FACTS publishes opinions with a wide range of perspectives to encourage constructive debate.
Comment by Daniel Smilov:
“There is such a people” (ITN) announced that they will be a “constructive opposition” in parliament. But this is simply not true. In the first place, they are by no means “opposition” because they took the lion’s share from the chairs of the standing committees – this is the privilege of the ruling majority. Secondly, there is much debate about how “constructive” they are. But in the current situation, such a dispute is just a waste of time.
While the ITNs are definitely not in opposition, the “change” has permanently shifted to the role of opposition in the National Assembly. And while the parties in it accuse each other of betraying each other, the idea of changing Bulgaria after Borissov’s rule turned out to be the most betrayed.
The scenario that unfolds before the eyes of the Bulgarians
If anyone had raised the question of what a betrayal of change would look like before July 11, unbiased observers would certainly consider the following scenario: Instead of constructing a solid “majority of change” in parliament with the DB, IBNI and BSP, ITN is trying to govern “Floating majorities”, which enable GERB and MRF to strongly influence the government (in the government and in the parliament).
It is precisely this scenario that unfolds before the eyes of the Bulgarians, who have been misled that there will be a strong majority in the new National Assembly against the rule of Borissov and his associate MRF. Mathematics and political logic not only allow, but also require, such a majority to be constituted and to take decisions in this Parliament. But there are obviously other factors beyond mathematics and logic that dictate different developments.
The betrayal of the change and its transition to the opposition took place in several bars. The first step was the ITN strategy, which has been discussed many times during the first term of government. Their idea of a “minority government” relying on “floating majorities” not only proved unacceptable to anyone, but was also a shortcut for GERB and the MRF through the back door of the country’s government. “Why was this necessary?” The fact that the ITN “won the election” (that is, they have the largest parliamentary group, but still with only 65 MPs) is not even the beginning of the answer to this question. that all these are mistakes of growth: Slavi Trifonov’s people want to stand out, other parties are jealous of their leadership, etc. But the pubertal attitudes of some politicians are not an excuse for the proposed model, which is not just far from “Scratching” of the GERB government, and it is even more his replica and rehabilitation.
The second step in the betrayal of change was the parliamentary votes, and especially those for the chairs of the standing committees. It was said that the ITN (correctly) received the chairmanship of the most important committees – legal, budgetary, foreign policy and internal security and order. But from then on, the other central commissions went to the MRF (economic and regional policy), the BSP (defense), and GERB received European affairs and transport. One of the protest parties itself resigned from such positions, and the DB received four commissions, of which the environment and, to some extent, digitalization seem to be more important. Only this list makes it clear who ITN actually sees as its partner in parliament. These are mainly parties like MRF and BSP, even to some extent GERB – and to a lesser extent the protest parties. In other words, the distribution of commissions demonstrates how “floating majorities” would be formed if this parliament had a chance to last longer.
The third step in the betrayal of change was with regard to the actions of the caretaker government. Who would have thought before July 11 that “parties of change” would attack ministers like Asen Vassilev and Kiril Petkov, who presented the most revealing information about the misuse of public funds both in BDB and through “in-house” distribution of billions to close companies for highways, dams, etc. If the MRF had undertaken to dig into Kiril Petkov’s citizenship, hardly anyone would have been surprised, but when the whole attack started from ITN in harmony with the barns, many eyebrows began to rise. ITN’s rhetoric, coinciding with the MRF’s political vocabulary, made all this “change” look comical in parliament.
What is the real goal?
This weak parliamentary theater is perhaps the way the ITN wants to cover up its desire to go to new elections. But the supposedly great goal is the change of Bulgaria: in this National Assembly there is an opportunity for a clear majority of the change to take its responsibility. The whole question is why the country has to go to another election to get to more or less the same situation. Serious analysts are already beginning to suspect that the real goal of ITN is not to replace the Borisov model with a more adequate, transparent and honest government. Some suggest that the real goal is a presidential republic, others that it is a populist shake-up of the system, without a clear plan of what it will lead to. It is time for ITN to openly go out and take a stand on this issue, because if changing Borissov’s model was their goal, they would not work against it. And at the moment, unfortunately, they are doing just that.
Bel.red.
2,509,864 Bulgarians told The 2016 referendum that MPs should be elected in two-round majority elections, but the political elite and its puppet masters do not allow this to happen.
Are the then elected parliaments legitimate for you? Link to the survey results
–
