COMMENTATORS in Bulgaria have had a field day with the political dramas of recent weeks.
The drama, which saw the ousting of Speaker of Parliament Ognyan Gerdjikov on February 4, was followed by a weekend of fear and loathing, hope and doubt.
The moment of glory for the group of left and right-wing political parties that unified against the government ended on Monday February 7 when the “hedgehogs” (their adopted party symbol) from Novoto Vreme had a change of heart and came back to the bosom of the National Movement Simeon II (NMSII).
On February 7 the prodigal sons from Novoto Vreme traded their principles for apparent promises of ministerial seats and electable places on the NMSII ballots in the upcoming elections for Parliament and signed a coalition agreement with the NMSII and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF).
The most recent political crisis ended officially on the evening of February 11 when the sixth vote of no confidence failed and the Government survived to live the remaining few months till the elections.
The thrilling times of the political crisis and the dramatic developments gave lots of food for thought for analysts and pollsters, who as always were accused of being mercenary, after their polls showed growing support for the Government and the NMSII. Political scientists and analysts seemingly queued up to give interviews, participate in TV shows and contribute newspaper commentaries.
After it became clear that Novoto Vreme would save the Government from the kind of humiliation to which Gerdjikov was subjected on February 4, the analysts started speculating on what would happen next – which ministers would be axed and who would take their posts.
On the black list were the names of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy Lydia Shuleva, the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works Valentin Tserovski, the Interior Minister Georgi Petkanov and of course the minister (almost) everybody loves to hate, the Minister of Culture Bojidar Abrashev.
The coalition partners from the MRF demanded the head of their own man, Agriculture Minister Mehmed Dikme.
After it became clear that the Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg might or might not make any changes to the Government and most certainly would not sacrifice his right-hand woman Shuleva, analysts started speculating about what Novoto Vreme would do next, especially after Gerdjikov said he would not leave Parliament – a reversal of what he had said after he was ousted, and after various political leaders said they would oppose his re-nomination.
Some analysts seemed to be gloating as it appeared that Novoto Vreme might not get anything from their partners, even more so after the MRF leader Ahmed Dogan said that his party would not provide places for Novoto Vreme in their ballots and after Deputy Prime Minister and deputy NMSII leader Plamen Panayotov hinted that there might be no places for the “hedgehogs” on their lists either.
All analysts, however, united around the thesis that neither of the opposition parties was ready to assume the responsibility of bringing down the Government and that the political future of Novoto Vreme is rather unsure.
Kapital:
In its Theme of the Issue, Kapital – one of the country’s more reputable newspapers – reached the conclusion that the new coalition between the NMSII, the MRF and Novoto Vreme was an “instability pact”.
In a thorough analysis of the situation after the unsuccessful vote of no confidence, Alexei Lazarov concluded that in the remaining few months till the elections, tensions among the governing parties would reach critical levels.
“As of now the Government survived,” Lazarov wrote. “This so far is the only sure fact after the week of drama. Apart from the survival of the Government after the non-confidence vote, the political future of this government remains unclear.”
“The inclusion of Novoto Vreme in the rule of the country lowered the tensions and steadied the Government. But in the long run, the new partner of Dogan and Saxe-Coburg would barely bring stability.”
“The fact alone that Koshlukov and Sevlievski completely changed their positions on the Government within two days, must be indicative of what lies ahead.”
“If there are no early elections, this Government has a little more than four months – time enough for Novoto Vreme to change its position 60 to 70 times.”
According to Lazarov, in the weeks following the unsuccessful vote of no confidence there will be protracted negotiations among the NMSII, the MRF and Novoto Vreme about the eventual reshuffles in the Government and this would bring profit to Saxe-Coburg as with the approaching of the elections, the likelihood of a new crisis in Parliament diminishes.
“And if next week Gerdjikov is re-elected as Speaker of Parliament, the victory of Saxe-Coburg would be complete,” Lazarov wrote.
“But the survival of the Government does not mean that in the upcoming weeks, the political hysteria will disappear. Novoto Vreme has proven that it is capable of creating tensions and insecurity. Probably soon they would come up with a new set of claims.”
In a separate article, Kapital drew the balance on who gained and who lost from the most recent crisis.
The MRF, according to Kapital, gained short-term huge opportunities to influence the government but created for itself the image of a dangerous coalition partner.
The NMSII won the opportunity to finish its term and to present itself as the victim of the lack of principles of the MRF and Novoto Vreme but would not be able to get through decisions disliked by Dogan and Novoto Vreme.
Novoto Vreme gained access to power resources and possibility to cash them in but committed political suicide as barely anyone sees any principle in their actions.
The Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) gained nothing and lost by demonstrating its lack of personality and the disagreements among the major figures in the party.
The Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) did not win anything either and evidenced disagreements between the party and its former leader, President Georgi Purvanov.
The Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria (DSB) demonstrated a stable position and good organisation; showed unexpected willingness to enter into dialogue – Ivan Kostov discussed common actions with BSP leader Sergei Stanishev. The DSB, however, lost by joining ranks with the socialists and acknowledged them as opposition.
