Dire warnings have been issued from various quarters in recent days that the phenomenon of Ataka, Bulgaria’s ultra-nationalist grouping that emerged in spring last year and captured eight per cent of the seats in Parliament in the June 2005 elections, could imperil Bulgaria’s chances of joining the European Union.

Without doubt, the Ataka phenomenon is disturbing. Its messages are nauseating, including one of its most recent favourite themes, that ethnic minorities have no place in the governance of Bulgaria.

Its public position on EU accession seems somewhere between confused and ambivalent, at once appearing to be rooted in xenophobia and loathing for what the EU represents, while at the same time saying that it disagrees with the political structure of the EU, and at the same time saying that it favours Bulgaria joining the EU. It is fortunate that currently it is not up to Ataka to say whether or not Bulgaria will become an EU member.

The rise of Ataka is a by-product of the failures of Bulgaria’s political establishment. Its calls for re-nationalisation of previously privatised state assets are unsustainable and represent nothing more than a crude populism, yet are made possible by the mishandling of many such privatisations, and the questions that continue to surround them in the perceptions of certain quarters of the public. Like many such organisations, Ataka is invoking a special kind of national socialism that makes it possible to swirl into one un-nourishing mess ideas drawn from the extreme right and from the extreme left. Certainly, Ataka has succeeded in stealing territory from the right-wing, who have only themselves to blame for leaving the field open by their continuing failure to achieve among themselves a working form of co-operation.

Much of what it being seen now is happening against a background of mindfulness in political circles that a presidential election is due towards the end of this year. Ataka, as aware as anyone else of the perception that current Sofia mayor Boiko Borissov comes from outside the political elite and is a “non-partisan” strongman alternative to this elite, seems to have decided to keep its options open by flirting with him, with public statements about possibly backing his candidacy should Borissov decide to stand for president.

If this trend continues, it may mean that the poles of the presidential elections would be thus, with incumbent President Georgi Purvanov representing the voice of moderation and certainly the voice of the political establishment, against Borissov, possibly backed - with his consent or not - by a vociferous and highly motivated ultra-nationalist electorate. How this scenario shapes up will, of course, depend on the decision made by the European Union about the date of admission of Bulgaria. Should the EU decide to postpone Bulgaria’s accession, there could be a vast pool of disillusionment to draw on by those who seek to attack the establishment.

But, in the meantime, could the public displays and public statements by Ataka, including those that seek to pervert the meanings of Bulgaria’s days of national importance - most recently, the commemoration of liberation hero Vassil Levski and the anniversary of the ending of Ottoman rule - genuinely damage Bulgaria’s EU chances?

It is to be hoped that the answer is no.

Bulgaria is not alone in having spawned an ultra-nationalist organisation. Similar organisations are to be found in almost all compass directions elsewhere in Europe.

For Bulgaria, the real issues continue to be those raised by the European Commission as matters of urgent concern. Dealing with such issues properly and in good time are what will ensure Bulgaria’s EU future, and a positive spin-off will be that effective and positive change in these areas may diminish the attraction of Ataka and other such groupings that have nothing to offer but policies that are unsustainable and morally unacceptable.