Sixteen weeks of protests: Bulgaria challenges the institutionalisation of corruption

Democracy never came to Bulgaria, the system ruling the nation remaining oligarchical but dressed in the colours of the "post-communist" narrative of progress. Following three decades of transition to a free-market-oriented democracy that is widely seen as ineffective, the people of Bulgaria have once again moved their frustration with the current political regime, represented by the populist Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) party, to the streets. At time of writing, October 24th 2020, there have been 106 consecutive days of protests across the country which call for the resignation of Boyko Borissov, the Prime Minister (PM) of Bulgaria, who has been in power almost uninterrupted since 2009, and Ivan Geshev, the country’s chief prosecutor. However, the PM has rejected the legitimacy of people’s requests by enforcing the discourse that he is the only one who can develop the country and bring European values .

What are people standing against?

Many wide-ranging views and slogans can be heard at the protests - economic prosperity, freedom of speech, fair judicial system, democratic elections and competent ministers. The underlying issue within the political system in Bulgaria is corruption entrenched at every state level and facilitating the lack of transparency, dependent media, one-party rule and a government directed by oligarchs. Corruption has proven to be the key reason for stagnated political and economic transitions, due to the presence of unofficial rules and norms which convert the formal state institutions in a theatrical stage where ‘democratically’ elected state officials perform a rehearsed play of politics.

By the democratic principle of the separation of powers, the judicature should be independent of the legislative branch and executive powers to account for equal justice under law, protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, juridical persons and the state. However, the reality in Bulgaria, similarly to Hungary, Poland and Romania, forms a "major source of controversy" and a "serious concern."

For example, in 2016, the PM’s attendance at a Supreme Judicial Council meeting, reviewing the “Yanevagate” scandal, was not even slightly objected by the judiciary representatives as some of them even formed a line in front of Borissov, like soldiers saluting their commander. Another recent instance of overstepping public boundaries is the unlawful privatisation of a public beach by Ahmed Dogan. Due to his political history the founder of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS), representing the rights of the Turkish minority, and a former agent of the Committee for State Security benefits from state security protection. Thanks to Hristo Ivanov, a former justice minister and a current leader of the party “Yes Bulgaria”, it was witnessed how Dogan uses the state protection to guard a public beach close to his summer residence and keep people from entering.

Whilst the case of Dogan sparked the beginning of the protests, it is the daily practices of corruption, collusion and clientelism that brings people outside to set the basis for a new future for Bulgaria.

Behind the veil

The long continuity of the protests has allowed for a shift in the power dynamics shaping public opinion. Whereas, in the beginning, people formed a strong position directed against the PM, in the latter days of the demonstrations new winds began to change the narratives as certain figures came forward to take the leadership positions. The now oligarch-in-exile Vasil Bozhkov is positioned as one of the coordinators of the protests, using them to pave his way to state power. Influential figures and groups attempting to hijack the protests also include popular showman Slavi Trifonov, as well as the "Democratic Bulgaria" electoral alliance.

The plethora of new alternatives to the status quo suggests that the Bulgarian nation has begun its long-awaited transformation into an active and participatory agency that influences the political, economic and social development of the country. What it also shows is the inability of the current regime to respond to the public needs and satisfy their interests.

On the other side, Borissov uses the divisions in the protests to emphasise his political status as a stable leader and unity candidate. He firmly criticises the segregated approach that the emerging political alternatives adopt towards their state strategies. The discourse which the PM enforces relates to the idea that his regime is the only opportunity for development because it offers a wider programme for development which links to all sectors of life. Until now, the lack of a powerful opposition is what helped Borissov to stay in power, placing many people in a grey area where they are dissatisfied with politics but they agree to it as they see no other opportunity.

The on-going protests have challenged the current system and contributed to its destabilisation. This has created favourable conditions for “smaller players” to take advantage of the generated momentum of public energy. Because of this conditionality, a large component of the people who support the anti-government protests have decided not to join the ranks. This is evident in the gradually decreasing power of the protests, which now limit themselves mostly to the capital Sofia. The reason for that can be linked to any of the abovementioned political groups and the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, what we observe here is a very interesting socio-political phenomenon. People are unsatisfied with the regime, however, some of them are now reluctant to participate in the protests. The result of this is a lost momentum of the protests and a lack of a strong alternative to Borissov.

The EU turning a blind eye on democracy

The EU plays a key role in domestic relations in the country. The European People’s  Party has shown great political support for Borissov’s regime regardless of the reports pointing out the numerous corruption schemes in Bulgaria that deny the state a fair chance at full democracy.

For Angela Merkel, Borissov is a useful ally in the EU’s relationship with Erdogan which is why strong criticism of Bulgaria’s development has been avoided. The country’s role in maintaining the EU’s migration pact with Turkey (2016) is crucial as it contributed to the decrease of refugees looking for shelter in the European countries. Considering the negative impact that the so-called “refugee crisis” from 2015 had on the Western democracies generating anti-immigration attitudes and giving a rise to far-right and populist parties, it is a priority for the current European leadership to maintain a peaceful political environment in relation to immigration. Thus, Borissov provides the EU with the relative comfort of putting the politically incendiary topic of immigration on the back seat.

The implications of disregarding people’s demands should be reviewed on two stages. Firstly, the EU demonstrates its inability to spread and nurture democratic values within its own premises which delegitimises the leading role it aspires to play on the global stage. Secondly, Bulgaria has initialised the mechanism for accepting the Euro, which relies on the satisfaction of the EU’s European values and principles. Thus, allowing for totalitarian practices to take place in one of its Member States threatens the Union as a whole. As an institution claiming to defend democracy, it should support the people of Bulgaria in their political struggle rather than to act as another suppressor by indirectly silencing their voices.

So now what?

Even though for the time being the protests do not have the political power to change the status quo, the system may struggle to resist the upcoming social disruptions influenced by the consequences of the expected economic crisis caused by the pandemic. Thus, tensions might increase and people may be more likely to take radical positions to bring about change. Along with that arises the opportunity for forming a strong civic movement(s) led by the young people in the country. The protests distinguish with exceptional participation by the youth, including people living, working and studying abroad. They struggle for the same rights shared by their peers in the Western European states. So, even though there are different political alternatives characterising the protests, these could likely be overcome as solidarity and shared disappointment prevail.

What the current protests show is a social reconstruction in how people think and perceive their agency. This implies that even though the protests might not have achieved the desired resignations, they have become a symbol of social transformation which will lead to more political engagement on an individual level. As a result, people will begin to express their role as drivers of political, social and economic change which would put more pressure on their future political representatives.

Images courtesy of Sketches of Sofia, ©2020, some rights reserved.