Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

The protests in Bulgaria against the appointment of Delian Peevski as the head of the State Agency for National Security (SANS) are continuining for the fourth consecutive day. The parliament’s preference has provoked reactions, including from Bulgaria’s foreign partners. In a statement, the European Commission declares, "the demonstrations in Bulgaria over the weekend showed once again the deep concern of Bulgarian society about the rule of law."

GRReporter has turned for a comment on the issue to Nikolai Slatinski, a professor and expert on security, defence and public order.

Mr. Slatinski why is it so important who heads the State Agency for National Security?

During the previous government of the triple coalition, it was namely Sergey Stanishev who had created the SANS in the most incorrect way. So, a half of a counter-intelligence service was formed out of two relatively well working counter-intelligence services (the National Security Service and the Military Counter-intelligence Service) and it was not functioning although the SANS is a key institution in the national security system. Moreover, with the amendments to the law on the SANS, the government has turned it, contrary to the best European practices and to the interests of the state, society and citizens, into a second Ministry of Interior (MI), i.e. into a mega MI, into something that is dramatically reminiscent of the Committee for State Security, into an explosive mixture of police, counter-intelligence and repressive functions. In this sense, the position of the head of the SANS is of key importance. When an obscurantist takes this position, the SANS may become a state within the state or a perfect tool for sinister political orders or for backdoor oligarchy whose nature in Bulgaria is quite criminal, at least as a genesis.  Moreover, the puppet governments frequently use this tool, in a criminal manner again, in support of the elitist interests of the oligarchy. 

What are the responsibilities of that position and why is it so critical?

I am trying to say that in the way in which it had been created, and especially due to the changes in the law on the SANS, its head became nearly the second powerful figure after the Prime Minister or even along with him; a figure with too much power, too many resources, too weak administrative and, most importantly, parliamentary and civilian control. The Bulgarian democratic culture knows no such concentration of power and it all depends on the personality of the head of the SANS. In addition, that legal and institutional framework which makes the functioning of the structure, especially of such a basic structure of the national security system, dependant on the personality of the head of the specific structure, is bad. We must regulate principles, powers, and mechanisms for verification and control, for audit of the activities regardless of the particular person and in accordance with democratic standards.

I do not know whether the politicians of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) realize that they are letting the evil spirit out of the bottle, that they are opening Pandora's Box. Tomorrow, this could turn against them with a terrible force. We all saw how Borisov and Tsvetanov had “installed” the new prosecutor general, anticipating that he would be obedient to them and now, he has become their enemy number 1. This happens whenever the specifics, peculiarities, fears and complexes of individuals are in the foreground instead of democratic principles, laws, values ​​and standards. It is all right if the prosecutor general wants to be a real prosecutor general and it is bad if he wants to be the mad dog of the new government. The same applies to the new powers of the head of the SANS – it is all right if he wants to be a true defender of national security but what happens if he wants to be the mad dog of power. Something very bad can happen.
 
We read in the press about the reactions of several foreign embassies in connection with Delian Peevski’s appointment. Why is it important for a dialogue with Bulgaria’s partners in the EU and NATO to take place? Is it common for our partners to consult us or are we talking about intervention in the internal affairs of Bulgaria?

The election of the SANS’ head really is a sovereign right of the country. Since we are part of a collective security system which requires compliance with its norms and culture, we must act in a way which will make our partners trust us and we must show them respect. In this sense, the apocalyptic nonsense as regards the choice of Peevski is a bold challenge with elements of arrogance towards our partners in the EU and NATO. Although I was a counsellor to President Parvanov during his first term, I was not admitted to the “kitchen” of such personnel selection and I am not aware of the consultations as regards the appointments to such posts. There are two bad things here – one is that we (I mean the politicians), as a country, are used to allowing somebody else to interfere in the sovereign election of individuals who are to be appointed to high posts and it is our own fault that the leading countries in the EU and NATO expect to consult us. This behaviour of our country, with elements of weak will, should be treated long and carefully, without going to extremes. But it should be treated just because we have spat in our own face and we have been continually demonstrating a lack of elementary self-respect. The other bad thing is that we are stubbornly refusing to adopt the contemporary strategic culture of true partnership, cooperation and respect for the other countries in the collective security system (I am talking about respect, not about being servants to somebody). That is why we are deaf and blind sometimes and promote persons who are inacceptable to our partners in terms of values ​​and principles. We wanted, some time ago, to “install” Brigo Asparuhov in the key post of coordinator of the intelligence services and the EU and NATO simply flared up with dissent. So, we have now humiliated our partners in the EU and NATO because we have assumed that it is possible for a person, whom they consider as absurd, odious, repulsive, to head the State Agency for National Security.

Why did the government make such a suicidal move? Wasn’t there another, easier way for it to fill the particular position, without causing such strong reactions in society?

I do not understand all the reasons for such an absurdity, for the Stupidity-Of-Transition; it is hard to believe it because this is not even stupidity, this is idiocy to the n-th degree.

However, some of the reasons may lie in the arrogance of politicians;

-In Stanishev’s complete ignorance of Bulgaria and Bulgarian society (he lived in isolation from ordinary people, he was looking at the country through the curtained window of his Chaika car in the past and then subsequently from the curtained window of his Mercedes and BMW cars);

-In the relationships of politicians from the BSP and MRF with the oligarchy and criminal white collar clans;

-In the attempts to secure media comfort within the "Peevski-Kristeva" empire

- In their blindness to understand that there is a worldwide pandemic of protests, the countries are infecting each other with waves of dissent and it is increasingly difficult not only to push but to think about pushing something that is touching the exposed nerves of society. Societies are already on the brink of the square, they are ready to protest against everything that is worth protesting.

