Nationalism and populism have always walked side by side and shared similar political messages in the world. Having the two platforms shake hands in Bulgaria in the persons of Volen Siderov, leader of the ultra-nationalist Ataka party, and Boiko Borissov, mayor of Sofia, is the question that today occupies the minds of political analysts in the country.
The idea of such an alliance caused anxiety among leaders of the established parties in Parliament and apparently in the mind of President Georgi Purvanov, in light of the presidential elections scheduled for October this year.
Two events, at first sight unrelated, have shaken Bulgaria’s political life during the past few days.
On February 28, Borissov demanded via the media, in his well-known aggressive style, that Purvanov help him recuperate 100 million leva from the Government. Borissov claimed that the Government had slashed the subsidy for Sofia Municipality and Purvanov had to assist in compensating for the budget cut.
Borissov won the past autumn’s mayoral elections in Sofia, offering great promise for sudden change, but reality revealed that he would not be able to fulfil his pre-election promises. Various politicians described the demand for the money as “Borissov’s most recent excuse for not handling the situation, as he did in his days as Interior Ministry chief secretary”.
Purvanov, former Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) leader, and Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev, current BSP leader, refused to meet Borissov’s request. Stanishev described the demand as “political blackmail”, which meant that the period of peaceful co-existence between him and Borissov was over.
On March 5, Borissov said in an interview with a Bulgarian-language newspaper that for him it was absolutely necessarily to form his own party within a year.
This statement immediately prompted speculation that Borissov would actually take part in the presidential elections against Purvanov, who Borissov, until most recently, has described as “his friend”.
The news that Borissov plans to form his own party was not unexpected. Such speculation has been about for more than a year.
However, events in the days preceding March 3, Bulgaria’s national day, imparted more anxiety.
The reason was Volen Siderov’s request for Borissov’s permission, as the law requires, for Ataka’s rally on March 3.
March 3 marks the liberation of Bulgaria from five centuries of Ottoman rule and the date provides many opportunities for nationalistic displays.
Siderov’s demand caused a lot of public reaction because just a week ago, on the anniversary of Bulgaria’s national hero Vassil Levski’s death, Siderov’s supporters scandalised many by spewing racial slogans and by burning fezzes.
Stanishev, along with most other politicians in the country, condemned these acts.
That is why Ataka’s plans for a rally on March 3 suggested that the party would continue its racial and anti-government acts.
Stanishev called on Borissov not to allow Ataka’s demonstration, so that public order would be preserved.
“Ataka is a democratic party and has every right to organise demonstrations as long as the party follows the law,” Borissov said in an interview with Bulgarian-language media. Pavel Chernev, an Ataka MP, said that Borissov was under Government pressure and even suggested that Borissov could be the party’s presidential candidate.
Siderov said that Borissov’s decision not to ban Ataka’s rally meant that he was “a man of honour”. Borissov was quick to say that he had nothing in common with Ataka and he had not received offers to be the party’s presidential candidate.
However, the established parties in Parliament who condemned the future alliance took the possibility of Borissov and Siderov joining forces as a serious threat. With Borissov’s immense popularity and Siderov’s nationalistic slogans well accepted by most of the poor Bulgarians, no one can say how far the tandem might go.
Although Ataka’s rally on March 3 passed without incident, Siderov announced that his party’s goal was new parliamentary elections and power itself.
The Sofia Echo spoke with Mira Yanova, director of MBMD Social Surveys Agency, who said that although Borissov and Siderov might have looked alike, it was too early to say if the two share the same ideas and political views.
“There is great social discontent among Bulgarians due to the long and painful transition from communism towards democracy. People just feel disappointed and deprived of faith, and we withness a crisis in moral values as well,” Yanova said.
This situation had provoked people to seek easy solutions and, most of all, find the enemy, the one responsible for their poverty. Siderov has found that enemy in the Turkish and the Roma minorities in the country and people are ready to follow him: in times of moral crisis the strong figure is what makes an impression.
Another reason, according to Yanova, for Siderov’s popularity was that the traditional parties had completely neglected their supporters, which opened up space for Siderov.
Ataka had simply gathered the people disappointed with their parties.
“The racial slogans are incidental to the radical right-wing parties, and the nationalisation messages are part of the radical left-wing platform and Siderov uses them both,” Yanova said.
As for Borissov, Yanova was certain that he had almost nothing in common with Siderov and should not be associated with him.
“Siderov talks about nationalisation, about denouncing the accession treaty with the European Union and NATO. Borissov is completely the opposite. He backs Bulgaria’s EU accession and membership of NATO.”
Yanova said that Borissov would most probably try to distinguish himself from Ataka.
“Borissov aims at people who are in the middle of the political spectrum, people who are not from the radical left or the radical right,” she said.
“People like Borissov for his personal qualities and clear messages and I am not certain whether this will remain the same if he forms his own organisation and joins the traditional parties in Parliament,” Yanova said.
