Dr Vassil Penev is Doctor of Political Sciences and teaches Political Sciences at Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridsky". He has numerous publications on political science, liberalism, history of political ideas, political systems and political management. He is one of best translators of French political thinkers into Bulgarian language.
Some of his publications include: · "The Emergence of political parties", with G. Karassimeonov in "The 1990 Election to the Bulgarian Great National Assembly and the 1991 Elections to the Bulgarian National Assembly" - analysis, documents and data - Berlin, 1997 etc.; "La notoriete de Tocqueville en Bulgarie", dans "Tocqueville Revue", v.18 - Paris, 1997; "Public opinion in Bulgaria, between Media and Power", in "Media History" in "Bulgarian Media studies" - Sofia, 1996; "Political parties and Religious Tolerance in Bulgaria", in "Relations of Compatibility between Christians and Muslims in Bulgaria", Sofia 1995; Les partis politiques en Bulgarie et les changements de stabilite interieure et de securite exterieure de l'Etat, dans "Les Balkans et l'Europe face aux nouveaux defis" - Paris, 1995; Political parties in Bulgaria after 1989 - Establishing, Functions, Organizational structures and Interaction, in Bulgarian Quarterly, Autumn - Winter 1992.
Dr Vassil Penev talked to Ivelina Puhaleva, Sofia News Agency Editor, on the preparation of June 25 elections and the post-election scenarios.
Q: In your opinion, why is this large margin between the forecasts of sociological agencies about the elections outcome?
A: The one reason is that, as usual in Bulgaria, there are some 30% of people hesitating on their vote until the very last moment. Surveys by sociological agencies showed, as of the middle of June, there are about 800,000 people that have not decided which party /coalition to support or whether to vote at all.
The other reason can be explained with the precedents in previous elections, for example in 1994 and 1997, when there was a clear winner. Then the so-called statistical mistake seemed not to play a significant role. Now the prospects are that the 40th Parliament will be quite mosaic and some sociologists predict the entry of as much as seven players. There is no clear winner.
The third reason has been discussed in Bulgarian media in the recent days. It concerns the fact that certain sociological agencies are funded by one or another political force. This practice is largely unknown in developed countries because, by default, sociological agencies should make surveys upon request of printed or electronic media.
This paradox of Bulgaria has two faces. Not only political parties establish and fund their own opinion tracking agencies, but sociologists themselves run a seat in the parliament at June 25 elections. I would just mention the absurd with a chief of such agency who is on the ticket of one of biggest Bulgarian parties.
I think this is unacceptable and comes to explain the considerable difference in opinion poll results.
Q: Could the votes of Bulgarians abroad influence the election results?
A: No, the government has speculated with the increase of polling sections abroad. For example, in Turkey expectations are that the cast ballots will increase from previously 40,000 to some 50,000 this year, which is not so dramatic. Besides, the votes of Bulgarians residing abroad are likely to near 100,000 all-in-all. So, even at a low voter turnout, these results can decide the future of not more than 5-6 seats in the parliament.
Often the mostly disputable issues during Bulgarian election campaigns - now and before - concern largely insignificant details. The dispute runs for the sake of the dispute.
Q: Foreign Minister Solomon Passy wrote in a letter to the PACE president Terry Davis that the election lottery is a wonderful example for the whole of Europe how to stimulate voter turnout as part of the efforts to enhance democracy. Does it mean that lower turnout results in less democracy?
A: Of course, it means nothing of the thing. The foreign minister is ex officio obliged to defend himself and the policy of his government. Voting apathy is not undemocratic. Not to vote is also an expression of democratic will, as well as the negative vote. Otherwise, it would mean that the negative referendums in France and the Netherlands on the EU constitution were not democracy.
The problem is that political democracy is completely different from the market behavior patterns. Efforts to enhance turnout does not mean that voters - young people predominantly - are acquainted with the programs of political forces and the leaders that represent them. In my opinion, the statement of Minister Passy has come in defense of a decision over which the Council of Europe has delicately expressed disagreement.
