The village of Garmen and the right steps to resolve ethnic problems

Since last week, the escalating situation in the village of Garmen, Blagoevgrad region, has attracted the attention of the media and analysts. In this article, we will examine some of the theses presented and provide an alternative view on the cause and resolution of the conflict, which is simply a symptom of a clearly smoldering problem.

A brief overview of the genesis of interethnic conflicts

At the moment, two hypotheses stand out most clearly for the emergence and intensification of ethnic problems. On the one hand, some journalists have pointed out that they are rooted in "ethnically based insults in the early 1990s, going through the attribution of collective qualities to an entire ethnic group, and then through the highlighting of these qualities as a criminogenic factor - a thesis that also allowed the further presentation of the Roma as an amorphous group, losing their human features." In short, here we see the idea that conflict arises because of hatred that originated somewhere in the past.

On the other side is the view defended by President Plevneliev, who put it this way: “A large part of the problems in our country stem from the fact that the laws are good, but their implementation and observance are not. … [W]hen there is a crisis, the laws are not observed.” This thesis suggests that the cause of the conflict is individuals who simply do not observe the good laws created by the state.

We believe that both of the above views are incomplete and miss the root cause of the problem. First, it is difficult to argue that the cause of hatred and tension is hatred, because here the logic begins to go in circles. Second, to say that “laws are good, but people are criminals and do not comply with them” is a very strong mitigation of the role of the institutions that forge the legal framework, on the one hand, and an acceptance of and return to the Hobbesian view “Homo homini lupus”. [1]

The causes of the problems

Indeed, the role of the state over the past quarter century cannot be ignored when considering ethnic tensions, especially when the latter become a threat to the peace and security of people. Without embarking on a detailed historical investigation, which is beyond the scope of an article, and without claiming to be exhaustive, we can point out some areas in which state regulations create the conditions for conflict to arise:

1. Social transfers– the view that the state should intervene to support certain groups (pensioners, mothers, single parents, etc.) is widespread. But the effects of so-called “social” policies are not limited to taking money from some individuals and giving it to others. The desire of some to take advantage of the opportunity to acquire income taken from other groups of individuals and given to them for nothing by the state creates the feeling of “winners” and “losers”, as well as the feeling of injustice. Since representatives of a certain group are relatively more likely to fall into the camp of the recipients, the image of the entire (in this case – ethnic) group as a “social parasite” is formed in public opinion. [2]
2. The impossibility of protecting private property with firearms– the Criminal Code (Art. 12, para. 3) states that “There is no exceeding of the limits of inevitable defense if the attack is committed by means of forced entry or burglary into a dwelling.” However, this concerns an attack on an individual, not on his private property; i.e., when using a firearm or other weapon to protect property, the defendant is clearly guilty under the law, not the attacker. In short, the law provides a loophole for attackers and punishes those who protect their private property. The situation is similar in the defense of the person, where the defendant is not entitled to exceed the “nature and danger of the attack” [3] or, if he does, he must rely on the fact that, according to the court, he acted in conditions of “intimidation or disturbance.” [4] ^{, [5]}
3. The unclear definition of private property– another source of conflicts, which is present in the specific case of the village of Garmen, is the lack of clearly defined private property and the use of municipal property, as, instead of moving towards the legal privatization of municipal lands, we are witnessing a debate about the study of certain groups. [6]
4. The difficulty of acquiring a firearm is self-defense– even if the conditions in item 3 were not present, a large proportion of individuals would still not be able to protect themselves or their property, since under the Law on Weapons, Ammunition, Explosives and Pyrotechnic Articles, the acquisition and right to carry a firearm depend entirely on the subjective decision of an official from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Control of Generally Dangerous Means (CVS). Thus, while individual X, who wants to commit a crime, can always arm himself (sometimes illegally, sometimes with a substitute for a firearm), people who want to defend themselves have obstacles to doing so.

The listed incorrect institutional decisions and interventions, as well as the existing legal framework, lead us to think that it is the regulations, and not the "law-breaking" individuals, that play an important role in shaping the conflict.

Approaches to solving them

Again, several different approaches to dealing with the crises that have arisen can be identified. The first and perhaps more intuitive approach to dealing with the problems between ethnic groups and crime was formulated most clearly by President Rosen Plevneliev. According to him,“[t]he solution to the situation in Garmen is only one and it lies in the word institutions. Institutions that work and ensure that the rules apply to everyone.” For the reasons described above, we do not believe that further institutional intervention will improve the problem created (or at least repeatedly reinforced) by the institutions. [7]

The correct course of action for the state in this case is different and does not consist in focusing on the symptoms (as is the case in the village), but on the real problems – private property, the right of individuals to self-defense and transfer payments. Here our views on the subject diverge drastically from those of the president. Instead of striving to optimize institutions, we should reduce their role (for example, to simplify the procedure for acquiring land and construction, thus facilitating the acquisition and legalization of private property) and even eliminate it completely in some areas (for example, the acquisition of a firearm should not be based on the subjective judgment of a KOS employee). Also, the law should not punish individuals who have defended their property or life, regardless of the “nature or danger” of the attack, because the opposite in practice means that self-defense is illegal.

Without private property and the right to self-defense, the market economy cannot flourish to a state of normal development. It is also time to rethink some superstitions, for example, the danger of individuals owning firearms. Last but not least, the role of the state as a “social helper” should be reconsidered and transfer payments (regardless of the ethnicity of the recipient!) should be discontinued, which not only do not improve the material condition of groups of individuals, but also, due to their very nature, make the entire society poorer and create conflicts between separate groups of people within it.

[1] Which could be used as a logical attack on the existence of state institutions themselves: if it is true that “man is a wolf to man” (and all people are wolves), then how do we justify the right of some people (respectively – “wolves”) to make laws through which they have monopoly control over controlling the behavior of others?

[2] A more detailed analysis, as well as a list of other negative effects of income redistribution, can be found in Robert Higgs' article "Nineteen Overlooked Effects of Income Redistribution." Part one can be found here, and part two here.

[3] Art. 12, para. 2: “Exceeding the limits of unavoidable defense occurs when the defense clearly does not correspond to the nature and danger of the attack.”

[4] Art. 12, para 4: “The perpetrator shall not be punished when he commits the act while exceeding the limits of inevitable defense, if this is due to fear or disturbance.”

[5] Here it is worth reflecting on Hans-Hermann Hoppe's thesis, according to which, if you do not have the right to defend something, then you do not own it.

[6] It is clear that strictly defined and defensible private property is of paramount importance for the development and normal functioning of a market economy. On this topic, see: Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital.

[7] There is another point here – practice shows that institutions almost always fail to be either an “impartial” judge or to enforce compliance with the law.

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