|
Krassimir Premyanov
Problems of the political system of Bulgaria
Born on 27 January 1955 in Bourgas. Higher education in Law - specialty 'International Law' and a second higher education, specialty 'Political Sciences'. First employment at the Varna District Court as a probationer. Later on he has taken various leading positions - Secretary of the CC of the DCYU, a municipal and a district councillor. At the XIV extraordinary congress - he was elected as member of the Supreme Council of BSP. Member of Parliament in the Grand National Assembly, 36th , 37th Peoples' Assemblies, member of the Commission for elaboration of the new constitution, of the Legislative Commission, of the Commission on Foreign Policy, of the Commission on National Security at the different Peoples' Assemblies. He was Deputy Chairman and member of the Executive Bureau of the Supreme Council with BSP. Secretary, Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Parliamentary Group. At present - member of the SC of BSP, Deputy Chairman of the Council on Legislation, Order and Justice to the SC of BSP and member of the Foreign Policy Commission. Chairman of the 'Open Forum' Federation within BSP. Lawyer at the Lawyers' Association in Sofia. Since April 2003 - Chairman of the Bulgarian-Greek Juridical Club.
It is an indisputable fact that globalisation is an objective and not an imaginary process, within the frames of which the ability of the Bulgarian state to formulate an independent policy will be of exceptional importance. This ability depends to a great extent on the status of the political system which includes the state, political and public organizations, among which the central position is occupied by the government institutions - legislative, executive and judicial, and the political parties, actually present or those striving to be present in our political life. In this connection I will try on the basics of the acquired experience since 10 November 1989 till today to make some summaries on the state of the political parties in Bulgaria, of their faults and directions for development with a view to the participation of Bulgaria in the processes of globalisation and European integration.
What is the situation in the Bulgarian political space? It is seriously split into parts by the presence of numerous parties which are, however, deprived of organizational, ideological and political identity. To a large extent the parties are not active in regard to carrying out the practical policy. The Bulgarian parties are ill due to the outlined in Michaels law oligarchy. They are not democratic and function as centralized structures, in general they have bureaucratic centralized structures.
I have to underline with great regret that that the political parties are unable, irrespective of their position in the political spectrum, to differentiate the national and the party subjects. This in practice leads to inability to pursue a policy of consensus in relation to the interests of the society and the individual person and also of the individual social communities. The Bulgarian parties pretending to be mass actually are functioning as personnel organizations, as they are not identified with the active participation of their members, but with their elite ruling tops.
Around 280 parties are registered in a small country as Bulgaria, the larger part of them being symbolic, but established in order to satisfy the leaders' ambitions of their founders or covered self-seeking interests. The forthcoming membership of our country in the European Union, its participation in the global processes and its ability to formulate and withstand the national-responsible policy enforces the overcoming of the enumerated disadvantages of the Bulgarian political parties. Along with this it is necessary to set up preconditions - normative, material, and institutional, for their development, which has to be adequate to the standards acting in the developed European countries.
Which are the main directions which will assist the transformation of the Bulgarian political parties to an important factor and a basic component in our political system?
First, it is necessary for the parties to unite around politics characterizing the differences between the left, the centrist and the right.
And second, the ideological and program identity should be clarified within the parties and political alternatives for the country should be presented in a comprehensible way. Very often it is claimed also in the media when we hear the opinion of the people: 'We can not understand what the difference between the various parties is. If we listen carefully we shall hear that they declare one and the same priorities.' Unfortunately, this concerns both BSP and its basic political opponent - UDF. It is very difficult to identify the difference. It has to be an essential difference, otherwise some politics is simulated.
Third, It is imperative that the parties should exit their bureaucratic centralized structures and seek cooperation and common grounds with the civil society structures.
Fourth. It is of vital importance that the political parties open their personnel systems towards informal leaders from the professional circles, adult groups, people of identical interest and ideological orientation.
We all understand that the development of the Bulgarian political parties can not be a single act. This will be a process but it has to be accelerated with a view to our EU membership, because the situation of the parties nowadays shows that they are not ready for integration and active participation in the international organizations of left, right and centrist parties. And there is the exact place for the collective drafting of political programs and decisions, but also for withstanding the Bulgarian interests.
As far as I pretend that I have some information available, I can add that the representation of the Bulgarian politicians in the European parties is exceptionally passive and in solidarity with any suggestion. (May be BSP is an exception aiming at becoming an associated, and in the future, with Bulgaria's accession to the European Union, also a full-right member of the Party of the European Socialists). By the way why are they members of the European Peoples' Party? Why are these representatives, politicians of ours present in the Liberal International, if they are not seeking an opportunity by elaborating common political positions to declare the nuance or put the emphasis upon what Bulgaria thinks, what is the attitude of a policy, representing the left, the right or the centrist, to the interests of Bulgaria? The membership is completely formal, so when I say that they are unable to integrate, I have in mind their active presence there, not their formal membership because this is what they have at this stage.
