What is the political situation in Bulgaria before the run-off of the presidential elections, the low voter turnout and the consequences of the country's economic policy. Can Bulgaria face severe economic and social upheavals, and can the government of “Progressive Bulgaria“ repeat the mistakes of the time of Zhan Videnov… Here is what else journalist Valeri Naydenov told Lili Marinkova in the “FACT“ studio and the “Conversation“ show.
– Mr. Valeri Naydenov, we will comment on the situation in Bulgaria before the run-off of the presidential elections. Probably the opposition's voices regarding what is happening in the Black Sea would not have been so loud if it were not for this last pre-election week. However, we see that the opposition is in the role of vestals, directing the government to take more forceful actions in response to the drones that hit commercial ships. They are almost telling them: “Kill them, shoot them, shoot“ and so on. In my opinion, this is a bit overdone...
– In my opinion, one of the huge paradoxes of the entire political campaign at the moment is that a false topic has become central – the attitude towards Ukraine and the question of whether to quarrel with Russia more or less. Given that, firstly, nothing depends on Bulgaria, and secondly, both presidential candidates, when elected, will do exactly the same thing. Radev's policy does not differ in any way from the policy of the previous administrations regarding the war, Russia and Ukraine. The only difference is in the style, in the appeal to the voter.
At the same time, there are much more serious problems that are being circumvented. There is a story by Yordan Radichkov about a village where a group of people from the minority arrive. People fight, a massacre begins in the center of the village, everyone rushes to break them up. Finally, they calm down, leave, and it turns out that in the meantime others have gone behind and stolen the chickens, while the whole village has been watching the fight.
This is a good picture of the presidential campaign and the entire political dispute at the moment. I would say that 60 percent of the scandals revolve around what exactly someone said and how they said it. Is Crimea ours, isn't it ours? If you ask me, Crimea was also Bulgarian at one point in history. In addition to being Turkish and Tatar, it was also under our rule - the Bulgarians took it over.
– But there are indeed very high tones of aggression and criticism of the government. Against this background, the statement of the Turkish Minister of Defense, who called for moderation and diplomacy, was impressive. He stated that Turkey can take different actions, but it must have sensitive and careful diplomacy. The idea of creating two corridors in the Black Sea was also presented - one for the Russians and one for the Ukrainians. In your opinion, will the creation of such separate corridors succeed?
– Since Turkey said it, it should succeed, because at the moment it is the most authoritative voice in the region.
But if we return to this war again, although it is far from the most important, it may actually turn out to be very important. Currently, Germany is at the head of the group in Europe that insists on first doing the math and seeing what resources the Union has. It turns out that Europe has no money and the European Union budget must be reduced by one trillion euros. One trillion means that they will cut our subsidies for almost everything. There simply will be no subsidies.
If the war continues, as the European powers believe it should, since they expect to have enough forces by the end of 2028 to engage powerfully against Russia and maintain victory, this means that in the meantime we will be left without the subsidies that generally support Bulgaria. I don't know how realistic the idea of "peace through victory" is, but the question is what will happen to us until then.
– And what would happen if the right-wing forces came to power?
– The first thing that will happen is that they will cut subsidies. The second is that almost all right-wing politicians - both in Germany and France - are talking about reducing the number of foreign workers. The other day I was reading an account by the famous economist Prof. Boyan Durankev. According to him, if about a million and a half Bulgarians living abroad return, there will be over 30 percent unemployment. And over 30 percent unemployment in Bulgaria means a social revolution. But even if that doesn't happen, it's enough for them to cut our subsidies. As we know, on the one hand, they suck up our resources, but on the other - they pour in subsidies.
– Do you mean the brain drain?
– No, no. I'm talking about money. In Bulgaria, there is a huge foreign sector that extracts added value outside the country. Profit is exported, and the tax on profit, as we know, is the lowest in Bulgaria. If we start from the banking sector and go through retail, wholesale, large chains, soft drink manufacturers, electricity, water and so on, we will see a huge process of resource extraction. If the flow of funds stops, which, by the way, is also a very serious factor in corruption in Bulgaria, we will end up being the most screwed-up country on the planet.
– Are these things discussed?
– They are not discussed at all, of course. We are arguing whether to go to war with Russia or not to go to war with Russia. I say that a little exaggeratedly, of course, because I am not a politician after all.
– How do you explain the low voter turnout? What is the reason for the abstention of so many Bulgarians - indifference or rather overconfidence in the sociological surveys that predicted a different result?
