Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

Professor Alexander Kiossev heads the Department of History and Theory of Culture in the Philosophy Faculty of the Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski". He is the author of more than 80 studies and articles in the field of Bulgarian literature, cultural and literary theory, Bulgarian and Balkan identity and cultural history of the transition, published in Bulgarian and foreign academic journals.

In addition to his academic activities, he is one of the people who played an active role in the intellectual life of Bulgaria during the transition in the 1990s. He was one of the founders of the club "Synthesis" - created in 1989, shortly before the political changes in the country, by an intellectual circle of people who discussed the issues related to this.

In an interview for GRReporter Professor Kiossev analyzed the reasons for the European crisis, for the lack of solidarity between the Member States of the European Union, and the consequences of an eventual bankruptcy of Greece for its neighbours.

Where did the European idea succeed and where did it fail?

This is a really complicated question. The European idea is very old. Cultural historians talk about the first references to it dating back to around the 9th century. It has changed a lot, but still it has had two main stages. The first version of it was the United Christian Europe - a noble vision that Novalis formulated in the late 18th century. The other was the post-traumatic Europe after World War II, which had to overcome the giant trauma of what had happened. In both cases we are talking about a union. In the first case – about a unification based on the religious division of Europe, and in the second – about the union of the nationally fractured, and severely damaged in all directions, Europe.

In this context, the European idea arises from the past and is a utopia for something like the United States of Europe, which after World War II began very slowly and step by step to be made a reality by economists, politicians and managers. This is a good thing because they are careful people who are not at all prone to ideological overreaching. On the other hand, however, this gives rise to birth defects in the project of the "European Union", which we are currently observing.

The fact that this project lacks the culture, the sense of shared destiny and common identity, means that it also lacks the reciprocal solidarity and loyalty of the member states. Indeed, the absence of this solidarity is directly related to the economic catastrophe of Europe, since a country like Greece could allow itself to cheat the others for years and at the time of the first crisis economic nationalism appeared and everyone started to defend its borders from the workforce and the financial problems of their neighbours, etc. This shows how little solidarity there is in the project called "United Europe". It was based on shared interests, but as soon as these shared interests were shaken it turned out that its political core, consisting of shared wealth and shared vision for the future, was too fragile. This is also evident from the EU programmes. The Cultural Programme is relegated to the end of the line like an “orphan” and the cultural policies were actually left to the states. I do not mean that this is the only reason. On the contrary, there is very serious financial and political turmoil, such as migration, for example. But the lack of solidarity is one of the important reasons.

What is your personal view of the European Union in the form in which it exists today?

For me this is a great personal disappointment. I am a staunch supporter of the European Union and now circumstances have forced me to realize, that the project of a united Europe was focused too much on the past and on the overcoming of the post-war disasters and trauma and too little on the future. I.e. there is no shared utopia, no shared value, and this is a very serious problem.

Analysts say that in ten years’ time, Europe will be a peripheral power, while Turkey will have become a great economic power in the region. What is your view on this?

I am not a politician, and I’m not a political scientist, so my reasoning in this area will be amateurish. Europe has a population of 600 million people and the population of Turkey is currently 80-90 million people. This makes them incomparable. Turkey's ambition is to become the regional leader of the Islamic world. This is not easy to achieve as Turkey itself is torn by the underwater pro-Islamist currents and secular policy – the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. Not even Erdogan can deal with this inner split of Turkish politics. They can not become radical Islamists while in the rest of the Muslim world there is a variety of attitudes and currents, often extreme ones. Consequently, Turkey can hardly become a leader of this region, not to mention that there are ethno-cultural barriers between the Arab world and Turkey, and therefore I cannot see any chance of it becoming a leader in this world. It is much smaller and weaker than Europe. Nevertheless, this does not mean that a part of this prediction hasn’t already come true. Europe is already a peripheral economic power as compared to the U.S., China, Japan, etc.

Recently, comments that there is a lack of democracy in Europe have become increasingly common. Decisions are taken by the leaders of Germany and France and then they are simply announced to the other leaders. What is your comment?