How do you think the protests will develop? Is there a risk that the cabinet may fall?

I am trying to analyze the process but I am not a prophet.

It is important for me that it is over for Stanishev as a politician. What he is doing is like residual current due to which a frog in the lab is still moving but is no longer alive...

I do not know how he can motivate the public and his party to approve of unpopular measures, how he will speak to his country when he has no authority, when he is demoralized and standing in place only as a demonstration of muscles and because he is lacks that political shame which requires you to resign when you have failed. Stanishev, who is overrated as a European politician, lacks the elementary morality to resign; according to his system of values, this is an act of chimps, naive persons, fools; he sincerely believes that dodgers, skilful players and wise guys do not resign.

The government is very weak too. Oresharski has allowed "Positano" to insult him so many times that he has become a straw figure, even weaker than Berov, and I really do not know (because I'm not a politician) how he could emerge. My common sense has given Oresharski up but I am not aware of the common sense of our society.

It is a pity but Stanishev has strongly provoked Bulgaria, unnecessarily and in a ridiculously absurd way... The last thing it needs now is instability, social unrest, mass dissent and dramatic decline in trust in institutions.

If there are early elections, is it likely that a new coalition government will emerge?

Most probably, coalitions will continue to govern the country, especially if the elections are held under the old rules, without changing the essential things in the social contract that has been regulated by this Constitution, which is one of the main systematic reasons for our country to have stalled in timelessness and chaos.

I have repeatedly tried to explain elsewhere (on my website) the idea of ​​the third republic I have launched in Bulgaria. The first republic – the socialist – no longer exists for better or worse.

The second republic – of the transition – can no longer function effectively, it produces agonies and failures, but it has at least brought Bulgaria to the EU and NATO.

We need a third republic of European Bulgaria. This requires reconstruction and modernization of the main authorities and institutions. It is because the current constitution contains large defects, it is suitable for a long jump but now, the discipline in which Bulgaria should participate in order for it to achieve full and complete EU membership is different and it is called high jump.

The best option would be to convene, in terms of public consensus, the Grand National Assembly even to revoke the institution of the Grand National Assembly itself in the constitution because Bulgaria has stalled not only because all governors are incompetent or scoundrels but because of systemic, structural, fundamental reasons.

Since I doubt that this is possible, there is another way to restart the state and turn to the third republic.

After all, the votes of the Constitutional Court determine whether something is constitutional or not rather than the squares or the parliamentary majority. I.e. if six Constitutional judges, in terms of public consensus on the inevitability of the changes, do not resist the urgent changes, these changes cannot be declared unconstitutional. I.e. six votes can support a national responsible act and save Bulgaria by saying that the changes meet the interests of Bulgarian society and are in accordance with the spirit of the objectives of Bulgarian legislation, namely to build a prosperous, modern and democratic European country. The laws always serve the national interests and priorities of society and the state and society must not be a blind and obedient prisoner of law.

At the beginning of the transition to democracy, society was concerned whether the MRF was a constitutional party and it was declared such not by the people, rallies and parliament but because there were not seven votes in the Constitutional Court against it... And six Constitutional judges have made the MRF a constitutional party...with all the consequences for our country, whether they are negative or positive.

Do you think that there is a political figure of the right wing who can unite a large part of society?

I do not see such a figure at present perhaps because this right wing is not the necessary right wing and its emotions do not find any response in me.

However, it is not the unifying figure of the right wing who will give birth to the new right-wing project but a new right-wing project that will give birth to the unifying right-wing figure...

Bulgarian right-wing voters are not represented in parliament. All parties in this parliament are left-wing, leftist, or leftist-nationalist.

There is a pressing and urgent need for a new right-wing project in Bulgaria.
 
In order for a new right-wing project to be created, however, at least four conditions must be met:
The first is the rejection, a decisive, radical rejection, of former right-wing leaders; the faces of the current transition that have intruded as emblems of the right wing and that have been perceived as faces of the status quo and that have been firmly rejected at the elections should hide and be sent away once and for all.
Second, the rejection of sectarian ultraliberal, super competitive, mega individualistic and hyper market dogmas.
Third, the rejection of fundamentalist, almost religiously inspired, goggled-eyed, pop-eyed and empty Russophobia.
Fourth, the rejection of fanatical, sociopathic, epileptic and schizophrenic rhetoric, in which the outdated, shabby and decrepit alternative of "communism or anti-communism" lies.

That's what I think of the new right-wing project. I could be wrong, but I am strongly convinced internally that if the old faces of the right wing, the old sectarian hyper market dogmas of the right wing, the old fanatical Russophobian hatred and the old anti-fundamentalist rhetoric on the right wing continue  to exist, then the new right wing will remain the old mad thing...
Moreover, Bulgaria will be divided between two types of government – of the organized criminal group of security guards, militiamen and cops or of the "flexible" coalitions of parties. One of them belongs to left socialists with ultra rich leaders, the other belongs to left-wing Bulgarian Turks with ultra rich leaders and the third coalition belongs to left-wing patriots with ultra rich leaders.

And fewer of our children will want to live in that Bulgaria.