– If the sociologists did not understand anything, how can I understand why people did not vote? Obviously they were not motivated. However, in my opinion, it is a great falsification to compare the presidential with the parliamentary elections and to claim that the party "Progressive Bulgaria" has collapsed. It is obvious that it is no longer on top of the wave, as it was then, but this is like comparing apples with oranges. In both cases, the plot revolves around a leading figure, although the elections are different - some are proportional, and the others are majoritarian. Moreover, the leading figures are fundamentally different. As we know, the former president is charismatic - a person who will lead the progressive forces into battle. Yotova is not that kind of person at all. She is a soft, reserved person, I would say, with positive speech. It's just that they are fundamentally different personalities. Therefore, I would not say that whatever the result is for her, it is indicative of “Progressive Bulgaria“. Perhaps it is only indicative that her activists, the people who stand behind her, have not mobilized. However, I would not say that the electorate has changed its sympathies and turned to other parties. Nothing happened in these presidential elections that would lead to the formation of new centers, to consolidation or to clarification of where the political parties, which were already in crisis, are heading.
– And the abstention of GERB and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms? Maybe they are waiting to see where things will develop?
– I would say that they turned out to be very great strategists. Shortly before the introduction of the euro, they quite deliberately created the protests against themselves. Delyan Peevski created a commission to investigate the activities of the Soros Foundation in Bulgaria. And the very next week, the protests took to the streets. They were not very large and they did not have to wait long for them. Borisov, whose natural reaction is to resign when discontent arises, resigned. Thus, they left another government to bear the shock of the appreciation upon the introduction of the euro. And although there was a huge appreciation, another one was suddenly superimposed on it - a huge appreciation due to the war with Iran. And it turned out that Bulgaria had chosen the worst possible time to introduce the euro.
– And I am beginning to think that former President General Radev made a move that seemed very cunning and tactically skillful. Suddenly he resigned, created a party and took advantage of the unbalanced situation to enter politics and create this wave. But it is this wave that will take on all the sins and the greatest disappointment. We must return to the issue of economic policy. It continues to be right-wing, and people are becoming increasingly impoverished. To this we add the new shock. Has Radev not made a gross strategic mistake with this otherwise clever tactical move?
– Extremely unpopular measures will have to be taken. We have a right-wing, ultra-right - the most right-wing economic policy in the European Union. Bulgaria is the country with the greatest income inequality in the EU. If we go back to the time of Mr. Dyankov's “little pizza”, we remember what riots and unrest there were in the cities of Bulgaria at the end of the winter of 2013. Then several people even set themselves on fire. Such a thing had not been seen in Bulgaria. This was a rebellion against impoverishment, against the policy of the “small pizza“.
Now, as far as I can see, the pizza is being reduced at an even greater speed. At the same time, this is not discussed at all. Bulgaria's economic policy is not a subject of conversation at all.
The funny thing is that if we make an analogy with the past, how things went, we may again end up in a situation like Videnov's. And considering that some of the participants in “Progressive Bulgaria“ have biographical roots precisely from that period, I fear that they will repeat the same mistake.
This is a cliché that is often used in liberal-democratic circles. I do not belong to them, but when Videnov's government began, I also warned how far it could go. And then there were big troubles, and in the end it came to exactly what we warned about.
Videnov took extreme right-wing measures that outwardly looked like left-wing ones. Mass privatization simply gave away enterprises without money to the oligarchy. No funds entered the treasury, and that is why it came to collapse.
Now we are seeing a series of additional right-wing measures. Suffice it to say that our economic system itself is the most right-wing in Europe. Its indicators, compared to Western European ones, are diametrically opposed. And that is not enough, we are also taking more right-wing measures. One of the things that is about to be taken from Bulgarians is home ownership. It has long been said in the West that in Bulgaria people own too large a share of the housing stock. This is a huge resource if investment funds somehow manage to acquire ownership of these homes and start renting them out. Here is another resource, similar to water. There is no difference. Water used to cost 14 stotinki per cubic meter, and now it is 3.50 leva. Or the decision to give the highways to concessions. Anyone who has traveled by car through Southern Europe knows how expensive this is. You travel a long way on a private highway, they stop at toll booths and take money from you. And our highways were never built entirely with European funds. Of course, a lot was done, but in the end it turned out that people remember Boyko Borisov's rule with sadness - at least that's how things are arranged.
There are several other similar examples of right-wing decisions. I mentioned the doubling of the tax on housing. There are many such measures that are not considered from the perspective of the average person.
For example, why do they continue to allocate a billion and a half euros a year to subsidize private pension funds, given that at the same time they say that there is no money for pensions? This is some kind of absurdity in Bulgaria.
Private pension funds are investment companies that cannot make a profit. And since they cannot, the state, that is, the taxpayer, must subsidize them. Why? There is no logic. Contributions can be added to the general pension fund, and, of course, a certain regulated percentage goes to the management of these funds. These are financiers who manage them.
– We did not hear a serious argument on another important topic, although it does not actually depend on the presidents. Still, we would like to understand what the candidates' views are. I heard that Mr. Gyurov is also a supporter of the idea of developing production and building battery factories to compete with the Chinese. It is about absorbing the rest of the funds under the Recovery Plan. What is your opinion?
– In my opinion, the best way would be to invest all these funds in renovating housing. In Bulgaria, a huge part of the housing stock does not have thermal insulation. This would immediately halve the cost of heating in winter and would solve many of the problems with heating. But if you are a rich investor, you want these panel blocks to gradually disappear, to collapse, for people to leave them and for something else to be built in their place. At the same time, the banking sector literally subsidizes new construction.
