Maxim Behar: It's not a political crisis, that's the political reality

Host (Lora Indzhova): "Your Day" continues, dear viewers, with news from the political scene. Tensions are rising around the split within the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS) ranks. The reaction was swift after the party's Central Executive Bureau expelled the co-chairman Delyan Peevski and some of his close associates from the party ranks last Tuesday—seven members of the parliamentary group and ten regional structure chairs in total. Yesterday, Delyan Peevski described the decision as illegitimate, and late last night, the DPS press center published on social media part of the statement from the Honorary Chairman Ahmed Dogan to his party members, where he specifically talks about the displacement of Delyan Peevski and some of those who support him. "The boy has gone too far"—this is an exact quote from what Ahmed Dogan said—"There is no going back." Regarding the claim that the decision to expel Delyan Peevski and the other members of the formation was illegitimate, Dogan responded that they hadn't read Article 6 of the party constitution. We will not delve into the legal framework at the moment—we will cover that a little later today. Yesterday, we also explored the situation from a legal perspective. However, where does all the communication lie here, and will this conflict—a war of sorts—between Dogan and Peevski be resolved after the election results? How crucial is communication between the two wings of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms and their voters in the regions, especially since predictions are already being made about which leader would gain more electorate and trust from the people in the upcoming elections? This question has no answer at the moment, but we have invited PR and communication experts to discuss just how essential communication will be from now on and during the election campaign—not only for the Movement for Rights and Freedoms but for Bulgarian political formations in general. Maxim Behar and Associate Professor Alexander Hristov are here with me again. Hello, gentlemen!

Maxim Behar: Good morning!

Host: As I welcomed you to the studio, I expressed my hope for today to be a somewhat calmer and more routine day, unlike last Monday, when we watched what was happening at the Presidency between caretaker prime-minister candidate Mrs. Goritsa Grancharova-Kozhareva and President Rumen Radev. No mandate will be handed over, we have a caretaker government, and elections are looming. Where will the communication between politicians and voters be positioned, and will we see it on a higher level this time?

Maxim Behar: In Bulgaria, the political situation has been so interesting in recent months that we never know in which program, in which studio, and at what time something surprising will happen. Unfortunately, communication has completely broken down in recent years because we all—the media and voters—are focused on personalities. Dogan is arguing with Peevski, and Peevski is with Dogan. In the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), ex-chairwoman Kornelia Ninova chaotically grants mandates to some and to some not. Disorder reigns everywhere. It seems that personalities are in the foreground rather than what political parties offer. The good news is that the upcoming elections will be intriguing – we have several split parties; some are stepping back or will definitely have fewer votes and voters. At the same time, we have a united BSP. I believe it will unite figures who are already somewhat worn out by life, politics, and studios but are still recognizable. On the other hand, the bad news is that there are no clear messages. If we ask anyone what the difference is between the economic platforms of the parties "We Continue the Change" (PP), "Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria" (GERB), and "Revival," no one can answer. I can't, and neither can you.

Host: With "Revival," we might highlight some key differences we know about.

Maxim Behar: However, they are more political and social than economic.

Host: There is some truth in that; you are right.

Maxim Behar: This results from the lack of ideas and communication. There really is no communication—there are no people to explain what they want to achieve and how they want to prove that they have done it.

Host: I was really struck by the statement, "The boy has gone too far"—this is an indirect address to Delyan Peevski. Was it done intentionally to undermine his strength, position, and expression? Mr. Behar, I'll give you the opportunity to add something regarding Mr. Dogan's way of expressing himself in this case if you'd like to focus on that. But I'll also ask you another question I wrote down while listening to you—about the ongoing changes in DPS and BSP. Is it a coincidence that these processes are happening now, specifically in these two parties? After all, these parties didn't form a year ago but have a long history. We are witnessing serious shiftings that will likely have irreversible results and effects—whether negative or positive—in the coming years.

