Many of the problems in Bulgaria today stem from the corrupt and undemocratic way in which the 1989 transition was carried out. Without recognising this, we cannot hope to change Bulgaria for the better.
Protesters in Sofia, Bulgaria. Flickr/Daniel Dimitrov. Some rights reserved.
180 days of protests and counting
For more than 180 days, Bulgarian citizens have been on the streets
demanding transparency, accountability and respect for the rule of law in the country.
Analysts and journalists have tried to capture the nature of the protests, labelling
them the Bulgarian Spring. They have highlighted the fight against the mafia,
and have drawn parallels with the word-wide Occupy movement (the student
occupation of universities since October 23 in particular). Within these
events, some are seeking the birth of the long-awaited civil society.
A member of the European Union since 2007, Bulgaria is still struggling
with corruption and democratic consolidation. Accession to the EU was presented largely as a milestone in enhancing
socio-economic development, fostering prosperity and democracy, and overcoming
poverty. Some experts even declared the transition to democracy and a market
economy complete. However, six years later, the country seems to be failing in
providing basic rights and freedoms, and is struggling with unfinished reforms.
Since the beginning of the transition in 1989, Bulgaria has been in a
spiral of deep political, social and economic malaise. Demographic crises,
brain drain, poverty, lack of basic means for survival, and of opportunities
for the youth. The root of the problems lies in the grotesque nature of the
facade democracy in Bulgaria. The values, principles and procedures of
democracy are alive only on paper, while the political and administrative
establishments persistently undermine them and create favourable conditions for
state capture and corruption compromising any chance for improvement.
'What is Enlightenment?' revisited
The fall of the totalitarian regimes in Eastern and Central Europe are
events, which in many ways reconstituted the central question of modern
philosophy: ‘What is Enlightenment?’ in a contemporary historical
context. More than two hundred years later, the post-socialist revolutions
provide a similar context for philosophical reflection of the progression to
‘enlightenment’ as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” as Kant said[1]. Accordingly, it can be
argued that the revolutions were a ‘threshold’ in the reconstitution of Eastern
and Central European countries on the path towards ‘unfinished project of
modernity’ (Habermas, 1996).
According to Jürgen Habermas (1990), while countries such as Poland,
Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania experienced very different
revolutionary changes, what is visible underneath these various guises, is that
these events all followed a general pattern and thus formed a process of a
singular revolution: one in which the world is, in a sense, turning backwards,
allowing these countries to catch up with time and the developments missed out.
What is distinguishing in these countries, for Habermas, is that the
totalitarian regimes were not instituted by a successful and independent
revolution, but were the direct consequence of the Second World War and the
occupation of the Red Army. As such, “the abolition of the people’s republic
has occurred under the sign of a return to old, national symbols, and, where
this was possible, has understood itself to be the continuation of the
political traditions and party organizations of the interwar years” (Habermas,
1990[2]).
Where this subtle perception of 1989 as a ‘dawning’ of an accomplishment
may have seemed considerably illustrative with regards to the types of
revolutionary changes occurring in Poland, Hungary, or Czechoslovakia, the case
of the Bulgarian revolution has a reality of its own. In the words of Richard
Crampton, “Zhivkov’s fall[3] was the work of the party
hierarchy; it was a palace coup rather than a revolution, and ‘people power’ in
Bulgaria was to be more the consequence than the cause of the change of
leadership’ (Crampton, 2005: 212[4]).
Thus not all of 1989 was rectifying and not all were progressive.
Bulgaria’s was initiated by the communist elites, the masses enticed by the
secret services. The result? The democracy, freedom are in fact not our
own; they were granted by those same individuals who perpetuated the
totalitarian regime. The Bulgarian democracy is a facade, infiltrated to the
smallest societal capillary by the forces of domination of the past.
