growing civil discontent and disappointment with the government's policy. This can be an expression of public opinion and people's expectations for better governance, higher living standards and improved social conditions. In these two cases, this was not brought out as the main emphasis - neither in the reasons, nor during the debates in the hall. Secondly, the frequent use of this tool for oppositional action, but without real predictable effectiveness, creates the feeling of seeking goals other than the pragmatic action of constructive oppositional criticism in the search for an alternative for better governance. This creates a superficial impression of activity, but in fact it achieves inflation of parliamentary opportunities, as well as a feeling of uncertainty and instability among citizens and investors.
However, votes of no confidence are certainly part of the broader process of democratic functioning and control over the executive branch.

- In the first vote, Dogan's MRF was part of the support, in the second it was opposition. What path are Dogan's people following?
- Over the years, the MRF party has had different roles in Bulgarian politics - in opposition, as a balancer, as a mandate holder in a coalition government with a full governing mandate even fulfilled. On the other hand, when participating in parliamentary votes for the formation of governments, various governance policies, on international issues, the MRF has always tried to be “flexible“ and pragmatic. They have participated both with symbolic voting of some of their leading figures in the formation of governments, and in successful votes of no confidence. The actions of this party have always been subordinated to the desire to maximize its influence depending on the specific political situation.

- We already have a minority cabinet of GERB-SDF, BSP and ITN. But… With the unsolicited support of Delyan Peevski. In fact, is the cabinet more stable now?
- When forming a minority government with the support of other parties or independent MPs, one necessarily relies on numerous compromises and negotiations in different directions – from adopting legislative initiatives, through budget to appointments, etc.

Relying on floating majorities also carries with it the potential for instability,

due to the presence or emergence of often insurmountable differences or the requirement for impossible compromises. The support from the “DPS - New Beginning“ may provide temporary stabilization of the government, but it also makes it a hostage. We must certainly maintain our well-founded assumptions about whether such substantial support in times of crisis does not remain conditional, conditional and against the requirement of the fulfillment of certain demands – now or in the future.

The cabinet does not currently need a majority in parliament. Those who are against it need a majority.

Of course, it is not impossible for such an “anti-government“ majority to be formed outside the National Assembly – as a public attitude, because in the absence of a clear, bright and strong opposition in parliament, citizens can and have the right to assess what is happening as unacceptable and to express their disagreement through protests and a desire for new elections.
On the other hand, faced with the trials of economic crises, surrounded by international tension, wars and armed conflicts, faced with undoubtedly global historical changes, Bulgarian society and politicians cannot remain unaffected by external factors, with the potential to create conditions of instability that could further compromise the current government.

- How long will this government last. Do you see a perspective that can push it?
- The government is acting in conditions of internal political dynamics, strongly expressed public opinion, economic conditions and very strong international events. On the other hand, we have witnessed how leading Bulgarian politicians often rely not on political logic, but on their intuition for political survival. In this sense, the prediction, although well-reasoned and systematized, of the political situation and its potential for development can change quickly and unpredictably.
At the moment, there is no logical possibility of uniting the excessively diverse and numerous representatives of the parliamentary opposition, which would lead to an early termination of the current government's mandate. The end of this cabinet may come sooner in the event of:
- political and managerial shortsightedness, leading to an economic crisis, followed by mass protests and discontent among the population
- in the event of, God forbid, our involvement in geopolitical events or international pressure, with the potential for a military threat to the security of our state
- due to the simple subjective, private and intuitive political action of what is the most favorable occasion to go to elections in order to increase party representation, without this depending on the care for the interests of society or the conjunctural and “evil“ tasks to be solved.

- Are the BSP and the ITN in a comfort zone, as part of the government, and what does it depend on, and does anything depend on them at all?
- As part of a coalition government, their comfort may depend on the stability of this coalition, and it in turn - on the frequency and levels of the required compromises. The balance of interests in this management configuration is quite a complicated matter. Either way, we are currently governed by politicians with a particularly low level of public support and trust in general. This certainly results in their motivation to undertake and support the necessary unpopular reforms and changes. The BSP is also put to the test by the creation of yet another party on the left. The ITN is currently reaping dividends from the effective work of their representatives in power - the already mentioned successful deal of Minister Karadjov, for example. Undoubtedly, however, participation in government brings negative consequences in the medium term, which has been proven by our increasingly frequent visits to the ballot boxes in the last four or five years.