These are facts and I could not have any opinion on them. Moreover, for countries like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, for example, where there are no real politicians with real vision that is even better. They, naturally, do not protect our interests, but they create a civilized structure and a development path. I'm not sure, but I think, that it would have been better if the Bulgarian corporate policy that is associated to a greater extent with private interests rather than to the common wellbeing could not interfere in such decisions. 

The possibility of Greece finding itself outside the eurozone and outside the European Union seems quite real. Do you think that Greece’s place is outside the European structures?

I have very strong sentiments for Greece and I just cannot believe what is happening. So I'm confused. If we need to think cold bloodedly and follow the line of a cold economic and social justice, what the Greeks have done for years is really outrageous and they somehow deserve sanction. On the other hand, Greece is an emblematic place in Europe. It is its cultural cradle, a part of the most important cultural canon of Europe.

No one will get away with the catastrophe of Greece. We will not remain unaffected by it. On the contrary, we are already affected. If Greece really failed, if it exited the European Union, went bankrupt as a country and became a symbol of total collapse it would only be to our disadvantage because it is a "nuclear" European country and our Balkan neighbour.

Can a parallel be drawn between the Bulgarian transition in the early 1990s and the one that some say has already begun, while others argue that it is yet to start in Greece?

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.

However, if elections are not won honestly but through manipulation and this continues, if GERB oppresses the political competition, by gradually taking over the media and puts pressure on the public, then this would be terrible. I think we are now in a situation in which we are still deciding exactly what is happening. Honestly, I myself am also swinging around. Obviously all public studies show that GERB has very strong support, that the leader of GERB is the most popular politician, etc. On the other hand there are enough indications for electoral manipulation and pressure on journalists. These are very disturbing things.

How would you comment on the refusal of the European Union to include Bulgaria in the Schengen area?

On this issue there is no difference between the position of the Bulgarian government and my personal opinion. This is a double standard, because Bulgaria has fulfilled all the technical requirements and should be accepted. This does not mean that Bulgaria has no problems, corruption, unresolved problems with the judiciary system, police and Ministry of the Interior. All these things are true, but they were not set as conditions for Bulgaria's accession to Schengen. Now the Netherlands is blocking our entry for such considerations. They are fair, but were not contractual, i.e. they were not part of the initial contracts. For this reason we are talking about a double standard that should be rejected. Furthermore, I think that this is not the decision of the entire European Union, but it is simply the exercise of a veto by one Member State. Why is it doing it? Everyone says that in this way the Netherlands is solving its own internal problems.

How does this affect the attitude of the Bulgarians to the European Union?

I do not think Schengen affects so much the ordinary Bulgarian. I think he cares about something else and it provoked paradoxical outbursts of nationalism during and after the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union. In the micro-academic circles we have often discussed this topic and we have formulated it in the following way: This was an accession of Bulgaria without any cultural recognition. Thus, Bulgaria joined the European Union in a bureaucratic way but in fact what the Bulgarian people identify themselves with, what they are proud of and so on remained unknown and uninteresting. Somehow the media and cultural image of the Bulgarians in Europe was not changed one bit. This of course creates some very complex emotions. On the one hand you are a member of the European Union, on the other hand you know you are not. This causes public traumatism and often leads to radical nationalism.

I am not at all a nationalist. I have a moderately patriotic attitude towards the country where I live, but I can explain for myself why young people become extreme patriots and nationalists. The reason is not only in the policy of the European Union, but it also contributes to this.

How would you like to see the world, Europe and Bulgaria in ten years?

Of course, in the first place I would like to see that the crisis has been overcome and forgotten. I’d like the euro to be stabilized, and for Europe not to fall apart. Secondly I would like the crisis to lead to a wiser and more far-sighted policy. Thirdly, although I do not think this will happen, I would like to see more critical voices in the media. Fourthly, I would like the problems of education and culture to become a serious policy on the quality of life. These are simple, not terribly complex demands that are associated with the removal of the neo-liberal ideology of the world. I do not believe that this can happen and in this sense it is a utopia, but in any case, the ideas of management and marketing are all part of the problem.