So where is Bulgaria’s enlightenment then - when Kant clearly specifies
it is only achievable when a multitude emerges from a self imposed
tutelage/immaturity? Our concept of freedom is corrupted - i.e. it only
translates into political independence. We have no access to the truth -
both about our past and about our present.
We are foreigners to each other in
our own society. This is clearer today than ever before because the protests,
which began as a public outrage against the political elites and a moral quest
to ‘cleanse’ politics have now outgrown that phase and have become civilizational.
They are once again about pursuing the unfinished path towards modernity and enlightenment,
a movement spearheaded recently by the ‘Early Rising Students’.
Democracy and accountability in demand
It is
abundantly clear that something is foul in the state of democracy in Bulgaria.
Democracy has been captured by questionable and unclear interests. Bulgaria has
turned into an arena where corruption replaced the rule of law; patron-client
relationships prevail instead of sustainable CSOs-government relations, undercover political deals instead of transparent
debates, and apathy and distrust has been the
long-term explanation of lack of engagement and participation.
Today, for the first time there is a widespread counter discourse
gaining force, challenging the truth about Bulgaria’s past - the truth about
the advent of totalitarianism, the role of the USSR, the place 1989 holds in the
country’s history, and the current state of politics. Old totalitarian
monuments are painted pink so what has been so successfully hidden in plain
sight can once again be seen in order to be ridiculed. The National
Assembly is barricaded by a meter high metal wall, built some days after the
‘celebration’ of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Thousands of policemen ‘guard’
the streets of Sofia.
The protests have unearthed the structures of domination in Bulgarian
society and the modern makers of the country’s democracy. They are foreign to us, hidden behind a fictitious
history and imposing metal architectures. The blockade of the National Assembly
is symbolic of the slow regression of the power of the former communist elites
- where there were walls around the entire country twenty-four years ago,
today, the only institution which they can protect from us
remains the symbol of their contemporary power - the symbol of Bulgaria’s facade
democracy.
A lack of lustration – a process
where the government sanctions and regulates the
participation of former communists and informants of the state secret police –
together with the lack of proper public debate on the communist past allowed
former members of the communist secret services to hold power in different
sectors of economic and social life, including politics (former President
Georgi Parvanov[5]
(January 2002-January 2012) and other political figures being a case in point).
Allegations of corruption, links to organised crime and the former Communist
repressive apparatus are inherently connected to the contemporary Bulgarian
political elite.
As mentioned above, unlike other
post-communist countries, the transition in Bulgaria was managed by the former
nomenclature. There was no independent investigation of the possible regime
crimes and violations of human rights. This left thousands of questions open:
of systematic and widespread human rights violations; forced assimilation and
repressions against the ethnic Turkish minority; repressions and murders of
opponents of the regime, etc. The strive for accountability and proper debate
on the communist past was met with persistent resistance amidst different
governments.
Regardless of a number of attempts to enforce lustration laws to
prevent former members of the communist state apparatus to hold high level
government positions and positions in public institutions. A six-year
investigation conducted by the Commission of Inquiry into the dossiers of the
former communist state security services (Darzhavna Sigurnost, DS), announced
on 26th November 2013 that about 8,000
former DS agents have been in high level positions during the researched period
(some of them are still in power).
According to the investigative journalist
Hristo Hristov, members of the former communist state security have infiltrated
all parliaments since the 1990 and mostly all governments. In the current
parliament, there are 13 former agents of the DS.[6]
Where Bulgaria failed most is that policy-making depends on the personal
over-centralised will of the government rather than on the rule of law. This
leaves the political elite practically untouchable to any measures of
accountability and civil control. The boiling kettle of resentment found its
valve on the 14th June 2013 when the brazen appointment
of Delyan Peevski, a media mogul with controversial links, literally shattered
the whole society and allowed the lost questions to re-appear with renewed vigour.
In search of the civil society
The latent indignation and disappointment has been a strong
accompaniment of the problematic and difficult transition in the country.