- Rosen Zhelyazkov's cabinet until the presidential elections or even after...
- At this point, I consider the presidential elections to be a realistic horizon for the life of the “Zhelyazkov“ cabinet. If the convergence report in June this year is positive, there will be no even a formal reason for accusations of a failure of a given policy, due to the significance of the eventual success in our actual entry into the eurozone.

- GERB leader Boyko Borisov said that he “will tolerate“them“ until the report on the eurozone, which we should receive in the summer. Do you expect any turmoil afterwards?
- The expectation of the reports related to our accession to the eurozone is an occasion for everyone to define themselves in a political aspect. This is a watershed that can engage us again with an active political position, as a result of which we can return to active political participation. Such topics can also motivate an increase in voter turnout later on. It is more than clear that the topic will create opportunities for politicking, tensions and, in the event of a possible positive result, an attempt to appropriate basic merits.
I believe that the European institutions themselves will show political wisdom and will not create grounds for inciting Euroscepticism in our country, for the unleashing of populist and pseudo-nationalist unrest, and will make the strategically correct decision in our favor. Because at this historic moment for Europe, there is no need to create conditions for instability for a government of a European country, a member of NATO and the EU, supporting the main European decisions in economic, military and diplomatic aspects.
Let us not forget that a positive decision and a specific date alone will not be enough - considerable efforts will be needed on the part of the state to prepare the public and institutions for a not-so-short and quick transition, which may also encounter different reactions and challenges.

- Will Borisov be able to swallow Peevski's support, which is given but not sought?
- The relations between Borisov and Peevski are constantly the subject of analysis, assumptions and speculation. Ultimately, this is the real alignment of political forces, a consequence of the sovereign's vote. Doubts about the fairness of the elections are an argument, but only the Bulgarian court can decide whether there is enough evidence in favor of one or another accusation. So far, there have been no such decisions. For some, it's sad, for others, it's joyful, but this is the situation as of today.
On the other hand, political expediency and tactical thinking can be an argument for accepting any support. Even from someone from whom you would strategically wish to distance yourself. Criticism from voters can manifest itself mostly during elections, and in the current situation there will be such when those mentioned in your question themselves decide. Whether such compromises are made in the name of a larger, long-term national goal, whether someone sacrifices their reputation and future party potential, while another collects momentary dividends - only time will tell.

- And how long will it continue like this?
- The political situation in Bulgaria, as in any other country, is dynamic and can change quickly. This specific, seemingly unclear, at times so repetitive and familiar that it is even boring situation, will continue until the moment of the entry into the political terrain of a new, strong, certainly leading party, which has been predicted for a long time. It is expected that it will consolidate the political fragmented “diversity“ in terms of votes and support and obtain a result through which, in a potential broad coalition with one, maximum two other parties, it will create a stable and long-term government.

- Is “DPS-New Beginning” turning into that balancer that DPS was throughout the entire transition period?
- In order to become a balancer, “DPS – New Beginning“ must acquire significant political influence and secure continuous, even increasing, stable support among voters, which undoubtedly also involves expanding the range of possible participations in coalition formats, as well as the ability to gain international recognition. To be a balancer, one needs the ability to make compromises, get others to agree to collaborate with you, break out of cordons and isolation, cooperate with different political forces, of course, and define a political ideology. We can also mention the urgent need for political leadership, charisma, diplomacy, competence, media appearances and positive publicity…

On the other hand, if the political scene in our country remains so fragmented and without a clearly dominant force, a balancer may not be necessary.

Last but not least, if during elections a political party gains the trust and support of a sufficient number of voters, then it has the right to political legitimacy, even if this is “DPS - New Beginning“. Whether this will make them an unavoidable factor - it is too early to say. At the moment, their role is more of a political mediator than a political balancer.