I would like to say also some words for the Bulgarian Socialist Party.
It is an indisputable fact that ready recipes for the behaviour of a certain socialist party under the conditions of globalisation do not exist. This refers to all left parties. When they are united, you know, that only directions are given, and ready and concrete models and decisions do not exist, as was the case at the last Congress of the Socialist International in Sao Paolo. Anyone who has read the decisions - 'Novo Vreme' has been kind to publish them - will note that it is very difficult for them to be transferred mechanically to the Bulgarian conditions. Even more, BSP has to unfold the ideological and theoretical discussions and its program aims, particularly after its membership in the Socialist International, which is an acknowledgment for the difficulties overcome up to now. But if only we could restore the confidence and increase the influence on the Bulgarian society, if it recognizes us as those manifesting the left alternative for the development of Bulgaria, it is only then that it would entrust the governing of the country and the possibility to withstand the national interests under the conditions of globalisation and European integration.
Me personally - and I am saying this not for those who represent other parties or, if one can put it like this, the pure science, if there is such, but for the left representatives - I have to tell you I am not glad that the influence of BSP is 22 %. It is too insignificant and insufficient in a country which is in crisis, to strive to take the power, even with parliamentary arithmetic, in case one achieves an absolute majority. What are you going to do with the power in hard times if you do not have a wide public support?
It is not even about whom we are going to make a coalition with. The question is how we shall bring back and affiliate trust in politics which we offer on behalf of the Bulgarian voter. Because we can govern at ease alone. I do not speak of the wish to realize a monopoly on the power, but to pursue a responsible policy if only we have a wide public support. Because making a coalition with three, four, five parties, which have 2%, 0,5%, 1-2% each - sounds like a variety of parties which are with us, but in the long run, when the time comes for the actual and difficult decisions on the reforms, of the harmonization of Bulgaria with the European Union, we will rely on the fact how the people refer to this policy, and not how many abbreviations exist in the name which we are going to invent for the coalition flag of our party.
Secondly, Dear Colleagues, BSP has to change its manner of functioning by providing an actual sense of the individual membership in the party. I think that all our present political parties are self-serving. Any one who climbs the top, in case it is possible for him to find out the organizational and statute tricks, he encloses into a capsule up on top and speaks only that he rejuvenates and renovates his leaderships. Actually (let me hope that BSP is an exception or it will be an exception) the active association is senseless as related to the form of membership or policy sympathizers. That is why we go back to something which we have declared as our understanding of the rightful functioning and seeking of a new motivation within BSP, which was related to our suggestion of a model for implementation of the policy from underneath upwards.
Even yesterday at the Plenary Session of the Supreme Council of BSP it happened again: 'We elaborate certain policies, and we are discussing them with scientific experts and at Supreme Council and the Executive Bureau level. 'Well, where are the Municipal Councils, where are the socialists, where are the federations? I would rather say that a certain theoretically substantiated frame of specialists has to be set, but it has to go down there, to hear the opinion of the people. Because, just imagine, how will a policy which is not elaborated by the people and which is not familiar to them, be implemented? The people will alienate. We shall not even have the support of our own members if we do not change the way of elaborating the policy - from bottom to top. They laugh, they say that this is not true, they consider it impossible. Yes, from a technical point of view it is very unsuitable. The know-how - with the limited funds which one has, in the difficult conditions of alienating the people from policy, to find the mechanisms to associate, to agitate the heart, the conscience of the individual citizen of Bulgaria. Even not leftist he has to hear our policy. Not speaking of those who are members of the party. This must be a qualitative process. At the moment they are only exploited participants in the preparation and holding of elections, as a rule. Even the information which they need in order to feel that the membership in BSP ensures something more - information, policy interpretation, they miss it. That is why we have to look with a new vision, as a party, at this major issue concerning the formation of one party - qualitative BSP membership. Not concerning the social and qualitative composition, but in regard to the functioning of the membership - setting of ideological motifs, collecting information and expressing personal opinion in the policy making.
In this sense we speak of the role of the primary party organizations which, of course, are the location where the membership is really carried out. This can save us from oligarchy, because this is a threat formulated not only by Michaels and Duverger.
If you remember, at one of our conferences of the 'Open Forum' Federation, we have been almost blamed that we speak out heresy; that we have said that there is a danger of oligarchy and tendency to the right. There is, of course. I think that there is no doubt about the importance of that issue. By its decision, by the democratisation of the party and the increase of the role of the membership, we shall create conditions for an active control of the top crust and for respect to the leading bodies of the party.
