Veselin Stoynev's comment:
A lasting solution to the political crisis in Bulgaria is impossible without the participation of “We Continue the Change - Democratic Bulgaria“, even if a regular government were to be formed without it. It would be unpopular in its coalition and personal composition and unstable in its way of functioning, regardless of how long it would govern.
The political crisis began in 2020 as a crisis of the legitimacy of a corrupt government and cannot be resolved without the participation of the systemic political alternative in the face of the parties of the democratic urban community, often called urban liberals and urban right. The solutions to the crisis were temporary with her leading participation in the administrations of the “Petkov” and “Denkov” cabinets. And the impossibility of governing without the political representatives of these several hundred thousand voters was demonstrated during the years of the crisis in the seven-time failure of GERB to form a government, either as the winner of elections or as the second political force.
PP-DB from a solution became part of the problem
However, a permanent solution to the political crisis never came about, not only because the PP and DB were not allowed to fully enforce an anti-corruption policy, but also because they themselves did not allow themselves to take the course of a more permanent and consolidated participation in power. Therefore, from being the main tool for solving the problem of the political crisis, they themselves became part of this problem.
The main reason for this is that all the time these formations tried to meet the attitudes of their voters for “disagreement with corrupt people“, which is why even the coalition government with GERB, supported by the MRF, was called a patchwork, and the PP presented the “Denkov“ cabinet as almost entirely its own. The subsequent memoranda and cordons sanitaires, until the last attempt for a detailed agreement with GERB in the current parliament, again followed the cult of iron guarantees against pollution. And this has its reasons – the historical experience of herbalizing the formations of the urban right in close collaboration with GERB, such as the cases with the UDF and the Reformist Bloc.
Divided into irreconcilable and constructive, but fundamentalists of change
PP-DB, increasingly dividing into center-left progressive liberals (PP) and center-right classical liberals (DB), is now also divided in anti-corruption tactics - into “irreconcilable“ and “constructive“, however, both parties remain fundamentalists of change. PP is living in the image of categorical, effective, here and now change, and DB of heavy, deep institutional change - from the constitution to the comprehensive management agreement. However, both formations are connected vessels and in their effort to maintain the “red lines” of their also increasingly divided, but still common voters, they went from the impossibility of lasting participation in power to the impossibility of participating in power at all. The DB blocked the PP in its attempt to form an alternative parliamentary majority with “Vazrazhdane”, ITN and BSP, and the PP then blocked the DB's attempt for a governing majority with GERB, BSP and ITN.
In the end, the two formations remain together again, increasingly different and mutually disliked, but there is still no political time to separate, and this means that one of them risks losing more of the common voters. In opposition, they will be different again, remaining in a fully confederated coalition format, but the prospect of being marginalized is already quite real.
First, because the life of the eventual government of Rosen Zhelyazkov, no matter how unstable it may be, will not depend on them – PP-DB or one half of it cannot participate in a majority of 121 votes, which would bring down the cabinet, and which would become an alternative governing majority (because it again includes “Vazrazhdane“). Second, because even if you achieve something in opposition on the judicial reform, it will not be in the volume that you could guarantee yourself if you were in power – at least it will not seem conquered, but at most gained with the goodwill of the rulers, who will want to maintain the possibility of a strategic partnership. And third, the question remains, while you gather forces in opposition, how do you prepare for elections and whether your main competitor will actually be your closest partner - the PP of the DB and the DB of the PP.
The Horizon of Survival
And this is the prospect of survival, of the battle for a larger share of the same voters. The prospect that after new elections, sooner or later, PP-DB will once again raise an electoral wave, seems only theoretical, because for this purpose, three conditions must be present simultaneously: the situation in the country after the rule of GERB and the coalition has become unbearable (even if we have entered the eurozone); that there is no other political alternative (and Rumen Radev is always at the door); that PP-DB again converge from a confederal to a federative coalition (even if the prosecutor's office causes lasting damage to the image of some PP leaders, and the gap between PP and DB on financial policy is neglected).
Reactive to voters or their leaders
But until then, the question of whether PP-DB can and wants to govern at all will remain acute. The time for reactively following hard-electoral attitudes that lead to fundamentalist reformism - in a more revolutionary or evolutionary style, but painfully shy of any collaboration - is running out. And time is increasingly looking for political leadership of the voters, which will inevitably lead to party and personal damage. Because just as GERB was repeatedly pushed to the wall - to win elections, but not be able to govern, so PP-DB will be at the final crossroads - to govern as a runner-up or to be eternal opposition. Because the more you do not participate in power, the less you achieve your goals. And the more you condemn yourself to opposition, the more you marginalize yourself. And the instinctive urge for survival, pushing towards eternal opposition, is also a path to turning a party into a non-systemic formation.