Standart Daily
BY Ekaterina NIKOLOVA
Mr Bonev, why were such immoral means used in the campaign before the first round of the presidential election?
-The aim was a low election turnout. It was pursued only by one candidate - the incumbent president. Because he counted on the fact that he had actually been campaigning for 5 years and believed that the momentum of that campaign would help him preserve the result by the elections. In the event of a low election turnout his headquarters had calculated he would lose many votes, but the loss for the rest of the candidates would help him win. And therefore he did his utmost to turn the ballot into an unprestigious election. Not that his behavior to date has brought any prestige to the presidential institution. Just the opposite, one of the things which I, for one, can't forgive him is that such an important institution for the state had been depersonalized.
- The two candidates - Parvanov and Stoyanov resemble in one thing - both of them didn't make an assessment of their governments. Parvanov still hasn't said what his assessment of Videnov's government is, Stoyanov didn't say anything about his evaluation of Kostov's government. One might suppose that they liked those governments. Isn't it alarming?
- I'm not the person to be an advocate of anyone of the two. And I can't but go back to the immediate past and recall who and what role he had played and what stand he had taken. I go back to the February 4 events and the developments that followed. Parvanov took upon himself a big burden. He made the major compromise and yield power. Nikolai Dobrev, may he rest in peace, paid for that compromise by his life. At the same time 4 years later we could ask ourselves whether it had been worthwhile. Was the sacrifice worth it? If the firm answer is yes, the normal question to Parvanov is not about why he yielded the power, but why he yielded it to unworthy people. In this is the problem. Why did he give the power to the thieves? Parvanov had hardly known then he had made a compromise, in order for people to come to power and try by all possible means to plunder the state. Peter Stoyanov had hardly known then that he would gather with such people, either. Yet, he supports them today too.
You speak as if the choice now isn't between left and right?
-The truth is that the choice is not between left and right. Now the choice is between morality and hypocrisy. This is the choice we have to make. And naturally, the major question is why did things come to such a choice? Things were brought to this state because the king didn't have the courage to nominate his own candidate. And believe it or not but this is already a political crisis.
All are worried that the president hasn't enough powers, but the president is commander in chief of the armed forces and is in charge of the country's foreign policy and national security. Why didn't anyone say what had been done and what hadn't been done concerning these direct responsibilities of the president for the past 5 years?
-I go back to the delusion that the president is a shop-window figure who can only deal out orders and medals and on whom nothing depends. He is the man to appoint and dismiss the heads of the judicial system. This is the man who has his own quota in the Constitutional Court, this is the man who puts his signature on the edicts for the dismissal and appointment of the heads of the special services, he is the last guarantor of the quality of the laws. He has the right to veto a law, he can attack it in the Constitutional Court too. For 5 years Peter Stoyanov didn't attack a single law in the Constitutional Court. What about the national security? Things are crystal-clear there. The armed forces have been rendered powerless. What does it mean to join the soldiers and have white beans for lunch with them? It means a 'look at me, I'm with you too' demonstration. And to forget about the fate of the thousands of Bulgarian officers. Can the stepped up admission to NATO be paid by the fate of the officers, of their families? Not to mention the national security. The services which are responsible for the national security are subordinate to him. These are services which turned into a source of discrediting materials, of executors of political assignments against the opponents of Kostov and now of Stoyanov. Services in which corrupt generals keep their nice jobs and keep their posts because at the moment they are of use to Peter Stoyanov. Here, these are questions which it is normal to set forth now. Foreign policy is the other issue. Why doesn't the president call back many ambassadors after the mandate of those party pawns has expired? This is one of the circumstances which contribute to the country's low prestige. It is impossible for a Bulgarian ambassador to the EU to say that Simeon the Second is something shameful for Bulgaria! Can a Bulgarian ambassador say of a Bulgarian national that he is shame for the country? With Peter Stoyanov keeping silence and not reacting to this. It is to his detriment. This is the hypocrisy and demagogy I'm talking about. This is the reason why I can't vote for him.
Send to Kindle
