Comment by Ivaylo Noyzi Tsvetkov:
Of course, it is not happening for the first time. Of course, it is far from only in our country. But in my opinion, something relatively obvious is also understood - the invasion of great and universally recognized Bulgarian athletes into the lists (mainly of “Progressive Bulgaria“ and DPS) is the result of furious and ruthless populism, which more than ever will “manage“ this election campaign.
Is there a moral case and a rule at all here? There is. Mostly because we have a simple deal, similar to the ancient religious type “do, ut des“ („I give, so that you can give“) – i.e. I give you my everything and, above all, my public approval as an athlete, and you owe me possible business opportunities.
Famous names that expect something
How does this business work? Each of the famous sports names, unless they are useful idiots, works with something like a business team and this team expects various opportunities for enrichment against the name of the „titular“. Under Rumen Radev, this newest leviathan of populism, the until recently beloved Vladimir Nikolov, Yordan Yovchev, Petar Stoychev, and even the truly likable Ivet Goranova have lined up: each of these personal acts may be for the purpose of future monetization. And I don't even feel like starting about Stefka Kostadinova – she made a not particularly complicated flight from the decade-long unbeaten record in the high jump to the painful nose-fall as the leader of the MRF list in Plovdiv-city.
However, let's try to understand them, in human terms. Most of them (including the previous ones like Vessela Lecheva, Nonka Matova, Hristo Markov, let's not go back any further) probably lead a relatively precarious existence, internally and psychologically incompatible with great achievements: and quite reasonably want to step from the precariat into at least the upper middle class. That is why they collect their dwindling public “capital of approval“ and – quite logically – try to multiply it.
There is something terribly socialist about this, of course, but not only that. If the famous playboy Ilie Nastase enters Romanian politics, that is a separate story – he was still a brilliant tennis player in the 1970s. Lyubov Egorova, with six gold and three silver medals in cross-country skiing from Albertville 1992 and Lillehammer 1994, was a "star" of the early Putin, daring to break the Scandinavian dominance, but also to retire from politics in time. If Vance Amory, the dark-skinned occasional cricket champion, becomes prime minister of Nevis (from the islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean Sea), it is rather amusing and resembles our Borisov - the footballer of "Vitosha" (Bistritsa) with the fewest meters, not kilometers. But all these are rather exceptions to the rule. And it is clear - There is something fundamentally immoral and abnormal in using people from sports or culture for short-term political goals.
Someone simply traded their own brand
There is actually something laughable. Populists like Radev, and almost all parties, still live in an analog world, and rightly so – they rely on the sparkling reflexes of nostalgia for the Soviet Union, when we "crushed" at the Seoul Olympics and had who knows what army. The funny thing is how they do not take into account the new digital revolution and the increasingly youthful protest energy, which completely rewrote the rules of the public, and of life – and populists still blindly believe that a successful athlete is a kind of guarantee of a successful politician. However, time passes and new generations know well that a good volleyball player, a remarkable karateka or a brilliant jumper does not necessarily mean political contribution. It simply and obviously means that someone has simply sold their own personal brand.
And you know what? This almost never leads to political added value. Mainly because athletes are generally not the brightest intellectual bulbs in the big public chandelier (to put it elegantly), but also mostly because of the small account, which perfectly matches the other small account.
Since I am always a kind of Cassandra, let me warn you about something else: if we are over-read and know the humanities, especially history, we have known since the Roman Republic that we should view all homines novi (“new people“) in politics with gigantic suspicion. Yes, the existing ones are mostly unpleasant, but at least they look like a familiar evil.
And the result will still be the same
If I translate it into modern language - handing over politics to yet another "new man", supposedly self-created, will lead to exactly the same result, similar to others in our recent history. Yes, you guessed it. This result will again tend to zero in terms of investments and Bulgarian well-being in general; it will simply be a few more empty years in which the oligarchic model will be reinvented and reaffirmed, but with different names.
And then it won't be Ivet Goranova or Stefka Kostadinova's fault, that they are alive and well. You will still be the ones to blame for your thrice-damned fate and for being patients forever in room number 6 (according to Chekhov). Unless you vote, I don't know you.