Nikolai Tilkidjiev The King as a Prime-Minister: Peculiarity of the Bulgarian Case or a Lesson to Post-Communist Transformations No. 12/01 Frankfurter Institut für Transformationsstudien Nikolai TILKIDJIEV The King as a Prime-Minister: Peculiarity of the Bulgarian Case or a Lesson to Post-Communist Transformations Dr. Nikolai Tilkidjiev is senior research associate and head of the Department “Communities and Social Stratification” at the Institute of Sociology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Additionally he has been visiting professor at the Frankfurt Institute for Transformation Studies (FIT) at the Europan University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder). The FIT is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as innovation college. The King as a Prime-Minister: Peculiarity of the Bulgarian Case or a Lesson to Post-Communist Transformations1 It can be stated with complete assurance that the strange, quite unusual “Bulgarian electoral phenomenon” from June 2001 will continue to be of great interest to political scientists, sociologists, and historians. In short, this is what happened: the slightly forgotten ex-Bulgarian monarch – Simeon II Sax-Coburg-Gotta – after 55 years of “exile” needed just about 2 months of intensive pre-electoral propaganda to earn himself close to 2 million votes and, lacking a stable organizational structure in the center or in other regions, he suddenly assumed one of the highest positions of power – the prime-minister of a country where the communist and the pro-Russian regime of government had been in power for years, and yet – a country that spent the last four years being ruled by a noncommunist Union of the Democratic Forces. The purpose of this analysis Is to present this striking Bulgarian phenomenon in its full essence and dimensions; derive what the objective and socio-psychological causes and factors for this success were; explain how it fits into the current political situation in Bulgaria and in the dialectics between the specific and common principles and mechanisms of the post-communist transformation in East-European countries; and show what the prognoses for the eventual outlooks of this phenomenon are. Sources of information That have been used for this work are varied. The author has used data from national representative surveys of the public opinion in Bulgaria conducted by various private and public sociological agencies; publications in the central daily press, radio and TV programs, publications and broadcasts by international media, commentaries and analyses of expert-sociologists and others. 1. The Bulgarian electoral phenomenon: reflections and significance This is unquestionably one of the strangest cases to appear in the period of post- communist transformation in Eastern Europe. Perhaps such an occurrence has not 1 This work was inspired by the interest shown in the current situation in Bulgaria by a few colleagues of mine from The Frankfurt Institute for Transformation Studies (F.I.T.), European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), Germany. The manuscript was entirely completed during the author’s stay in F.I.T. (Fall, 2001). 2 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01 been encountered in any of the parliament elections around the world. Foreign Report magazine depicts the events as “the biggest political surprise in the history of post-communist Europe.” Vanguardia, a Barcelona newspaper, reflects, “all textbooks on political theory have to be rewritten, or at least include footnotes, in order to tell of the unprecedented political and constitutional event that happened in Bulgaria in the dawn of the 21st century… never had a dethroned monarch been able to reach the position of a prime-minister during a republican regime.” The Italian Republica was equally surprised, “He is unique. The only king that came back to his country as a democratic premier”. The intense interest and exhaustive commentary will continue, no matter if Simeon II’s new government does well or not, no matter if it will succeed to fulfill the three major goals set forth in its pre-election campaign. Though formulated in such a simple manner that every average voter can understand them, the goals were still very fundamental: • Create an effective, functioning market economy • Improve the living conditions of ordinary people and • Put an end to rampant corruption • Were these intentions defined adequate and attractive to draw two million votes? During the past 12 years the development of post-communist countries passed several common stages. The first years of the transition were characterized by difficult withdrawal of the ex-communist nomenclature and transition from the political power and from this nomenclature into economical dominance. The next period was marked by the uprising of the new noncommunist elite and frequent cases of corruption among its members and new party division of the economical elite on national and local scale. Business was promoted– but only business that was run by close to political power - relatives, adherents or loyal followers of the corresponding ruling party or local authority. Evidently, in a situation like this no market economy would work effectively. It was blocked by political impact, which gave way to corruption, which in turn corroded the governing apparatus from the inside and became an obstacle for any development, damaging the authority of governors among people. This led to an even further association of the governors with the economic power, which reflected on the reforms and caused further degrading of the living conditions of the broad social layers, a lack of better perspectives and rise of people against the government. Namely these three problems (nonfunctioning market economy, wide-spread corruption, and low living standards) were indeed characteristic of Bulgaria for the N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 3 last several years. Simeon II made his well-considered and successful move simply by stating his intentions of solving them, and capturing the logic behind the development. This brought him into favor with the voter. I am convinced that what I just said about the major problems of the Bulgarian transition sounds very familiar and perhaps is valid for most post-communist countries. But despite its outward appearance – one of a strange, unheard-of irrationality and exotism, bordering on frivolous political behavior – the actual reasons root not so much to some specific, unique national or historical factors, but rather to a series of common processes and mechanisms, which to some extent or another are also present in other post-communist countries. That is why the Bulgarian phenomenon will be long discussed: it is not a unique fruit of some weird passions and actions, but a source for conclusions and morals, applicable to other post-communist societies as well. A proof for this universality of the Bulgarian example are the first evaluations and inferences by foreign observers. The focus is on the possible connection between the analogous economical and political situation in other East-European countries – some of them having ex-monarchs, who could play a certain role of attractive leaders in the transition processes. According to Newsweek, politicians, journalists and immigrants from Romania, Moldavia and Ukraine are having a heated argument as to whether what happened in Bulgaria is possible in their country, too. We can also add to the waiting list countries like Serbia and Albany (which would make the cases actually 6!). A deeper analysis was done by the agency Associated Press, which tried to explain why the electoral success of the dethroned Bulgarian king Simeon II motivated the supporters of other ex-monarchs on the Balkans, who now are waiting in anticipation. The commentary is, “in the countries devastated by the communist reign and still fighting to establish democracy, monarchs are often viewed as the last hope for regaining the previous glamour and power.” This concerns mainly the Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, and Albanian monarchs. The present president of Romania Ion Iliesku (currently in his second and last mandate) ensured ex-monarch Mihai by giving back to him his residency-palace in Bucharest, as well as security and an automobile (the next elections are scheduled for 2004, when King Mihai can enter political life in Romania). According to Serbian journalists, the return of the Serbian Prince Alexander from the dynasty Karadjorjevitch under the form of a constitutional monarchy could help in stabilizing the situation in the country; the current government allowed Alexander to come back with his family in his palace situated in the capital. The chances for the return of the ex-Albanian King Leka seem smaller, after a referendum in 1997 concluded that monarchy should not be restored, and in 1999 the current socialistic government sued him and sent him into exile for causing turmoil. 4 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01 In an article published in Washington Post in the end of July 2001 the author states that, “the situation in the Balkans badly needs a new type of leadership – a leadership that these ex-monarch are capable of supplying. … the kings, with their western know-how and international relations, indeed look alluring.” The Russian newspaper Vedomosti says, “now it is possible to bring back the monarchies in Eastern Europe, and even in Russia”. The Russian magazine Vremya concludes, “The King’s triumph in Bulgaria is due to the eleven years of alternating unformed communist with liberal parties.” The American Salt Lake Tribune accents on the emotional moment, stating in its title that this is a contemporary tale with a happy end – Simeon II, the ex child-king, after 55 years of exile was nominated for a prime minister. In an editorial Guardian broadens the importance of the event, taking it further outside the borders of the post-communist world of Eastern Europe, addressing rhetorical urges that this story has a moral for the other monarchs too: instead of waiting to be kicked out, they had better throw away their scepters and get involved in the political life of their countries.