The People’s Union gained points, after its leader Anastasia Mozer was mentioned as a consensus figure suitable to be Speaker of Parliament, and did not lose because it did not have much to lose.
Sega:
In its February 16 edition, daily newspaper Sega published an analysis by Lydia Yordanova of the NCIOM polling agency on the most recent public opinion survey done by the agency.
Generally the respondents disliked the signing of the coalition agreement among the NMSII, the MRF and Novoto Vreme (40 per cent). This, according to Yordanova, was caused by a lack of clarity of the conditions for co-operation and the lack of principle showed by Novoto Vreme.
Politika:
A representative of the Gallup polling agency, Zhivko Georgiev, said that the new liberal coalition was formed not because of principles but because of circumstances, and that Bulgaria had managed to send a very bad signal to the world.
“The statement that the events that took place in our political life can be described not as a crisis of parliamentary principles but as a crisis of Parliament would be insufficient to tell the truth about the situation,” Georgiev wrote. “This is actually a crisis mostly of political morality. What is happening is yet another demonstration that the Bulgarian political life is suffering from lack of values, principles and predictability.”
“Bulgaria managed to send very bad signals to the world but even in the name of the European future of the country I am not willing to accept all the Asian tricks, which were used as a means to follow the otherwise noble goal for Bulgaria to become a modern European democracy.”
According to Georgiev, it was no surprise that the most recent political dealings deepened the crisis of trust in politics and the contempt for it.
“The actions of the MPs during the crisis will most likely lead to inertia during the upcoming elections in June. In this regard, the crisis will have an effect in two ways: on one hand, on the electoral activity, on the other, on attitudes towards coalition policies.”
Monitor:
In an editorial comment entitled “Sacrifice Novoto Vreme Style” of February 12, the day after the unsuccessful vote of no confidence, the Monitor daily attacked Novoto Vreme for their behaviour.
“Hours after the voting on the no confidence motion, Novoto Vreme again demanded the resignation of Lydia Shuleva. The other suspects – Dikme, Tserovski and Abrashev were left behind. The reason is that it is of vital importance to the ‘hedgehogs’ that the spectacle they started must end with at least one sacrifice. How else would they explain to their supporters who followed the circus called “vote of no confidence”, why so suddenly signed an agreement with the NMSII. This very same NMSII which first they left, then spat at and finally tried to bring down... And only a day later called their partner without having any guarantees that they would get what they want. Now they don’t even know how would they participate in the executive branch of government, and whether they would find a booster rocket which would send at least some of them into the next Parliament. Because all sociologists are firm that they would not pass the four per cent threshold. And few of the big parties would want traitors as partners.”
The drama, which saw the ousting of Speaker of Parliament Ognyan Gerdjikov on February 4, was followed by a weekend of fear and loathing, hope and doubt.
The moment of glory for the group of left and right-wing political parties that unified against the government ended on Monday February 7 when the “hedgehogs” (their adopted party symbol) from Novoto Vreme had a change of heart and came back to the bosom of the National Movement Simeon II (NMSII).
On February 7 the prodigal sons from Novoto Vreme traded their principles for apparent promises of ministerial seats and electable places on the NMSII ballots in the upcoming elections for Parliament and signed a coalition agreement with the NMSII and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF).
The most recent political crisis ended officially on the evening of February 11 when the sixth vote of no confidence failed and the Government survived to live the remaining few months till the elections.
The thrilling times of the political crisis and the dramatic developments gave lots of food for thought for analysts and pollsters, who as always were accused of being mercenary, after their polls showed growing support for the Government and the NMSII. Political scientists and analysts seemingly queued up to give interviews, participate in TV shows and contribute newspaper commentaries.
After it became clear that Novoto Vreme would save the Government from the kind of humiliation to which Gerdjikov was subjected on February 4, the analysts started speculating on what would happen next – which ministers would be axed and who would take their posts.
On the black list were the names of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy Lydia Shuleva, the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works Valentin Tserovski, the Interior Minister Georgi Petkanov and of course the minister (almost) everybody loves to hate, the Minister of Culture Bojidar Abrashev.
The coalition partners from the MRF demanded the head of their own man, Agriculture Minister Mehmed Dikme.
After it became clear that the Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg might or might not make any changes to the Government and most certainly would not sacrifice his right-hand woman Shuleva, analysts started speculating about what Novoto Vreme would do next, especially after Gerdjikov said he would not leave Parliament – a reversal of what he had said after he was ousted, and after various political leaders said they would oppose his re-nomination.
Some analysts seemed to be gloating as it appeared that Novoto Vreme might not get anything from their partners, even more so after the MRF leader Ahmed Dogan said that his party would not provide places for Novoto Vreme in their ballots and after Deputy Prime Minister and deputy NMSII leader Plamen Panayotov hinted that there might be no places for the “hedgehogs” on their lists either.
All analysts, however, united around the thesis that neither of the opposition parties was ready to assume the responsibility of bringing down the Government and that the political future of Novoto Vreme is rather unsure.
Kapital:
In its Theme of the Issue, Kapital – one of the country’s more reputable newspapers – reached the conclusion that the new coalition between the NMSII, the MRF and Novoto Vreme was an “instability pact”.
