Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

On How Populism in Bulgaria Is Different

by Little L Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 12:21:34 PM EST

This diary gives a short insight on three populist figures, which have strongly influenced the Bulgarian political system in the last five years and seeks an explanation of why populism remains the predominant trend, which determines the Bulgarian electorate's choices, and what the typical characteristics of our national populism are.

Populism in Bulgaria did not worry us five years ago as much as it does right now. In 2001, most of the people were happy that the bipolar model of the political system, which involved the prodigy of the former Communist party- The Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) on the left and the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) on the right, in the country was destroyed. Its destruction opened the space for a political center, which itself created a vacuum which sucks out both rightist and leftist formations, not just individual political figures, as it was before 2001. As a result, we now view populism as a potential ideology, and now everybody in Bulgaria is worried and skeptic about its place in the political life of the country.

1."When the Time Comes"

The first figure, around which populism started its upward movement, was Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha, the last Bulgarian tsar and the first monarch to become also the Prime Minister of the country in 2001. He established the National Movement Simeon II and entered the Parliament with a mandate from the Party of Bulgarian Women. His promise to fix the economic situation in Bulgaria for 800 days proved to be a farce, but people believed him, especially those who were conquered by memories of the old days of the Bulgarian monarchy. Simeon easily won the parliamentary elections in 2001, leaving the UDF far behind. He headed a government, composed mainly of technocrats, who had gained education and work experience in the Western societies. He neither had a political platform, nor needed one. Simeon always avoided political confrontations, never gave clear messages to the people and to the media and became famous with the phrase: "I will tell you when the time comes." Apparently, the time never came for him to tell us anything.

2. "I Shall Fix Everything"

Those are the words that would best describe the political figure with the highest ratings in the last four years- Gen. Boyko Borissov, the current mayor of the capital Sofia and the former secretary general of the Ministry of the Interior. And if you still have any doubts that he can do it, take a look at this quote. Borissov is a typical example of a person, who never came out with a clear political message. During his election campaign in 2005, he did not even have a political platform. But he has charisma, and people love him. This is the tough guy with the threatening look in his eyes, who is always there in the center of all events, and the media are on his side, which is a great advantage for every politician. But while just two months ago he refused to be affiliated to any political party,  he publicly announced that he is ready to create a party of his own. Strangely enough, or maybe reasonably enough- the presidential elections in Bulgaria are coming in the fall of this year.

3.    "The Time is Ours Now"

This is the slogan of the newbie on the Bulgarian political stage- the right-wing extremist nationalist party "Attack", which surprisingly for the sociologists, but not for its leader Volen Siderov, entered the National Assembly in June 2005 as the fourth largest parliamentary group. A former editor-in-chief of the official newspaper of the UDF and the anchor of the TV program "Attack", Siderov is famous for his xenophobic behavior, his hatred for the Roma and Turkish minorities in Bulgaria, his three books, in which he denies the Holocaust and creates a new theory of global conspiracy, with which he explains everything- low pensions, high prices, and anything else happening within and out of the borders of the country. Siderov's last major activity included organizing a rally in the streets of Sofia on March 3, Bulgaria's national holiday, which he used as a tribune to remind the crowd that Turks and Gypsies are not welcome in the National Parliament, and better not exist at all.

I am sure that those three persons are not something extraordinary by themselves. They are, in my opinion, rather mediocre populist figures. However, their existence raises another question: how is populism in Bulgaria different from populism elsewhere?

Kalin Yanakiev, a professor in the Sofia University, wrote the following in an analysis in the newspaper "Sega" (translation mine and therefore all errors should be attributed to me):

Here is a theory that somehow sounds calming- populism in Bulgaira does not have leaders. A leader is not a person, who has an intense and strong media presence, but one who has some (populist) philosophical fundament. The great populist leaders in the history of Europe from the 20th century have such a fundament regardless of its quality. Moreover, populist leaders have a sharp sense for the mythological and for the religious. None of the so-called leaders of populism in Bulgaria have such a sense, because they do not even have messages

Thus, their effect of populism on the society can be defined with the old Bulgarian saying "Every miracle is a miracle for three days only."

Second, Bulgarian populism is an ideology of the people, who are seeking justice and manipulating people with it- and "justice" is a very sensitive term in the mindset of our society.  In the course of seeking justice, populism opposes the political reality, and renounces it.

And last, populism is a result of the problems of Bulgarian political presentation. Citizen's disappointment with the government leads to a lower voter's turnout, because the electorate is offered choices, which do not reflect its priorities and does not match its expectations. The political system has failed to generate trust in the people a long time ago, and people are somehow clueless what choice to make. The result? In the words of the Bulgarian political analyst Ognyan Minchev, Bulgarians punish politicians with populism. The question is, whether they also punish themselves this way.

I would be also very interested if you could share experiences from your own countries. I know that populism is a very strong trait of the political culture of Latin America too, and I would be glad if someone more knowledgeable than I am could contribute by sharing thoughts about it. And how about other European countries? Is the antidote to populism a more conservative and educated political strata?


Display:
Very interesting read.

To your question "how is populism in Bulgaria different from populism elsewhere?", I'll answer that these 3 people are clones of 3 similar populist politicians we have in France. And similarly to yours, none of our 3 populist figures use mythological or religious ideology. Except number 1) I suppose, as he is a devout Christian. But he uses that aspect to condemn Turkish entry to Europe, not to further any other political agenda.

  1. is a clone of Philippe de Villiers, an aristocrat with similar ambitions, though fortunately for us de Villiers has never led a government and probably never will.

  2. is a clone of Nicolas Sarkozy, the tough and straight-talking guy with no apparent program other than being elected (which unfortunately for us he has a good chance of)

  3. is a clone of Jean Marie le Pen, our homemade holocaust denier who dislikes ethnic minorites, and who made it to the 2nd round of the presidential elections in 2002 against Chirac.
by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 01:09:44 PM EST
Thanks for those examples! You seem to have really analogous figures in your political system, but as far as I understand, they don't get so much attention and do not have so much power.

In the Bulgarian case, the "devout" Christian is #3- Volen Siderov. He used to study in the Orthodox Seminary in Sofia, but did not make it to graduation (great if he did, he would not worry us so much now I guess:)). I have strong doubts about the religious devotion of our monarch though.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 01:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well our number 2 gets a lot of media attention (like your number 2), is very popular, and thus has a very good chance of winning the 2007 presidential elections.

And something tells me that your number 2 is or will be the same kind of person soon enough, and will surely get elected too.

by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 01:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sarkozy seems to be a very similar type of leader.

The difference is that Borissov has never headed a party before, but he was in the National Movement Simeon II when he was appointed Secretary General of the Ministry of the Interior (he was very loyal to Simeon at that time).

I don't think he'll make it to the President's seat though. Current President Purvanov is strong, will run for office again, and is very likely to get re-elected.
 

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 01:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dear Little L, I think in the formerly communist countries, perhaps only the first of the three characteristics of Bulgarian populists is unique.

Methinks prime exhibit for populism sweeping another country is Slovakia. The main populists are/were: (1) Vladimír Mečiar: first PM afte independence and long-time political mafiosi, who mixed nationalism with post-socialism; (2) Ján Slota: the local ultranationalist, also longtime major of Northwestern industrial town Žilina (/Hungarian: Zsolna/German: Sillein); (3) Rudolf Schuster: was major of second largest town Košice (/Kassa/Kaschau), formed his own party, gathered 8% of the votes in 1998, and defeated Mečiar in the run for Presidency next year (to be dumped five years later); (4) Robert Fico: millionaire leader of left-populist party Smer, currently leading polls (he is the most popular politician and his party has one third of voters), who has no scruples allying with the far-right or Mečiar regionally (well, some of the currently governing right-wing parties didn't either: it was to keep the ethnic Hungarian party from power).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 03:35:58 PM EST
In Poland we've got the Kaczynski twins who are the 'mainstream' populists - hardline nationalist and demagogic but at least vaguely sane. Then there's the literal and ideological descendant of the 1930's fascists, Roman Giertych of the LPR. And finally Poland's wannabe Lukashenko - Andrzej Lepper of the vaguely left wing Samoobrona.  Currently the twins are in power, with the presidency and a minority government that is supported by the LPR and Samoobrona.  To make life more fun the main opposition is a doctrinaire neo-liberal party (PO), and the other opposition party is the post-communist bunch (SLD) - corrupt and completely cynical - more a self help network of ex nomenklatura types than anything else. I just love Polish politics. <snark>
by MarekNYC on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 03:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a short offtopic question: what does "Samoobrona" mean in Polish?

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 03:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Samoobrona means self defense.

The other names of parties represented in parliament are:

Pravo i Sprawiedliwosc -Law and Justice, currently in power

Platforma Obywatelska - Civic Platform, main opposition - neoliberal

Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej - Democratic Left Alliance, secondary opposition, previous government, post-communist

Liga Polskich Rodzin - League of Polish Families, supporting the current government, extreme right.

by MarekNYC on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 04:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I knew it:-) In Bulgarian it is "samootbrana".

Those are funny names- "Attack" and "Self-Defense"...and they are antonyms too. So while in Bulgaria nationalists are attacking the status-quo, the Polish are defending the people from it?

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 04:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
spelling correction - Prawo not Pravo - stuff that happens when you're using Polish words while writing in English, the w is pronounced like a v and there is no v in the language.
by MarekNYC on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 04:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Slovakia could well end up in a similar situation from June this year: a Fico minority government with SNS and Mečiar's HZDS supporting from the outside.

After the Hungarian elections are over, I'll cover the Slovakian. For now, only March poll numbers to show the power of pupulists:

Popularity top 5 ("Whom do you trust most?"):

  1. R. Fico      27,6
  2. I. Gašparovič     12,7 (current President from Mečiar's party)
  3. V. Mečiar     11,8
  4. Z. Martináková    10,6 (liberal party boss, only female)
  5. B. Bugár      8,8 (ethnic-Hungarian government member)
* no one      25,2

Parties that would get in:

SMER (Fico left-populist)    34,5
HZDS (Mečiar left-populist)    12,8
SDKÚ-DS (Christian Dem 1)    11,5
SMK (ethnic Hungarian)    9,6
SF (conservative liberals)    8,0
KDH (Christian Dem 2)    7,6
SNS (far-right)    7,3


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 04:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to a Gallup survey, cited in the Bulgarian media, the Sofia mayor has the highest rating in the country (70%), and is followed by President Purvanov. Of course, this is not a surprise for anyone.

What I find more interesting is that despite the recent scandals in the Parliament and "Attack" constantly having its members leave the parliamentary group, the trust in Volen Siderov and his party is also increasing. However,sociologists claim that the nationalists cannot do better than that in the future, because their potential has already more or less exhausted.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 04:49:08 PM EST
How are parties doing in the current polls, BTW? How high did Attack climb, and was the potential of Borissov's announced party measured yet?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 04:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If elections were to be held today, 44.1% would not vote. The Socialist Party would get 22.8, and "Attack" would be second with 9.1%. But as I said, this is the most they could get, according to sociologists. The National Movement for Rights and Freedoms (the Turkish party) would take 5.1%. The highest price in participating in the triple ruling coalition pays Simeon's party, which would only get 5.1% of the votes.

And then, the crisis on the right is deepening even more with the UDF being able to get only 2.8%, which means that if elections were today, it would not even get into the Parliament.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. This situation sucks big-time. So attack is potentially 16.3% of votes... and a fifth of a proportionally elected parliament!...

2.8%/0.559 = 5.01%, so UDF is right at the limit.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah right...forgot about multiplication:-)!

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 03:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I still have no data measuring the potential of Borissov's party, maybe we need to wait till June to see if he is really going to create one.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I also noticed that the trust in Volen Siderov (or as we call him for fun "the Furer":)) is increasing. He seems to be persuasive for my surprise. I think it is all because he touches a very sensible issue for the Bulgarians- their national identity. And since Bulgarians have some inborn hatred towards Turks (because of the five century slavery in the past) it is easy to manipulate mediocre people that are in need of something to believe in.

 As far as I noticed his supporters are not quite intelligent. I watched the rally you mentioned (on the 3rd of March) and the regional representatives that talked in front of the people were, I would dare to say, uneducated.

Generally, I don't think he will succeed in overthrowing the government or let alone become a president.

by Denny on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 04:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think he is persuasive, but he is different, and this is what makes him attractive. He is the demagogue of the crowd, hence the considerable turnout on the rally for the March 3.

I started reading one of his books yesterday night. Frankly said, I am having a lot of fun. I need to admit, however, that for an uneducated person with a mediocre knowledge of politics, his arguments could make any sense.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 04:43:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what "populism" means in a European context. The last time the US had a populist movement (1890-1920) it was led by farmers who felt that they were being cheated by the railroads, grain mills and meat packers. There was also a misunderstanding of how credit worked which led to a movement to have the gold standard replaced by gold/silver.

Some of their other interests did have positive results: the Pure Food and Drug Act, the anti-monopoly legislation, and reform of the banking system. WWI and the rise of organized labor took the wind out of the movement's sails.

What is interesting now is that many of the ills that they were protesting against have re-emerged, but there is no sign of a new populist movement so far.


Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:06:53 PM EST
I think when people [especially Bulgarians </snark>] say 'populism' they mean 'demagoguery'.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
4. "I'll be a social president."

I would add the current president Georgi Purvanov to the group of populists in Bulgarian politics. He came to power in 2001 with the populistic promise that he would be a "social president," by which he meant that he would focus on improving the standard of living of those who were suffering from the tough economic reforms the most. Of course, this sounded very appealing to a lot of people--people who were (and still are) so pressed by poverty that they were willing (like they seem to be now too) to believe anything. However, the question is: "Is it possible for the Bulgarian president to be `social'?" And the answer is very simple: "No." No matter how much he wants it, he can't do anything in reality just because he only has a representative function. Purvanov knew that very well but he was just throwing empty words that sounded good--so typical for a populist.

Moreover, now that the election is coming the President came out and accused the increasingly unpopular government, which he created himself last summer, of all kinds of things. Well, of course, he took credit for "saving the country from a political crisis" by playing a major role in forming the government but now that the government is failing he quickly distanced himself from it.

by ccarc on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:15:37 PM EST
Purvanov is anything but a social president, and imho he is not a very good president either, but there is one thing I cannot deny about him: his PR is really professional:-).

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you about the PR but I wish more people could see that there is nothing behind it.
by ccarc on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The picture of President Purvanov didn't appear for some reason but you can view it here.
by ccarc on Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 05:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I like Simeon. I wish the remaining reigning families had the guts to put together Monarchist parties and run for President intheir respective republics.

He headed a government, composed mainly of technocrats, who had gained education and work experience in the Western societies. He neither had a political platform, nor needed one. Simeon always avoided political confrontations, never gave clear messages to the people and to the media and became famous with the phrase: "I will tell you when the time comes." Apparently, the time never came for him to tell us anything.
Perfect, just perfect for a figurehead President. It wouldn't work in Russia, France, or the US, but it would elsewhere, including in Bulgaria.

This is tongue-in-cheek, but only to a point.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 04:52:30 AM EST
But he didn't run to be figurehead president, he was PM.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:13:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know, and I agree with the diarist that his approach was not the best for the job.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
</nitpick overdrive> OK.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:26:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't like the thought of him being a president, to me a monarch becoming a president is even more weird than him being the PM. But I must agree that he would have been just perfect for figurehead President. Now it is too late though.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I actually find it an amusing thought [must be that, like most Spaniards, I am a JuanCarlist republican], especially with term limits. After 8 years as President, the "King" would have to retire as an "elder statesman" and make room for his wife, siblings, cousins, children... Plus, there would be an alternance of royalist and republican presidents.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:38:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...which is going to make the mess even bigger as it is right now:).

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:41:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While the royalist party is busy figuring out who to line up behind, the republican candidates can sweep the elections. What's the problem with that?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:43:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We don't really have a royalist party, or if we have some, it is not in the Parliament for sure. The fact that we have a party, which is named after the royal, does not make it royalist at all.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:47:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He's not a monarch, he's a royal. A monarch is someone who rules as king, and he wouldn't.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would like to share my concise view point of the three figures discussed:

1. Simeon is definitely well educated and even erudite
with all his languages and knowledge, gained due to the mere fact that he is a royal monarch. He won respect among the common people and leading results on the elections because the people expected him to be truly devoted to the problems of the country. He did some positive changes mainly because his ministers were young, ambitious, and experienced.

2.Borisov is loved by the people because he is a man of deeds and not of words. I like him personally too. According to me he could achieve success in politics if he gathers a team of professionals with expertise in different areas of the economy, politics, and the social shpere.

3. Siderov' hatred campaign works only because the people have to a certain extend turned to their primitive functions due to poverty, insecurity, and misery. But when we join the EU, propaganda against the minorities and ultra-right ideas would not find very "fertile soil" in the eyes of the European political elite.

I'm not ugly,but my beauty is a total creation.Hegel

by Chris on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 10:14:08 AM EST
Do you believe Borissov is an appropriate figure for a Bulgarian president?

I think that gathering a team of professionals will more or less contrast the image Borissov has been trying to build so far, because up to know he was attempting to prove that he can "fix" things without a certain expertise platform. But maybe you're right- a new team could bring him even more credit.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 10:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, what is the pre-1990 past of Siderov and Borissov? I read that the latter was in some special forces unit.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 12:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I really can't tell you much, I was looking for the same information before writing the diary, but rather unsuccessfully. All I know is that Siderov used to be a photographer in the National Museum of Literature. At this time, he joined the literature circle "39", and wrote a volume of poetry called "Autobiography". After the regime collapsed in 1989, he joined the Organization for Human Rights, founded by one of the Bulgarian dissidents. In 1990, he became the editor-in-chief of the newspaper of the UDF, "Democracy".

As to Borissov- true that he had a military background. You can take a look at his CV.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 01:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and Borissov was also a member of the Communist Party, and guarded Todor Zhivkov, the Communist leader and his family.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 01:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Today the name of Boyko Borissov's new NON-POLITICAL (emphasis mine) formation was announced. In Bulgarian its abbreviation is GERB, which means a state emblem...now how does that relate to populistic messages?:-)

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:20:19 AM EST
"Non-political" means "fascist".

It was characteristic of fascist regimes [and spiring fascist movements] in the 1930's (and later) to criticize "party politics". If the idea becomes popular it undermines the political system.

Another authoritarian populist trait is to dissociate politics from society in rhetoric. Society is the point of politics.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:27:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hahaha, Little L, I really liked the comment to Boyko Borissov's photo - "I shall fix everything". :D

Well, he is expected to run for president, so is Simeon II. So what's the choice, reinstalling the tzar's son (and former Primer Minister) as a president or choosing Boyko Borissov, who will turn Bulgaria into a police republic?

Thankfully, the president doesn't hold as much power as the Primer Minister!

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 06:00:19 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]