Home » World » The dirty secret of the “presidential republic” referendum

The dirty secret of the “presidential republic” referendum

Its real purpose is to divert attention from another danger

It is clear to any moderately intelligent person who has read the constitution that a referendum on a so-called “presidential republic” is not a serious undertaking. Why then did Slavi and company take it seriously? There are two possible explanations.

The first is that they want to raise the rating of ITN before the elections. But they are hardly that naive – the ITN party is already unsalvageable. And the president is hardly happy that they pinned it on his uniform.

The second explanation is much more logical – the Slavists have the task of distracting attention from the “Revival” referendum on the euro. Two referendums at the same time should confuse the common people and take away some percentage of the predictable rise of Kostadin Kostadinov.

Who needs this? To the one who longs for the euro. Not to the people, they clearly do not want to enter the Eurozone. But this entry will be very profitable for the banking class, foreign capital and large privatizers, i.e. for somewhere between 0.1 and 1 percent of the population.

Otherwise, ITN is supposedly a people’s party, but whenever it could, it always proposed prominent people from the one percent as ministers.

all the damn experts

which, alas, are not to the taste of the masses. Therefore, this referendum also raises suspicions that ITN is once again seducing the common people in order to serve part of the Chorbaji elite.

In principle, the Parliament and the Constitutional Court should not allow a referendum on a matter that is not within the competence of the ordinary National Assembly. To circumvent this obstacle, the Slavi gang sticks 2 questions in one – do you want the National Assembly to convene a Grand National Assembly, which in turn will introduce a presidential republic? The first is irrelevant, the second is inadmissible, but together they seem to justify each other.

Likewise, a referendum can be pushed for any other possible change to the constitution. For example: “Do you approve of the parliament convening a Grand National Assembly to restore Art. 1 of the previous constitution?” Without being competent, I assume that the Constitutional Court will not allow such a short circuit.

Because of the majority vote topic

they often tell me – but you were from the Slavi team, weren’t you?

The truth is that I have immense respect for Slavi for the referendum, which gave the people the opportunity to say categorically what kind of electoral system they want. This is a great work. And at the same time, my respect is greatly damaged by the fact that his party abandoned the majority vote as soon as it entered parliament, even became its opponent. The rest of the topics that Slavi occasionally proposes for a referendum are, in my opinion, extremely inappropriate, and I have written about it many times. So don’t hang me on that lapel.

And now for the so-called “presidential republic”. She caresses the ear of every non-probator who dreams of a firm hand on his ass. It is clear to intelligent people that there is no such animal as a “presidential republic”. The only country that could pass for such a thing is the USA, since there the president holds the executive power. But that is why it is called “executive” – ​​because the president carries out the instructions of the parliament. No American calls his republic “presidential”.

The American state is an isosceles triangle

of the three equal powers – legislative, executive and judicial.

From Toshko Yordanov’s interview on television, I come to the conclusion that he means something like the French Fifth Republic. The correct name for this form of government is “semi-presidential regime”, since the president has some of the powers of the executive branch. We currently have a similar division in Russia as well as in Turkey. I would recommend Mr. Yordanov to read Maurice Duverger’s book “The Semi-Presidential Regime” very carefully, it is available in Bulgarian. She is the standard on the subject. Duverger attributes the success of this regime in France to the majoritarian electoral system. This is because a successful democracy presupposes the equality of the three powers. If the parliament is elected by party lists, it is a servant of the oligarchy and cannot restrain a strong presidential power.

Therefore, the combination of a strong president with a partisan parliament leads not only to crises, but also to dictatorships. A great example is the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler, but also today’s Russia, as well as Turkey under Erdogan’s presidency. Or the fate of all African and Latin American “presidential republics”. The failure of democracy in this scheme is guaranteed, as are many other insurance events.

On TV

Toshko Yordanov gave the de Gaulle reform as an example

in 1958. But de Gaulle introduced the semi-presidential regime and the majority vote at the same time. Because of this combination, the Fifth Republic can be considered a success. If France returns the party-list vote, there will be a Sixth Republic very soon.

Personally, I have always been a supporter of stronger presidential power and even similar to the American one, but only if the deputies are elected by a majority. Only then do they have the balls to control the president and stand up for the voter’s interests. The tragedy of the Bulgarian parliament in the last 2 years is the clearest proof that de facto the people do not have their own representatives.

For 32 years now I have been writing articles in favor of the only democratic vote. It seems to me that with this I have influenced Slavi and his screenwriters to include this theme in their political adventures. I often find in the writers’ thoughts phrases and arguments taken literally from my articles. This flatters me, but I feel that these virgin expressions of mine have been brutally violated, outrageously used and cynically trashed.

And finally –

what is the point of playing referendums at all,

when the minions of the oligarchy will throw them in the trash anyway? We saw what happened in 2016 – 3,500,000 Bulgarians went to vote, 1 million more than in the last parliamentary elections. Of these, 2,500,000 were “for” the majority vote, 500,000 “against”, 87,000 invalid ballots and as many as 330,000 “no unequivocal answer”!? What does “no unequivocal answer” mean when the question is unequivocal – yes or no? It means that the party charlatans have placed one jaw on the “no” box. The real result is: 80 percent of Bulgarians want a majority vote. That’s exactly what the exit polls showed.

Therefore, in my opinion, both Slavi and Kostadin Kostadinov should first hold a referendum on the referendum as such. Much lower thresholds for both subscriptions and activity, much broader subject matter. And only when they free direct democracy from prison, then indulge in their private referendums.

As long as we do it our way, we’ll live our way. If we want to be like Switzerland, we must do like Switzerland.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.