Levels of interpersonal trust and trust in the institutions of the
representative democracy (11% trust in the current Parliament according to
Alpha Research data in October) is among the lowest in Europe. More than 80% of
the citizens in the European Values Study (EVS) 2008[7] declare they do not trust
others and only 11% in recent Alpha Research poll show trust to the current Parliament.
Low levels of participation (81.5% do not take part in any action or
initiative, EVS 2008), civic activity and citizens’ engagement have plagued
societal relations, leaving society fragmented.
Given the weakness in civil society coupled with challenging conditions
for civil dialogue, institutional inconsistencies have left limited room for
citizen participation in policy making, leading to frustration, lack of
transparency and accountability. This allows for arbitrariness of the public
dialogue and small informal groups, civil society organisations and individuals
have limited tools for exercising pressure and influence.
The human
rights, which have been the dream of the civil organisations on the onset of
transition (Kabakchieva, 2011[8])
have proven also elusive. Although Bulgaria is a signatory of main
international human rights treaties and conventions, respect for the human
rights and democratic freedoms is still far from satisfactory. Recent surge in
hate speech rhetoric in the media and the public, even by some high level
officials has demonstrated the weakness of state institutions in promoting and
defending human rights and protection of vulnerable groups.
The xenophobic party ATAKA
(meaning Attack), as well as other nationalistic movements (existing or
newly-created) have exploited the nationalist discourse, posing a threat to
ethnic peace, fostering xenophobia and violence against minorities, migrants
and asylum seekers. The government has failed to contain this spread of
xenophobia, but deploys excessive police force against the peaceful protesters.
Methods employed by the political elite remind one of the former communist
apparatus. The media freedom has also gradually
deteriorated in recent years, Bulgaria to decline from 80th to 87th
in 2013 rank of the Reporters without Borders[9].
Pro-Delyan Peevski groups,
claimed to be serving the interest of political parties in power, allegedly own
a large share of the press. They are also used in a smear campaign against the
protesters and for political propaganda, which ultimately leaves the fourth
pillar of democracy in the hands of the ruling elite.
The
protests: a chance for a re-start?
The recent protests
have given hope that change is still possible. Albeit
fluctuating in numbers, they present an opportunity to re-start the
long-delayed debates of the faltering transition. It is still to be seen
whether the protests have the potential to re-invent the social civic fabric
and enhance civil dialogue. The issues put on stand-by such as de-communisation,
dealing with the communist past, lustration, corruption and the painful reforms
in the social policy, health care, education, the energy sector, security, etc.
have a chance for a fresh start.
The social movement that burst out in Bulgaria cut across the society
and illuminated the fictitious nature of the defining institutions - democracy,
justice, freedom, and progress. The protests march path is a chance for a
society reconnected, an identity strengthened, for a future
reclaimed. What was always clear to some, and is
becoming clear to many more is that the voice of the streets can and ought to
be heard. The hopes are high as the future is at stake. The protests have given
birth to citizens, doers with a dream for a better Bulgaria.
[1]
Kant, I. (1991),
‘An answer to the question: “what is enlightenment?” in Reiss, H. (ed) Kant’s
Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[2]Habermas, J. (1990), 'What does socialism
mean today? The rectifying revolution and the need for new thinking on the
Left', New Left Review v.183, pp. 3-22; online version available at: http://newleftreview.org.gate2.library.lse.ac.uk/I/183/jurgen-habermas-what-does-socialism-mean-today-the-rectifying-revolution-and-the-need-for-new-thinking-on-the-left
[3] Todor Zhivkov - was a
communist politician and leader of the People's Republic of Bulgaria (PRB) from
March 4, 1954 until November 10, 1989
[4]
Crampton, R. J.
(2005) A Concise History of Bulgaria, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Get weekly updates on EuropeA thoughtful weekly email of economic, political, social and cultural developments from the storm-tossed continent.Join the conversation: get our weekly email
Comments
We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.