The mirror in which Borisov does not want to look at himself – Analyze

© Julia Lazarova

The analysis was republished by Deutsche Welle.

The European Parliament, with its resolution on the rule of law and fundamental rights in Bulgaria, adopted today, served as a mirror for us. Bulgaria, and especially its government, looked at it and didn’t like it. But the image of our mirror image will be framed and hung everywhere in the corridors of power in the EU.

Some call this effect simply “political”, trying to downplay it. In fact, it is precisely the political meaning of the resolution that is most essential and will have the most lasting effect. There will be a temporary suspension of EU funds. When his portrait sits permanently on the wall of criminals, those from whom “concerns” and “problems” come, the damage to the country is great and immeasurable.

The resolution is much more detailed in listing Bulgaria’s problems than the EC’s report on the rule of law. It includes protests, suspicions of corruption by Prime Minister Borissov himself, audio scandals, mothers-in-law houses, the Libyan oil tanker, the Rosenets mansion and much more, although not all. For example, Bozhkov’s 700 million and related payments to television, a football team, and possibly high-level politicians, for some reason, are not in the explicit reference.

In any case, the image reveals a good knowledge of the main characteristics of the Bulgarian government and can be called with the neutral term “objective”. The aim of the image is to show that Bulgaria is deviating from the core values ​​of the EU. Thus, along with corruption and media problems, it also includes the country’s attitude towards the Istanbul Convention and non-compliance with the Strasbourg court rulings on minority rights.

As the image is quite true, the reactions against it in Bulgaria are not based so much on its content, but on other issues:

This negative image was created and voted on with the help of Bulgarian MPs and politicians. They are traitors!

The most naive line of attack against resolution is this. It could even be called “childish” if it weren’t for the government’s opposition to the term, which they consider even more offensive than “toulup” and “turkey.” Petko Karavelov is quoted as saying to a foreign diplomat after joking with him at the Black Mosque: “Such things don’t happen in our country.”

Unfortunately, the problems do not go away when we tell the ambassadors in Brussels that they do not exist. Furthermore, the EU is not just a gathering of “foreigners” to whom we must not expose ourselves. We are part of this political union and we must be in it with our true face. Not in a ridiculous mask that even we don’t believe in. And if this person becomes unsightly, we should not disguise him and make amends to the point of absurdity, but change him as soon as possible through elections. This is the order in democracies.

The attacks come only from the left, the Greens and the Liberals: the right strongly supports Borisov!

It is true that the resolution was passed mainly by the votes of the left, the Greens and the Liberals. The EPP and other right-wing groups have expressed reservations and even proposed amendments to the resolution. In the end, in general, they voted against.

However, is this strong support for Borissov? Even Manfred Weber did not allow himself the enthusiastic defense of our wounded prime minister. What he said is that there are serious problems, but we can wait until the spring elections, when the Bulgarians will decide. There are problems, there are achievements, Borisov himself has proposed his resignation in the event of convening the Supreme National Assembly, ergo – to stay a few more months.

The same “support” tweet and Donald Tusk after a meeting with the Prime Minister. It is obvious that the EPP has put party loyalty in the family before the protection of other values ​​in the EU. This is a political choice for which you must take responsibility. But it is also obvious that the EPP is not happy with this choice and is doing it with a single mind in mind, leaving enough loopholes for a quick withdrawal.

The mere fact that many of the amendments that did not pass to the resolution were tabled by an MEP from Malta (a country that does not excel in the rule of law) shows that the EPP leaders do not want to get closely involved in the defense of a government that is in the category of the politically canceled anyway. Whether immediately or after five months, PPE certainly doesn’t matter;

The vote will show that BSP and DB are in a “coalition”

This is more of a friendly joke than an argument. Not the vote in the EP, for example, shows that GERB and MRF are in a real coalition, but the actions of these two twin parties over the years.

Overall, the EP resolution will not radically change the situation in Bulgaria. But there is a new development with that. Bulgarian politics is now much more part of European politics. This is good for an alliance that is based on tight integration between countries. In it, the principle is not to lie to each other about who we are, but to help each other overcome problems.

GERB managed to convince the EPP to accept their position; this is a small victory for Borissov’s party. The problem is the ambiguity and weakness of the generally accepted position. Indeed, Borissov acknowledges all the problems, refuses (or cannot) convincingly clear his name, de facto commits to retirement, and simply wants a delay of a few months. Although reluctant, the EPP granted him this pardon. However, the question is: what is Bulgaria’s benefit from it?

And there is a deeper question that not only Borisov, but also the EPP must answer. Can an EU member state go half a year without knowing whether the prime minister and his government are corrupt, simply because of the party affiliation of a European political family? How long can a democracy live with concrete suspicions and accusations of corruption at the highest level, which are reflected in official EU documents? The EPP responds “six months”, but such a response is unacceptable to the voters of these parties in their own countries.

In fact, the problem is that such a response is unacceptable in principle.

P.S. The vote on the resolution showed that the EPP feels very uncomfortable in the position of defender of GERB and Borissov. Thirty of his deputies deviated from the party line, supporting the decision or abstaining. This in itself is indicative of the fact that many are reluctant to place party discipline above the EU’s highest values, such as integrity and the rule of law.

And so the myth of the “left” nature of the resolution collapsed.