Maxim Behar: These processes have been building up for years. It naturally happened in BSP because it's a systemic party with huge traditions and a relatively stable electorate, but it has been losing ground over the last six elections in the past two and a half years. It was bound to seek some opportunity for a decisive change. However, how the former chairwoman behaves is truly surprising and astonishing, as she really places herself above the party and everywhere else. In the same way, we see Ahmed Dogan behaving similarly, but he has far greater justification for doing so because he is the founder, symbol, father, halo, and everything for his party, DPS. Dogan's choice of words, in this case, actually shows his superiority, and he wants to demonstrate where he stands and where Peevski stands, whether it's "the boy" or "too little, too late"—all these symbols he used. How things will play out in DPS is very difficult to predict. Personally, I believe the electorate will unite in support of Ahmed Dogan. However, we must wait for Peevski's reaction, as he and his people have not yet responded properly and with a message about what they will do in the upcoming elections. It's highly possible that neither of the two formations—if we assume there are two formations of DPS—will be registered for the elections, so they may seek a third, independent political force or party through which to be registered. So, it is indeed becoming interesting. The sad part is that we are all focused on these petty battles and do not see the bigger picture in Bulgaria and how our country looks outside its borders—where the investors are, the people who would like to come to Bulgaria to do business. There is still a huge potential for business here, tourism to develop, and many other sectors. However, foreign entrepreneurs sit in their offices on the 62nd floor in Chicago or New York and do not take Bulgaria seriously because of the constant elections, caretaker governments, etc. Let me make a big side note here: all this uncertainty is not caused by the Constitution, which was changed and this so-called "household register" was implemented, but because caretaker governments weren't abolished when they are an absolutely unnecessary institution that only generates insecurity and turmoil in business and the state.

Host: This idea has been promoted for a long time—that the resigned government should continue its work until the elections are held, but no one has taken any steps to change or abolish the caretaker cabinet as an institution.

Maxim Behar: No one has reached that level of thought and vision, in my opinion, and that is the root of everything.

Host: Maybe they will one day when they can no longer find ministers to fill the composition of a caretaker cabinet.

Maxim Behar: That day will come very soon.

Host: I make such a prediction, and it's in the context of that story you told last week in the show about the hall full of people who have been ministers—someone shouts, "Mr. Minister!" and everyone turns around. Yesterday, I read that one of the most cliché and frequently asked questions is: When will we get out of the political crisis? I'll take the opportunity to ask this question today but in a bit more specific context. On October 27th, we have elections; the parties have already entered into a campaign, although an informal one. The question is somewhat narrow politically: The position of PP-DB is, and I quote, "An anti-Peevski coalition is the only option"; however, Borisov said at the end of August that he would share the responsibility of rule with those who like GERB's policies, regardless of whether it's Kostadinov, Dogan, Peevski, etc. Yesterday, deputy chairman of "Revival" Tsontcho Ganev expressed his position on the show "Hello, Bulgaria" with Mira Ivanova, saying they would not govern with GERB. This intrigue started after the adoption of the law against popularizing non-traditional gender ideology in Bulgarian schools. Where do you see the solution to this political crisis, and will these elections lead us out of it? I'm talking about having a stable majority.

Maxim Behar: I will answer your question right away—we will probably never get out of the political crisis.

Host: Never? Now you've surprised me.

Maxim Behar: Yes, absolutely. This is not a crisis.

Host: I still have some optimism left in me.

Maxim Behar: Yes, I also have enormous optimism, but this is not a crisis. This is the political reality that will continue for years. By the way, this reality can be observed in many European countries right now. You can see that France has been without a government for over two months, and Macron refused to form one. Belgium has no government. And we should no longer call this a "crisis" but rather "what happens immediately after elections." Every political force, whether systemic or not, newly emerging or already established, should, in my opinion, make a very clear declaration before the elections of what they want to do afterward. Suppose GERB and "We Continue the Change" want to work together somehow, form a government, and have a strong common economic policy so that life in Bulgaria improves, inflation decreases, and processes are controlled. In that case, they should be so kind as to say so before the elections. Not to have us vote first and then think about what to do. In my opinion, there should be transparency and predictability, and when a voter goes to vote for any political force, party, or movement, they should know what will happen afterward. This is the big question mark in Bulgarian political reality—everyone tries to play some games after the elections.

Host: But do you know how many times the media have been reprimanded for asking about the predictability of politicians during an active election campaign? I personally ask this question a lot. The response is: Why are you asking about coalitions and potential partnerships when we have yet to see the election results? Isn't it normal for voters to know who the potential partners of that formation are before voting for it, and what will they get after the elections?

Maxim Behar: The media cannot be blamed for asking questions because its job is to ask questions.

Host: They even ridicule this question, arguing that the results are not yet in and that they don't know what kind of deals they might make, figuratively speaking.

Maxim Behar: Quite the opposite—we need to know in advance.

Host: Thank you, gentlemen, for this analysis! We kept it calm.

Maxim Behar: Thank you! We'll be happy if the things we discuss here with you actually happen.

Watch the full interview here.