EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Tomorrow, Bulgarians will have the unique opportunity to choose who will not reform the health, pension and education systems; who will redistribute part of their wealth; who will support one or another monopoly and who will worsen the state of the economy. In other words - tomorrow, Bulgarians will vote to preserve the status quo.
And if they are lucky, the minimum wage may become 1,000 leva or they may receive the bill for another nuclear power plant.
This will be another election, after which the most significant economic and social problems will continue to exist, and are also likely to worsen. And yet there are those who argue that it is very important to vote. In fact, in every election cycle there are commentators who say that this vote is of crucial importance for achieving change. But this is not so, because as long as the majority of Bulgarians have a wrong idea about the role of the state, their vote will be a vote in support of our socialist past of great state control over the lives we live.
Then the logical question arises - if there is no party with a truly pro-market ideology, should one still vote? Many people believe that one should vote even if one does not like the views of any party (or at least not entirely). The theory is that those who do not vote do not have an opinion. But in fact, those who do not vote do have an opinion, and that is that they do not approve of what politics offers them. And their abstention sends exactly this message to politicians. This is a principled position with important strategic importance. In contrast, those who also do not like any party but vote preserve the current ideology in politics and make it more difficult for others to enter. Their vote discourages politicians from changing and prolongs the transition to a free society.
Another theory is that if you don't vote, someone else will decide for you. Obviously, the fans of this theory don't approve of someone deciding for someone else. But at the same time, they don't realize that by voting, they are doing exactly that - imposing their will on others through the principle of majoritarianism.
There is also the theory that, although all parties are bad, they are not equally bad. Accordingly, one should vote for the lesser evil. First of all, this theory is completely unprincipled and leads to the preservation of the status quo. But it is also an admission that the electoral process is not a process towards improving our lives, but a mechanism for choosing which (less?) evil person will govern us.
Ultimately, neither dictators nor politicians can afford to do evil without public support for their actions. This should tell us that politics does not exist in a vacuum, where some bad people make some decisions without considering the attitudes of society. On the contrary, politics reflects the ideology prevailing among the population. While in Bulgaria this is the ideology of the parent state and people vote for the lesser evil, we will see a change only in the nuances of evil.
Politics is not an end in itself, but supposedly exists to solve some problems that would otherwise remain unresolved. And in fact, the ultimate goal of politics should be to one day not need it. If you think that politics is currently not achieving its goals and you want real change, maybe you shouldn't go to the polls tomorrow.
I would like to ask a question: Can a party with a pro-market ideology exist (not just in words)?
By definition, parties fight for power. We assume that this party somehow (how?) has come to power. And now it must act. To be consistent, it must begin to remove all non-market restrictions in the economy, continuously reducing its own power in the process.
And here the following problems will arise:
1. Society has its own views on how the state should be structured, for example, that there should be social security. If this party decides to remove social security, it ensures a popular uprising and ouster from power. Like in 1997 in Bulgaria.
2. The more they reduce their own power, the less those participating in a given party have to gain from power. And it should be noted that even within a single party there is a struggle for power.
The consequence of the above problems, in my opinion (personal view), is that if such a party somehow emerges (this is possible) and takes power (highly unlikely), then it will be forced to play the political game. The elements that want to preserve the status quo will gain strength in it, and anyway it will not be allowed to do much. The consequence is that it will degenerate into a hypocritical likeness of itself, which only chants appeals, but does not intend to do anything (or even increase its power).
My personal opinion is that in a free society, parties should not exist.
If you don't want to make even a millimeter of compromise, you create your OWN party with your own views and write the right program.
Grumble, grumble, THEY don't make parties that I like. GRUM MURMLUG MURMLUG