The instances of Bulgaria receiving some positive coverage in world media are so infrequent that every new case of praise is cause for much rejoicing in the Bulgarian media. Even when such reports are patently off the mark, the media are so starved of hearing good things about Bulgaria that they seem to forget any critical reading skills they have.

A report in the Wall Street Journal on September 6 argued that the high approval ratings of Boiko Borissov’s Cabinet were due to the austerity measures put forth by Finance Minister Simeon Dyankov. It even went so far as to describe the former World Bank economist as a rising political star.

And here I thought the high approval in the polls had more to do with the new administration’s apparently relentless drive against its predecessor, the revelations of massive and widespread financial shenanigans and the promises to bring those responsible to justice. While not entirely inconsequential, Borissov’s election win was not because of the failing economy, but because of his promises to root out the corruption that, according to popular perception, has become all-pervading during the tripartite coalition’s term in power.

It is easy to see how coming from a background where the word of the finance minister carries a good deal of weight, the Wall Street Journal might make the mistaken assumption that it is the same case in Bulgaria. Except Plamen Oresharski in the previous cabinet was little more than a glorified accountant, balancing the books while policy was made elsewhere, nor is he the only former finance minister in a similar situation. The one minister in the past decade that broke out of the mould, Milen Velchev, is still mostly remembered for his foreign debt swap, which cost Bulgaria hundreds of millions in interest after the US dollar sank against the euro.

I do not begrudge Dyankov his spotlight and I support the sensible decisions he has made in his first month in office, but a political star he is not. His decisions certainly bought him some goodwill, but, equally, more than just a few voters will be concerned about what his austerity measures will mean for their own livelihood. Politically, he is entirely dependent on Borissov and any clash between the two can only have one winner in the public’s eye.

Perhaps he will some day grow out of Borissov’s shadow, but that prospect remains a distant one. For all the worries about the economy, what will make or break Borissov’s cabinet is his success in fighting corruption and that is one area where Dyankov’s contribution, while hardly irrelevant, will not be decisive.