The results of voting in the municipal elections on October 28 – which in several cities and towns may prove to be only the first round – matter more than it may seem at first sight.

In Sofia, the capital city, the outcome will be an indicator of the future of incumbent mayor Boiko Borissov, and by extension, the whole country.

Challenging Borissov is a wide range of candidates from across the political spectrum, several of whom represent parties that have a distinct interest in, even if they cannot achieve the political destruction of Borissov, at least doing significant damage to him. Going by most polls, it is not a question of whether Borissov will win, because that appears to be a certainty, but by how much. This will be determined by a number of factors, the first being the very number of candidates and the wide range of alternatives that they present, the second being the minor consideration that alternative candidates may have individual merits that exceed those of Borissov, and the third, perhaps most important, that a number of voters in Sofia may pronounce a negative judgment on his performance in managing the city for the past two years. For at least some, Borissov’s standard tactic of strongly suggesting that his potential is hampered by city councillors not of his ilk may not prove persuasive. By various means, not least including occasional bouts of public sulking when he could not get his way, Borissov has managed to be a powerful mayor. The question that voters face, in considering a choice between Borissov and the alternative candidates, is whether that power has been used in an optimum way.

The choices of alternatives put forward by various political parties against Borissov has been interesting – notably, a general as an alternative to the incumbent general, a successful business person as an alternative to someone who has limited experience in the private sector, even a macho man-cum-martial arts exponent against Borissov’s own pugilistic skills. Of course, consideration of how the vote will go is incomplete without mentioning that disillusionment and an unwillingness to put any faith in the alternatives may produce yet another in the recent trend of low turnouts. However, a relatively high turnout and a strong mandate for Borissov would further propel the upward arc of his national political ambitions.

In the national context, of course, it is to be hoped that there is a decline, or at very least no growth, in support for parties selling the poison of ethnic intolerance, other illiberal values, and ultra-nationalism in general.

But it must also be remembered that these elections are not meant to be an elaborate and expensive opinion poll of attitudes towards established national political forces.

They are, in theory at least, about choosing the best people to be handed the stewardship of Bulgaria’s cities, towns and villages. It is to be hoped that all those with the power to vote, eligible either because of being Bulgarian or qualified to cast a ballot as a European Union citizen permanently resident here, will go to do so, and will make a considered and informed choice on the basis of which individuals have the optimum vision, commitment and skills, and who will conduct themselves cleanly in public life, to make of each municipality a building block of a more successful Bulgaria.