Galery

1

I do not think there is any parallel. I do not see anything having started in Greece. I see some people, who are accustomed to great financial benefits, protesting in order to preserve them. They do not care about economic rationality and they are somewhat right, because their main argument is that this is the fault of the rich. "Both the wealthy Greeks and wealthy Europeans as well as the world banks have caused the crisis, we are only the victims." This of course is not true because consumers have been deeply involved in the crisis. I do not see any political programme in this process, except for a simple left radicalism and anarchism, which I do not think could lead to anything serious. There is no plan. If there are any left-wing revolutionary attitudes, I think they are very naive and infantile. They do not embody any new idea. Most importantly, just as it is elsewhere, the Greek Left party does not realize that the catastrophe of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is a catastrophe of the Left party. The Eastern European experience has not been given any significance and they are acting as if it never happened. As if those 70 years of existence of the Soviet Union and 45 years of the socialist world and the Cold War never happened.

Whereas the so called Bulgarian "velvet" revolution flowed in two lines. One was sympathetic and public, where liberal and democratic values were restored. Thus it was a bourgeois revolution and acted as if capitalism never experienced crises. Now we see that this is not completely true. Underneath it a criminal redistribution of wealth was going on, that took advantage of the momentum and now it has established its authority.

There is nothing like this in Greece. There is tension between the political and financial elites and some radicalized masses that defend their privileges.

How do you comment on the fact that the governing party in Bulgaria has concentrated in itself all the power? Is this good for a country?

This issue has a legal and a political side to it. Any politician would say that in a democratic situation it is better for there to be more parties, because this would create a better distribution of powers, better mutual control, and better control between those who have the power and the opposition etc. On the other hand, the legal aspect of the issue is the following: the sovereign, i.e. the voters have expressed their will. They have voted for and supported this party. There is no authority above the sovereign. He has spoken, and so it should be. And if this is what the sovereign has wished for, it means he has chosen this type of government. In this sense, we can only obey. People who have their own opinion can have different positions, but they remain private.