Daniel Smilov's comment:
The unprecedented protests in the country led to the resignation of the "Zhelyazkov" government. This is an undeniable success for Bulgarian democracy, because the citizens became a corrective to a self-forgetful majority and its leaders – Borisov and Peevski. This is a lesson for the future – it is already known that one hundred and fifty thousand people must come out in Sofia and as many more in the country in order to achieve a quick result.
But the resignation of the government, alas, is not yet a catharsis for either the majority, let alone its leaders. They perceive it as a tactical retreat, as a temporary reduction, as avoiding the heaviest blow through a combination of maneuverability, camouflage and mimicry.
At the same time, there is a process of diverting the energy of the protest towards a new project of President Rumen Radev with an unknown ideological and political coloring. Attempts to challenge the euro do not cease, although its opponents have convinced themselves that their cause is not the cause of the protests.
Therefore, the protest should not be demobilized, but on the contrary, maintain and increase its intensity in the transitional period until a new government, in order to protect its ideas and prevent their distortion. One of the positive tasks that it can fulfill is to motivate the parliament - which continues to work - to accept full-fledged machine voting and guarantees for the honesty of the vote. In this direction, it is very important not to allow the appointment as Minister of Internal Affairs of a person who will again tolerate vote buying (which is generally done by the usual and well-founded suspects MRF and GERB). Also, following the model of previous protests, Sarafov's resignation should be demanded: there is no reason why at least a legal acting prosecutor general should not be appointed in his place.
But it is even more important that the protests continue in order to defend their cause – which is the change of the Peevski-Borisov model. And to prevent its replacement by a cat in a bag, as Slavi Trifonov turned out to be, for example – a supposedly popular anti-corruption activist who became Peevski-Borisov's support staff.
Responsibility for the outrages
The first task of the Protest from now on is to prevent the blurring of responsibility for the outrages that motivated people to come out. This blurring is already underway:
1. Borisov is trying to shift the blame for the fact that we will enter the eurozone without a regular government and budget to someone else (mostly the PP-DB). This is an expression of the same arrogance that is the reason for the protest: it is not the one who messed up who is to blame, but the others who removed him with an invitation to clean up. In fact, Borisov and Peevski consciously used the country's entry into the eurozone as excuses for their own outrages – and prosecutorial and judicial persecution of the opposition, and budget excesses in 2025-2026. Both tricks did not work, so to speak, but the waiter who tried to cheat people with the bill is to blame.
2. Borisov had distanced himself from Peevski and the protest helped him do this. This thesis began to circulate in the studio, but it is deeply false. First, the protest did not make any significant difference between Peevski and Borisov, except in terms of intensity of irritation. Otherwise, in terms of content, they were perceived as they should be - as a tandem. Second, Borisov has not actually distanced himself from Peevski in any way, not for a moment. He has not yet said a single critical word about his comrade, which is remarkable, because there is almost no person in world history to whom Borisov would treat in this way. Only perhaps Todor Zhivkov and the Lord, who according to the gospel from Bankya outwitted everyone and said "tu-tu" from on high, are perhaps competition for the coalition partner. Third, there is a lot of speculation that after Pazardzhik Borisov sided with Peevski – a sidedness that led to a joint photo and Peevski officially entering the coalition.
3. The impression is deliberately created that the PP-DB almost took power. This, of course, is not the case at all. The GERB-DPS majority in parliament is still there, the "Zhelyazkov" government is still in place, and even if it is replaced, it will again be with a man from Borisov and Peevski. Andrey Gyurov, as part of the BNB leadership, should not agree to become prime minister (and it is also politically incorrect to allow them to wash their hands of him), and the others are all gatekeepers of the aforementioned tandem. If they also refuse in full, according to the constitution, Zhelyazkov and his ministers will remain as a cabinet in resignation. That is, GERB-DPS will continue to govern until the elections and they bear responsibility for what is happening in the country. If they want, they can even adopt a budget.
In this sense, the Protest must maintain its mobilization, because in the current situation it is the only real limitation on the power of those who are supposedly removed from power.
The cat in a bag
Young people (and adults even more so) must be careful not to buy another cat in a bag with the possible project of President Radev. The cat in a bag is obtained when a popular person is voted for, without there being any particular clarity about his beliefs and positions on key issues. In Bulgaria (and not only) personalist, leader parties have prevailed, which exist only through a given person. GERB, "New Beginning", "Vazrazhdane", "Mech", "Velicie", ITN are formations that it is not at all clear whether they can exist without their leaders. It is interesting that the leaders of these formations are extremely politically maneuverable and have taken virtually all possible positions on all issues, and perhaps an exception should be made for Kostadinov. Their maneuverability also leads to them coming to an agreement and no one being outraged by possible "assembly" between them, because ultimately no particularly important principle would be violated by such an assembly. Therefore, the only "assembly" that led to public outrage was with the participation of the PP-DB: a formation that is defined not by its leaders, but by its principles.
President Radev is currently in the niche of personalist parties and if he wants to avoid remaining in it, it is time to clarify his principles. And not to mark them with silence and allusions, but to make it clear. Because so far he has been following the "pig in a poke" model – I am both a hunter and a fisherman, as long as I catch a few more votes.
Therefore, the Protest must focus on principles, not personalities. It must seek and seek identification on key issues that will become increasingly urgent:
1. The euro is a fact for Bulgaria and the principled position is not to make it an election campaign in order to win someone else's vote. One of the important dividing lines in the next elections will be exactly this.
2. Bulgaria needs a strong and united Europe. The sirens of disintegration are loud outside the EU, and in parts of it (Orban, for example). If our cat in the sack turns out to be a siren of the EU's disintegration, the vast majority of the squares in the country will be strongly and rightly disappointed. Therefore, it is time for this majority to declare itself against such maneuvers and substitutions from now on.
3. The leadership parties start pompously and end pathetically and comically. ITN has long been in its pathetic-comic period, and at the moment GERB seems to be entering it. The new beginning is a phenomenon in this regard, which combines drama, tragedy, and comedy. Therefore, ideological parties with principles that do not disappear with the change of their leaders are not such a bad alternative. There are such parties in our country, but it is important for them not to forget these principles. As happened with the BSP, which Kornelia Ninova tried and almost succeeded in turning into a social-conservative formation. One of the signs of a principled party is that it can outlive its leader without shrinking and becoming insignificant.
A lot has been said about the fact that protests create negative majorities. The protest we are currently experiencing is a modernization one. It follows the logic of the protests of 1990, 1997, 2013, 2020. These were protests for a freer, more European, less corrupt and better governed Bulgaria: and this is a clear, positive program. And that is why these protests are constructive, useful and cannot be reduced only to an outburst of some negative energy and negation. The younger generation took the initiative in this case and massified the events in an unprecedented way. However, the duty of all generations is to preserve the positive, constructive energy and use it for the modernization goals, which the vast majority of the protesters recognize.