Q: Would this practice of election lottery be the contribution of Bulgaria to world democracy? Are there such examples in other countries?
A: I don't think so. In my experience as a political scientist, I have never heard of any such. Regrettably, besides the many goods things we have achieved in the last years, our society have been tempted to turn all aspects of life into a commercial activity. For instance, fields such as health care and education are incessantly criticized for corruption and involvement of business interests. I am worried about the current generation growing up with examples that everything is money. They are unaware there are things beyond the money reach, such as love for example.
Q: Does it mean the "love of people" costs no money"?
A: Well, I would quote the genius of Goethe who said: "gold buys many votes but is unable to buy a single heart." And these prophetical words are two hundred years of age, when Goethe himself did not know democracy in the modern sense of the word. The "love of people" can be sold or purchased.
Q: Bulgarians will vote for the first time with an integral ballot at general elections? Is it limiting the options of ballot misuse?
A: On the contrary, the integral ballot predisposes to misuse. There are constituencies in Bulgaria that less literate people are being instructed to measure with a stick for example certain length on the sheet of the integral ballot and check respective box. This practice is applicable wherever a highly disciplined electorate exists.
Q: Is the integral ballot a useful innovation in Bulgarian elections practice?
A: In general, yes. There are votes in other countries where names or parties on the integral ballot can be reshuffled, reordered, etc. Thus it is an expression of a strong majority vote in a proportional election system. In the Netherlands, for instance, the integral ballot is commonly used. This country is specific with the coalition governments it usually has and through the integral ballot voters are actually allowed to suggest the preferred coalition.
Q: How do you assess this year's electioneering campaign?
A: Putting aside the PR-vested activities, the campaign was very amusing. Looking at the racers' pre-election programs and alternatives, however, they are almost all the same, with minute details.
In fact, the next government will have to make up with half a year of delay in work. Official institutions have been ineffective since January 2005, when the last cabinet crisis took place. The blockade came with the parliament's decision to stop the deal on Bulgartabac and the reshuffle in the cabinet shortly afterwards.
Q: What is most interesting in elections 2005?
A: The most intriguing fact is what kind of coalitions can be formed. This can emerge to be the greatest problem as well. Next parliament of Bulgaria is completed unpredictable. Opinions vary from four to seven political forces to overcome the 4% threshold.
Besides the coalition puzzle, however, it is clear that the Democrats for Strong Bulgaria {of former Prime Minister Ivan Kostov} will not coalesce with any other political force. And this will increase the voters' support on Election Day.
Any other combinations are possible. The first variant is a majority of the socialist party, but they will need a coalition partner.
The second option is a leftist-center government, which will be difficult to agree among the racers. There are two ways here: either the Bulgarian Socialist Party coalescing with Ahmed Dogan's Movement for Rights and Freedoms; or a triple coalition on a mandate of Dogan's party. In this latter hypothesis, neither socialists' Sergey Stanishev, nor Simeon Saxe-Coburg will take on the premier's chair.
The third possibility shifts to the right-center spectrum, whose axis for Simeon Saxe-Coburg and Nadezhda Mihaylova, leader of United Democratic Forces. These aspirations of Mihaylova were one of the main reasons of split within her party. Then Ivan Kostov splintered and set up the Democrats for Strong Bulgaria.
It is also possible that a weak government emerges in the end summer, with vague chances to withstand a year and a half, until Bulgaria enters, as scheduled on 1 January 2007, the European Union.
Q: Which is the worst scenario after June 25?
A: The worst option could be the inability of parties to form a government. If so, we face an endless summer of rotating mandates and an autumn of re-elections. However, this can postpone our in-Europe future for an indefinite period of time.
I would say that in any case Bulgaria could expect an ineffective government to come. The mostly reasonable thing politicians can do is to agree on any kind of coalition - for example - to the left of the political center. Its priority should be the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union.
Send to Kindle
Vassil Penev, Doctor of Political Sciences, deems fall re-elections as the worst among post-election scenarios. Photo by Yuliana Nikolova (Sofia News Agency)