A huge number of new, luxurious and beautiful buildings are being built, which are already empty. While they are empty, they are resold two or three times. Given that inflation is 5-10 percent, and you can take out an investment loan for only 2 percent interest, it is natural to do so. You profit from the very fact that you have something to invest this money in. But only millionaires who deal with such investments have such an opportunity. If an ordinary person asks for a consumer loan, they will be charged 8-9 percent interest. At the same time, almost no interest is paid on bank deposits. This is how, if we compare all these things, we see how the resource is gradually being sucked out of the people and transferred to the elite and the oligarchy or exported abroad.
– In this context, the tragedy of “Progressive Bulgaria“ also emerges. Especially for those who had progressive intentions in it - they seem not to realize what an inclined plane they are walking on. They could end up in Videnov's situation, with many opponents, no like-minded people and no allies.
– No, no. They will have problems with the people. That's the problem. It's not about the allies, it's about the fact that they will have problems with the population.
– This audibility has somehow been lost in these circles, as happened in 2013, when the government had problems with the population…
– Yes.
– Today we are going through a terrible period, but now it could turn out to be even worse, because we don't remember such an appreciation, except maybe since the 90s?
– What you are saying is extremely serious and is not just politicking, as we have observed in recent conversations. They seem highly propagandistic, because the initiative committees have again divided into two camps, which are exchanging clichés. But it is important to hear your opinion on the development of events in the USA. Some time ago you allowed yourself to predict the unpopularity of the American president, which will occur in the spring.
- Now, in view of the upcoming midterm elections, do you think this scenario is coming true, or have your predictions changed?
– I do not make my own predictions. I open the polls in the USA and see what they show. The last time I checked, the Democratic Party was leading by about 30 seats in the elections for the House of Representatives, and about 20 seats were undecided. They could be divided in half or more in favor of one party or the other. According to Western polls, the lower house should be decisively lost to the Republicans. In the Senate, the picture was more even. There are a total of 100 senators there, with only a third of the seats up for renewal in these elections. The projected distribution at the moment was 46 to 46, with eight seats still hanging in the balance. They could go one way or the other. If it comes to a 50 to 50 result, it will be in favor of the Republicans, since the vice president has the right to a casting vote in the event of a tie in the Senate.
My personal prediction is that when the impeachment proceedings begin, it will be something like a reality show. I've said it before. All sorts of dirty shirts will come to light.
This is a reality show that is watched by a lot of people. I also followed the previous two impeachments on television. The procedure begins in the committees, where each issue goes through the appropriate hearings. Then everything is transferred to the main hall. Trump probably will not appear in person, but various details will begin to emerge - either about Epstein, on which there is a new report, or about other circumstances.
I don't see how the Republicans will stand it. Of course, the Democrats can safely trigger the impeachment procedure in the House of Representatives. However, it is believed that the Senate will not be able to gather the necessary two-thirds of the votes to remove Trump, because there is no way that so many Republican senators can vote against him. But there is another option. Republican senators may suddenly get scared by what will be said on this reality show and start thinking about their own political future - first about their party, and then about their personal careers. This is exactly what happened years ago with Nixon. The Republicans turned against him. If they had continued to support him, he probably would have survived. Instead, they went to him and asked him to resign, while promising him that he would not be tried because the vice president would pardon him.
– With Trump, the question now arises again whether the president can pardon himself. With Nixon, there were not so many grounds for prosecution because of “Watergate“, but with Trump, there are many other things for which he can be tried. Do you think this problem is seriously facing him?
– Purely theoretically, he could make such a deal. To say: “Okay, remove me from office, but on the condition that the vice president, that is, J.D. Vance, when he becomes president, will pardon me“. It is entirely possible that such a deal could be made.
– Does this mean that before the critical moment arrives, Trump can take something decisive?
– If he feels that he is threatened with prosecution after leaving the presidency, it is possible that he himself will prefer such an option and agree. But the main thing is that after this reality show - the impeachment procedure, which is certainly coming - the country will simply rise.
– Several impeachment motions have already been filed, but the Democrats do not have a majority to give them a go. However, after November 3, they will. It is only about the House of Representatives, not the Senate…
– Yes. After November 3rd, it looks like they will get going because they will have a majority. But that will only start on January 3rd, when the new Congress convenes. Then it will have to be constituted, start working, and probably by the end of January we will see some radical changes in its activities. So there are very turbulent times ahead. I also think that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will resign at some point. This man has huge presidential ambitions, he has great power and a lot of money behind him. He cannot wait until the end and go down with the ship. It is much more profitable for him to leave early, to save his reputation and to distinguish himself as much as possible. When more people start leaving, many others will probably follow. In general, the last two years of the government could turn into a period of continuous turmoil.
See more of the conversation in the VIDEO.