EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
“The worst financial crisis is coming.” With this argument, Boyko Borisov refused to resign in July. It may seem like a long time ago, or even like a past life, but in fact the quote is less than two months old, and the reason it feels so distant is that this argument was not repeated a second time and was quickly replaced by other supporting points – or, in this case, more specifically, supporting commas.
It turned out to be irresponsible to resign against the backdrop of not only an impending financial crisis, but also a health crisis, even though there are no current measures that would require a working parliament. A little later, the man in the jeep, who goes to work for unclear reasons, said “let’s wait until July passes”. A working parliament also turned out to be an argument – days before he went on leave for over a month. Even before he returned, these supporting commas turned out to have a short shelf life, so the situation had to be saved in another way: with a proposal for a Grand National Assembly and, accordingly, a new constitution. Signatures for discussion were collected (in an honest and moral way), but it is now clear that there will be none for the Grand National Assembly. So we come to the last pillar of propaganda, left without argument: we simply will not leave.
The rhetorical loopholes of the government are nothing new, but the protests have accelerated them to such an extent that it is no longer entirely certain what the current justification is for a government with an approval rating of 19%. Moreover, the aforementioned distrust, combined with the arguments about the coming severe crisis and the constant talk of the second person in the state, Tomislav Donchev, that the biggest problem is the division in society, makes the situation even more absurd.
Underwater supports
Recognizing pivots versus real arguments is relatively easy. Every time those in power are absent from the screen for a day or two and then return with a suspiciously identical selection of words – like Denitsa Sacheva and Toma Bikov and their “resignation is not on the agenda” – this is an obvious pivot, developed by the party PR team. Of course, resignation is not only on the agenda, but is even the entire agenda. It is the only reason they are invited to any television station, as well as the only reason the person whose resignation is being demanded has not appeared in a television studio for months.
The government currently uses two types of fulcrums: active and passive. The active ones are the ones listed above: the theoretical reasons for the lack of a resignation and for what was said in 2013 not to be valid in 2020. The passive ones are those that are used most often through unofficial channels, including by seemingly non-partisan representatives, so that they can be inserted into any possible conversation. This also makes them more effective, because they are often used by people who claim that they do not actually support the government.
The most successful approach is to ask “who will come next.” In fact, this is a question without a correct answer. Mentioning the name of any politician or party means an automatic response “do you want them to come to power,” and the protest just as automatically turns into a political rally. Similar questions are why the protest has no leader, which is a dead end – if there is no leader, there is no one to negotiate with, and if there is, these are power-hungry people who should not be negotiated with and it is best that they never be in power.
It must be admitted that the supporting points, commas, dashes, etc., are ultimately successful, at least to the extent that the jeep is still moving. But they are becoming less successful with each passing day, simply because the weight of words weakens, especially when they do not change anything. Thus, "resignation is not on the agenda" for example will turn out to have a particularly short shelf life, after thousands gather in the square again this week with the same demand, and accordingly, the television stations will have no choice but to cover what is happening. The only problem is that the more commas you put in, the more incomprehensible the sentence becomes. And at one point or another, you will have to add an exclamation point.
