EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Over the past two decades, each government has been entrusted with hopes of an economic “revival”, of prosperity and social justice. However, only about six months after coming to power, the enthusiasm has always disappeared, and scandals and accusations of corruption, revenge and economic clientelism have taken over. Perhaps the current government is an exception.
Tsvetelin Tsonevski
No one had high hopes, but no one expected that just weeks after taking office, a seemingly casual (but inappropriate for a number of reasons) appointment would unleash such a wave of discontent. Whatever one may say about the current protesters: whether they are internet junkies, whether they are well-fed, beautiful, successful, whether they represent a significant part of society or not, the current protests are unique in their nature, because they do not aim to overthrow a particular political coalition and replace it with another, but are for a fundamental change in the political system that has determined social and economic relations since 1989.
The protest is against all political forces, regardless of the desire of some of them to take advantage and escape anonymity. The way in which the protesters refuse to accept “political patronage”, as well as their refusal to succumb to provocations, is a remarkable success of a civil society that realizes the historic chance for change.
It is quite normal to ask the question: “How and why did this situation come to this?”. Inappropriate political appointments have been made repeatedly by all those in power so far, as well as the implementation of economic reforms leading to economic prosperity and social justice. Only a few weeks ago, it was persistently said that the state had withdrawn from the economy and left everything in the hands of the oligarchs, who dispose of it as they wish at the expense of the increasingly impoverished population. If the claim about the state’s withdrawal from the economy is true and the desire to restore state economic control is the most appropriate solution, then several questions should be asked:
1) Is it true that since 1989, entering politics and creating a political party has been a way to gain economic advantage and a way to dominate the competition?
2) Is it true that a large part of those involved in business are tied to political structures at the local and state level, and this guarantees them economic comfort and protection from competitors?
3) Is it true that during every period of power, certain economic groups emerge, which quickly decline when their political patrons leave the political scene?
4) Is it true that political figures participate as consultants in economic projects?
5) Is it true that control over the state repressive apparatus and secret services is used to investigate competitors of companies and economic groups close to power?
6) Is it true that privatization deals are opaque and are always accompanied by corruption scandals?
The questions could go on, but I suspect that most people who have followed public relations for the past two decades would answer yes to even these. If this is indeed the case, then the claim that the state has withdrawn from economic life does not correspond to reality.
Oligarchy exists only in conditions of direct state intervention in economic life. The ability of the administration to choose the "winners" in the economy, and the right to change the rules without restriction in order to serve the interests of close economic groups, quite naturally creates conditions for partnership along the politician-businessman axis. The ability to create economic comfort - be it through the issuance of licenses and the withdrawal of licenses from competition, arbitrary inspections by state bodies, different application of the rules to different economic entities, as well as the participation of state structures in the distribution of huge funds in the form of state subsidies and European funds - are a form of direct state intervention in economic life and a form of direct control over who the players are on the market and how the economy should develop.
In this sense, critics of market relations are absolutely right when they say that the market is unfair, but what they conveniently fail to acknowledge is that this form of market relations actually preserves the right to make economic decisions in a small group of subjects who enjoy the benefits of this situation, while transferring the costs to everyone else. As unfair as it may seem, this is also a form of market relations.
This is not the form of market relations that the so-called market fundamentalists have in mind. What is meant when a free market or market rule is mentioned is the right of each individual to make free economic decisions about how to allocate his or her own resources among the unlimited number of possibilities that exist. The market in this sense is a process, a form of human action, driven by the constant pressure of the behavior of millions of individuals who make decisions every day about whether to consume goods and services, which goods and services to consume, whether to save, and so on. This decentralized decision-making is a fundamental element of the free market because it guarantees the right of each individual to choose the other party.
In this way, the market becomes competitive, because the competitive environment does not exist as a given, it appears as a result of the free choice of consumers. The right to choose a counterparty is the ultimate form of regulation in the free market, which leads to the correction of the behavior of entrepreneurs. In this sense, the elimination of all artificially created barriers to market entry has a restrictive nature. Of course, the free market does not operate without barriers: for many, the possibility of access to technology, knowledge or bank loans, for example, are a form of barriers, but these are natural barriers that can be overcome, because in them the leading element is entrepreneurship and the opportunity for personal improvement, and are not the result of political contacts that protect economic activity from competition.
The free market means the withdrawal of control over every member of society. This form of independence is incompatible with the current situation of complete control of state structures over the economy, and this automatically makes the free market an undesirable form of social relations. The reward for winning elections and the right to form a government is precisely the opportunity to distribute material goods. When distribution is through the free market, then the political forces lose the meaning of participating in elections. Of course, achieving this desired form of separation of the economy from the state necessarily involves the categorical refusal of political players from economic control.
Therefore, the current protest in Bulgaria, insofar as the demands are for limiting political influence on the economy, and not simply replacing one political group with another, is completely justified and fair.
The article is published on the website of the Institute for Radical Capitalism "Atlas": http://www.atlas-bg.eu/drzhava-pazar-i-pazaren-fundamentalizm.html
