[ad_1]
Boyko Borissov and Vasil Bozhkov – photos from the meeting at the Council of Ministers in July 2019.
The clash between Borisov and Bozhkov also raises this explosive question: who should we trust, who is telling the truth? Daniel Smilov has a hypothesis: we are republishing the text of “Deutsche Welle”.
The end of the state of emergency in Bulgaria was marked by a surprising return to political normality, recreated with talent in a performance with actions by “Levski”, whose writers appeared to be Ilf and Petrov. In the presentation, the businessman prosecuted by the law, Vasil Bozhkov, appeared as guarantor, Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, as guarantor, Sasho Dikov, as messenger, and Titi Papazov simply posed as himself. Adding the agitators, legal experts and “Egyptians”, in the end we had a truly spectacular performance, which completely eclipsed the extraordinary epidemiological situation recently announced by Minister Ananiev.
The meaning of this arena is multi-layered, and most of the layers are politically uninteresting: overlapping people with big ego, PR stunts, little journalistic culture, and certain mental disorders. In the sand however there is a deeper political layerwhich is worth interpreting.
First: the role of Minister Goranov
The government’s position on the role of the finance minister in the Bozhkov saga is unsustainable. The businessman is under investigation for a series of crimes, some of which were allegedly committed together with members of the Gambling Commission. This commission is under the auspices of the Minister of Finance and its task is to support its activities. He names her and is politically responsible for her actions. If she did something illegal behind his back, he must take political responsibility., which for such severe cases is resignation. Whether or not you knew about the problem.
And when it comes to knowledge, it is really absurd to claim that the Minister of Finance has not noticed the BGN 700 million in uncollected taxes that he legally expected.
Second: soccer as a reflection of politics.
The situation in Bulgarian football is a reflection of the general situation in the country. It is expressed in the concentration of large properties and businesses in the hands of various people. They obtained most of the media: first the press, but now television, they are also beneficiaries of the main public acquisitions. The Bulgarian Development Bank began to provide services mainly, which caused a scandal and the recent change of management. Only these people can now take over the maintenance of the football club “Levski”, after Vasil Bozhkov left his circle.
The problem is that due to Darwinian competition, they are now counted on the fingers of one hand and none of the survivors is adequate. Kiril Domuschiev already has a soccer team and it would be ridiculous to get his direct competitor. Entrepreneur-MP Delyan Peevski obviously has a chance to support the club, but society is hardly ready for such a bold move by the ruling party. The current sponsor of the shares, Boyko Borisov, would be in conflict of interest if he takes over Levski officially. Valentin Zlatev, for some reason, is no longer in the game, and TIM would not want to leave his comfortable rural shadow. Certain banks, supported by the state in one form or another, also cannot take over the club. That is to say, Levski’s drama is the direct result of the concentration of power and business.. Possible financial solutions are politically inconvenient.
Vasil Bozhkov seems to have wanted to demonstrate this by returning the shares “to where he received them.” The track goes even further. Apparently, businessmen who enjoy the favor of the state also take on “public duties,” such as supporting and paying the debts of popular soccer clubs. Quid pro quo.
Third: Who is telling the truth?
The clash between Borisov and Bozhkov also poses a serious epistemological problem. Who should society trust? The authorities and the prosecution insist that the opinion of the accused and the accused is irrelevant. Vasil Bozhkov claims that his words are from a man who has been in the political kitchen for decades. From this internal point of view, he has realized that the country’s institutions act like bats in favor of a small group of people, among whom he names Borisov and Peevski.
This is actually one of those disputes in which both parties may eventually be right. The authorities have indisputable reasons to question Bozhkov’s reliability as a witness. But the problem is that what he is saying now has been said over the years in plain text or vaguely expressed by a large number of politicians and businessmen. Some of them have been scalded and speak from their own experience. Others spoke and then conveniently forgot about the problem. Others have eloquently remained silent on pending cases and inspections. Or because they hope to join the group of beneficiaries.
The presence of such a large number of additional controls reinforces the epistemological dilemma. And there are two solutions. One is to assume that all the evidence on the subject is for one reason or another unreliable, which would lead to social cognitive dissonance. The other solution is politically explosive. Logically there is no third position.