It would be useful to increase the role of the structures according to interests and of the federations. Dear Colleagues, how many years have past? Fifteen. A lot of things have been set in words, as if not so little has been done, but the process of changes is not completed. We have to change the organizational structure of the party and escape from what we received as a legacy. My respect to the primary party organizations in the residential areas, but we are a party, successor of the BCP. We have never declined the fact that we have inherited everything - both the pluses and the minuses in our long history. From BCP we inherited the Residential areas' primary party organizations, where people have been meeting and have been deciding the problems of the Fatherland Front in depth. Well, is that what we want for BSP today - member of the Socialist International, declaring its willingness to become member of the Party of the European Socialists? No, not at all. The active involvement of daily problems requires the establishment of a new status of the structures according to interests. They can not be a servicing staff. And it is only in this way, by broadening and providing rights and a statute, as well as possibilities for representation in the leading bodies, respecting their opinion, that we can make the party modern. Otherwise, the top crust will be the most competent, of course. It is considered as a disease - whoever is on the top is always the smartest and most competent on all issues. They will be the same, they will again drop their decisions. This is not necessary. And they should also understand it - our respected comrades, who are now in the Leadership of the party. The leaderships of course get renovated. They should serve all members and democracy and respect those who provide the real standpoint on real life. This activity is not carried out in the cabinets.
Now a slight deviation, in our region Orlin Dimov, who is chairman, thank God, that we have succeeded to open the way, he has been supported by the consent of the city organization that the problems of the railway transport and its development be solved on the spot where the centre of the railway transport has been for the last 40-50 years, on the draft of the law, on the conception. And, thanks God, no matter that it is early. It is not possible for the Supreme Council to cover all structures. So this is one very important model - where there are professionals, who know the problems - there the policies of the party must be elaborated.
There is something more that I wish to share, which we have already said, but I think that it is very topical today. We have to decrease the vertical structures, to remove the district councils and their functions to be overtaken by the councils of chairmen within the regions with a common coordinator. This unit is not necessary. It became optional, it pursues independent policy. Let us restore the councils of chairmen. Thus the horizontal unit will stay and it will coordinate the tasks during campaigning or other tasks.
If we respect the principles of democracy not only in words, but also in practice, we have to introduce or at least use the referendum and the open vote of members and of sympathizers both for the BSP leadership and for the decision of important issues in politics. I have to say that I have admired, though I have not thought that the Greeks after so many years of traditionalism - how many years, 13-14, their vote has been very interesting after the resign of Costas Simitis. They elected Papandreou as leader of the party by means of an open vote, in which the sympathizers took part also, and not only members of the party. In practice this is a vote saying: 'Welcome, you are ready for Prime Minister in the current situation.'
Monopoly of certain people taking leading positions in BSP should not be admitted. I remember, when the attack against the new young leadership, of which I was a member too, took place, Jean Videnov was the Prime Minister. One of the slogans with which they wanted to overthrow us, was that in 1996. We did not want to be overthrown, we ourselves resigned because the political courage and morality demands this in such cases. But this slogan was immediately taken down, but it continues to be relevant. What is this democratic party which does not use the colleague and collective beginnings in its leading activity?
What we see now is an absolute enclosing in a capsule, dear comrades. One and the same people are members of Parliament, one and the same people are members of the Supreme Council of BSP, one and the same people are chairmen of the district councils, and a large part of them are also members of the Executive Bureau. Who will correct them? Who will make them responsible for the implementation of the decisions taken? And that is why our reports in the party do not turn into reports, but they turn into problems and reports, because 99% of the decisions are not implemented. Look, my attitude to the new leadership of the party is the great hope, but it is about the party itself. It should not be a conjuncture - this is a nice person, and the other is not. The principles on which the party should rely and function have to be principles, which do not depend on the personalities.
These problems which I examined (part of them), I think, that they can be solved with amendments also in the Statute, and also by introducing restrictions and quotas of representation. Not to be groundless, and coming to the end, I will say what I have in mind because I do not know if it is formulated clearly.
For instance, I would introduce a restrictive quota of membership in the Supreme Council for deputies up to 30%, because otherwise they serve themselves alone. There is no one to control them.
Secondly, I would introduce quotas of representation of the federations or the associations according to interests. So that a colour picture exists and there is a presence of representatives of one and the same profession, scientific sphere or one and the same field, important for the rule of the country, inside the supreme leading organ of the party. And not only inside it.
You understand, Dear Colleagues that this is only outlining of various subject matters. Because the problem of the parties is a subject matter which I will propose to discuss independently, by inviting again our leadership. I would like only to say to you that comrade Stanishev was going to come. The subject matter was coordinated also with the opinion of the leadership, but he is attending a conference in Pernik where one of the extraordinary report and election conferences has taken place. Boyko Velikov had intended also to attend. He is Chairman of the Commission of the ideological and program development, but he is taking part in the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Balvan battle, which is celebrated in the area of Veliko Turnovo. Rumen Petkov is also busy. I am glad that comrade Rumen Ovcharov was here and Kristian Vigenin too. Let them hear. This is one of the direct benefits.
|
|
