The political shelf life of history

Over the past few weeks, we have repeatedly witnessed the obsessive infantility of the Bulgarian political system. This is, of course, the decision of the municipal councilors from the MRF in Kardzhali to vote with an "abstention" on the proposal to declare Gen. Vasil Delov an honorary citizen of the city.

In the run-up to the election, we are once again going back in history, rethinking facts, and not having a productive debate about real politics, which affects not minority groups, but the entire population. In this sense, the case has an almost unambiguous interpretation with the protest against the conference dedicated to Lyudmila Zhivkova at Sofia University.

More worryingly, if until now the transition was considered a reason for polarization and contradictory interpretations, now we are going even further back in time to reveal another type of division. It would be especially unfortunate if the issue was deliberately emphasized because of the upcoming parliamentary elections in order to accumulate political capital, and most assessments point to this. A key question is why party leaders are once again mobilizing their electorates by opposing each other, rather than through trust and ideas. Is it intentional or is it a coincidence? If we assume that the problem is further exacerbated by political interference, this means that the opposition has replaced criticism of the government and promises of better governance with the tools of ethnic opposition.

Here are the positions of the three main politicians on the issue:

• Ahmed Dogan went to the extreme of claiming that the Balkan War was a form of the Revival Process, aimed at ethnic cleansing, thereby provoking the fury of nationalists and patriots. He demanded a review of historical facts and a new discussion in assessing the events. If we take into account that Dogan is the politician who does not speak on any issues, if he speaks at all, then this means that the case is of key importance for the political realization of the MRF. By taking this position, Dogan informally finally admits that his goal is to represent mainly the Turkish population, i.e. his party is ethnic after all. In this respect, the situation is particularly dangerous – the dividing line is precisely this – Turks against Bulgarians. The idea of viewing the Balkan War as repression, instead of heroism, is defended only by the ethnic minority. At the same time, objectively speaking, during the war, Dogan's electoral stronghold (Kardzhali) was inhabited by a minimal percentage of Bulgarian Christian population. Another question is whether this fact is in Dogan's favor, considering the preservation of the Turkish population of Bulgarian lands to this day. If we assume that the stay of these Turks in Bulgaria is a voluntary choice, then the position of the MRF calls into question the territorial integrity of the country, and the revision of historical facts that Dogan proposes can far from be defined as a fruitful solution to such a serious problem.
• As expected, the subsequent response was immediately initiated by Ataka – submitting a declaration to the National Assembly condemning Ahmed Dogan’s statements and opposing the “replacement of historical reality”. This is not the first case when actions of one party instantly provoke the initiative of the other and it is hardly a coincidence that debates heat up precisely in the run-up to the elections. The feeling continues to hover in the political space that it is through this chain system that the two parties activate their electorate and live in symbiosis. Vivid proof that, in a sense, without Ataka there is no MRF and without MRF there is no Ataka was the beating in front of the Sofia mosque.
• The chain reaction of the party on the occasion also led to the inclusion of Stanishev in the debate – his position is the most moderate, but still does not offer an effective solution to the problem. He defined the case as “a competition in nationalist rhetoric by different political forces, which aim for a short-term political dividend for elections, with extreme positions that create a division between Bulgarian citizens”. The condemnation of Dogan’s position immediately led to the reprimand of Stanishev for the attack on the former coalition partner, which again directed thoughts not to the essence of the problem, but to the question “Who with whom?” in the upcoming elections. The main message of the BSP leader is the need for leaders to refrain from compromising ethnic peace and creating conflicts dangerous to society. However, the council is hardly effective in dealing with an already existing problem, which, once it has come to light, hardly suggests remaining silent about it.

In summary, the positions expressed on the issue can be defined as follows: MRF wants to rewrite history, Ataka - condemnation and stigmatization of the traitors and marginalization of the interests of an entire ethnic group, and Stanishev believes that the case should be hushed up so as not to stir up the spirits of intolerance. Obviously, consensus is impossible and effective measures have not been proposed. It is at such moments that politicians should talk about effective mechanisms of integration and inclusion. Such are achieved through the existence of political forces that protect the interests of all represented groups in society equally and simultaneously, without populist rhetoric and winning the electorate through division. The Constitution, of course, has foreseen this necessity, banning ethnic parties, but there are no mechanisms through which it can be implemented in practice and argued. What is even more urgent, which is also missing from the current debate, is talk about tolerance. This deficit puts the voluntary acceptance of Bulgarian citizenship by Bulgarian Turks and living in the state as a conscious choice into doubt, and such doubt is destructive to the healthy functioning of a society.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!