In a thorough analysis of the situation after the unsuccessful vote of no confidence, Alexei Lazarov concluded that in the remaining few months till the elections, tensions among the governing parties would reach critical levels.
“As of now the Government survived,” Lazarov wrote. “This so far is the only sure fact after the week of drama. Apart from the survival of the Government after the non-confidence vote, the political future of this government remains unclear.”
“The inclusion of Novoto Vreme in the rule of the country lowered the tensions and steadied the Government. But in the long run, the new partner of Dogan and Saxe-Coburg would barely bring stability.”
“The fact alone that Koshlukov and Sevlievski completely changed their positions on the Government within two days, must be indicative of what lies ahead.”
“If there are no early elections, this Government has a little more than four months – time enough for Novoto Vreme to change its position 60 to 70 times.”
According to Lazarov, in the weeks following the unsuccessful vote of no confidence there will be protracted negotiations among the NMSII, the MRF and Novoto Vreme about the eventual reshuffles in the Government and this would bring profit to Saxe-Coburg as with the approaching of the elections, the likelihood of a new crisis in Parliament diminishes.
“And if next week Gerdjikov is re-elected as Speaker of Parliament, the victory of Saxe-Coburg would be complete,” Lazarov wrote.
“But the survival of the Government does not mean that in the upcoming weeks, the political hysteria will disappear. Novoto Vreme has proven that it is capable of creating tensions and insecurity. Probably soon they would come up with a new set of claims.”
In a separate article, Kapital drew the balance on who gained and who lost from the most recent crisis.
The MRF, according to Kapital, gained short-term huge opportunities to influence the government but created for itself the image of a dangerous coalition partner.
The NMSII won the opportunity to finish its term and to present itself as the victim of the lack of principles of the MRF and Novoto Vreme but would not be able to get through decisions disliked by Dogan and Novoto Vreme.
Novoto Vreme gained access to power resources and possibility to cash them in but committed political suicide as barely anyone sees any principle in their actions.
The Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) gained nothing and lost by demonstrating its lack of personality and the disagreements among the major figures in the party.
The Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) did not win anything either and evidenced disagreements between the party and its former leader, President Georgi Purvanov.
The Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria (DSB) demonstrated a stable position and good organisation; showed unexpected willingness to enter into dialogue – Ivan Kostov discussed common actions with BSP leader Sergei Stanishev. The DSB, however, lost by joining ranks with the socialists and acknowledged them as opposition.
The People’s Union gained points, after its leader Anastasia Mozer was mentioned as a consensus figure suitable to be Speaker of Parliament, and did not lose because it did not have much to lose.
Sega:
In its February 16 edition, daily newspaper Sega published an analysis by Lydia Yordanova of the NCIOM polling agency on the most recent public opinion survey done by the agency.
Generally the respondents disliked the signing of the coalition agreement among the NMSII, the MRF and Novoto Vreme (40 per cent). This, according to Yordanova, was caused by a lack of clarity of the conditions for co-operation and the lack of principle showed by Novoto Vreme.
Politika:
A representative of the Gallup polling agency, Zhivko Georgiev, said that the new liberal coalition was formed not because of principles but because of circumstances, and that Bulgaria had managed to send a very bad signal to the world.
“The statement that the events that took place in our political life can be described not as a crisis of parliamentary principles but as a crisis of Parliament would be insufficient to tell the truth about the situation,” Georgiev wrote. “This is actually a crisis mostly of political morality. What is happening is yet another demonstration that the Bulgarian political life is suffering from lack of values, principles and predictability.”
“Bulgaria managed to send very bad signals to the world but even in the name of the European future of the country I am not willing to accept all the Asian tricks, which were used as a means to follow the otherwise noble goal for Bulgaria to become a modern European democracy.”
According to Georgiev, it was no surprise that the most recent political dealings deepened the crisis of trust in politics and the contempt for it.
“The actions of the MPs during the crisis will most likely lead to inertia during the upcoming elections in June. In this regard, the crisis will have an effect in two ways: on one hand, on the electoral activity, on the other, on attitudes towards coalition policies.”
Monitor:
In an editorial comment entitled “Sacrifice Novoto Vreme Style” of February 12, the day after the unsuccessful vote of no confidence, the Monitor daily attacked Novoto Vreme for their behaviour.
“Hours after the voting on the no confidence motion, Novoto Vreme again demanded the resignation of Lydia Shuleva. The other suspects – Dikme, Tserovski and Abrashev were left behind. The reason is that it is of vital importance to the ‘hedgehogs’ that the spectacle they started must end with at least one sacrifice. How else would they explain to their supporters who followed the circus called “vote of no confidence”, why so suddenly signed an agreement with the NMSII. This very same NMSII which first they left, then spat at and finally tried to bring down... And only a day later called their partner without having any guarantees that they would get what they want. Now they don’t even know how would they participate in the executive branch of government, and whether they would find a booster rocket which would send at least some of them into the next Parliament. Because all sociologists are firm that they would not pass the four per cent threshold. And few of the big parties would want traitors as partners.”
