Professor Georgi Karasimeonov, Head of the Department of Political Science at St. Kliment Ohridski Sofia University, Director of the Institute for Political and Legal Studies: We are witnessing “stable instability” but no crisis

Borislav Mihaylov

- Professor Karasimeonov, some time ago, you said that there is a deficit of democracy and democrats in Bulgaria. Has anything changed since the last elections?
- Things seem to remain the same at best. It is true that no great changes can happen in a year and a half. Now, we are rather reaping the harvest of certain processes that are not in favour of democratic development. There is something in the activity of the ruling party which I can describe as a strengthening of the processes of concentration of power at the top of the pyramid - in the Prime Minister. You will probably ask what consequences this will have.

- Yes, I will ask you. The more so that you believed there was a chance for Boyko Borissov to be the most powerful Prime Minister in the last 20 years.
- When I said that, I meant that Borissov had the chance to be the strongest, compared to the former prime ministers. In terms of positions, Borissov really has the best opportunities to realise what he wants. On the one hand, there exists an obedient parliamentary group, guaranteeing support for Borissov in the National Assembly. On the other hand – he is an indisputable authority within the party whose leader he is.

All of this is demonstrated by assuming responsibility. But assuming responsibility is different from violating the division of powers. A democratic state is based on this fundamental principle. It is the division of powers that makes possible the convergence of different interests in order to achieve the most adequate solution, meeting the interests of the majority of citizens. When this principle is violated - as in the case of concentration of power - one of the main effects is unpredictability and ultimate chaos since the final say of the leader is expected as a last resort. This is not normal for a democratic system. It is not possible for a single person to have the capacity and capability to solve all problems in the State. This is not a useful attitude - neither for Borissov, nor for the institutions. There should be a diversification of powers rather than waiting for the decision of one man.

- But is there a crisis in the country? Both the Blue Coalition and BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party) are talking about a crisis of government and insist on the resignation of key ministers or the entire Cabinet...
- I understand the opposition and its right to use strong words. However, I do not see a crisis. A crisis presupposes blocked institutions and an inability to make decisions. We have not reached this stage and I hope we shall not get there. Otherwise, we would arrive at a situation which a French sociologist described some years ago with the term “a blocked state”. This phenomenon has not been observed yet but we are witnessing something else which I call “stable instability”.

- Do not scandals, which have for some time followed each other, reinforce the feeling of "stable instability"?
- Stability arises from the fact that we enjoy the parliamentary support of the MPs from the Ataka party and of some independent deputies. Thus, GERB (Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria) is more stable, even when compared to the time when it came to power. Moreover, there are no centrifugal forces in the party undermining the position and influence of the Prime Minister who still holds absolute power in his hands.

And instability arises from the management style which, combined with the concentration of power in the Prime Minister, leads to a specific phenomenon - responsibilities are passed onto Borissov, while the ministers or the Parliamentary Group are absolved of these. This leads to instability. We do not know which decision of the main institutions will be changed when it reaches the office of the Prime Minister. This approach reverses the pyramid of decision-making, which results both in instability and scandals.

And since the opposition cannot express its position in a natural way because its comments are not taken into consideration, the struggle for influence in the system of government is conducted via scandals and attempts to undermine the position of one minister or another, not in Parliament, but via extra-parliamentary means. So the battle of the opposition takes place outside Parliament, sometimes with very dubious means and through the media.

- And what are the possibilities for an exit out of the situation you describe? Is there a good and a bad option?
- The forthcoming elections are the normal exit from this situation. They will clearly demonstrate the degree of confidence in the Government and how strong the opposition is.

- But they will not change the balance of power in Parliament and, possibly, the relationship between the parties there ...
- Elections are always a barometer. If the local elections show a strong decline in confidence in the Government, this would be indicative. Even presidential elections indicate whether the ruling party, respectively, its candidates enjoy public confidence. Boyko Borissov will certainly take into account the results of the upcoming elections and will undertake adjustments in both the composition of the Cabinet and in its policy.

The votes of no confidence are another way which the opposition will use. Parliamentary democracy has many options for finding a way out of a situation.
Regarding early parliamentary elections, I do not see such an option. This might happen if there is a collapse in confidence in GERB at the local and presidential elections.

Прочети цялата новина

Свързани новини: