In Bulgaria, the leader of the former communist Socialist Party, Georgi Parvanov, has been elected as president. On the face of it, this does not make sense. The country’s most popular politician is Simeon Saxcoburggotski, the former king and now prime minister. He had backed the outgoing president, Petar Stoyanov, who was standing as an independent and was expected to win.
Does this indicate that, all of a sudden, there is discontent with the pace of the prime minister’s reforms? Not at all. The former king still seems to be the most popular of politicians.
There is another oddity about the result. Parvanov would not have won had Bulgaria’s Muslim minority not supported him. They did so because the mainstream Turkish ethnic Movement for Rights and Freedom (DPS) decided to back him in Sunday’s runoff election, a decision motivated by the fact that Parvanov’s running mate was a member of the DPS. For the first time, Bulgaria has a Turk as its vice president. But the DPS is in government — partners in the prime minister’s coalition. There seem to be crosscurrents here: the DPS supports the prime minister, but it does not necessarily support his views.
In fact, one of the prime reasons why the socialist Parvanov won was public apathy. In the first round on Nov. 11, turnout was the lowest ever: just 39 percent. On Sunday it was only marginally better. That apathy was in part because the Bulgarian presidency is politically unimportant; the post is largely ceremonial. In such a low turnout, Parvanov’s ability to pull out his more committed socialist supporters proved decisive. But the apathy was due also to uncertainty about Stoyanov’s views. Standing as an independent, albeit with the backing of his former party, the opposition right-wing United Democratic Forces, as well as of the prime minister, he lacked a convincing power base. The absence of enthusiasm for him may have also been tinged with an element of public dissatisfaction, with voters linking him in their minds to the shortcomings of the previous UDF government.
The question now, however, is how this division of power will damage Bulgaria. Will there be a paralysis in government because of clashes between a president, who wants more spending on welfare and healthcare, and a prime minister, who believes wholeheartedly in economic liberalization? Will the socialist president do his best to undermine a prime minister whom he suspects of wanting to restore the monarchy?
As far as Bulgaria’s bids to join EU and NATO go, there should be no conflict. Parvanov says he supports both. But he is ambitious. It will be remarkable, given his past record, if he does not try to exploit his nonpolitical post to expand his power base. Two years ago he publicly supported Slobodan Milosevic because he thought it would go down well with Bulgarians.
Ironically, if the prime minister’s intention is to restore the monarchy, an attempt by the new president to undermine the government would provide the once and possibly future King Simeon II with a justification for a constitutional change. While the respectable and cooperative Stoyanov was president, change was out of the question. It would be a different matter if the president came to be seen as a thorn in the side of Bulgaria’s good government.
