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.
The switch from monarchical mantle to the republican position of a prime minister is indeed impressive, but in Bulgaria we saw only the formal, outer side of the issue. Far more important is the other side – the cause that made possible this voluntary and democratically exerted choice of the mass voter. Reasonably Independent makes the clarification that the convincing victory of the party that was built around the personality of Simeon II is not a social support for restoring the monarchy, but rather a mass protest against the existing political parties of a people, tired of living in poverty.
2. Bulgaria in brief
Before I go on with my arguments, let me make a few notes on Bulgaria and the Bulgarian society today.
Bulgaria is a parliamentary republic (surf. Area 110 910 sq. km; Pop. 7 977 646 by 14.3.2001). After the Second World War and up to the end of 1989, the country was governed by a one-party communist regime, and under strong Soviet influence in politics, ideology, economy and culture. Todor Zhivkov, one of the longest governing leaders in the former socialist bloc, exercised absolute personal power over the country for 35 years (1954-1989). By his utter loyalty to his Soviet patrons, he succeeded in obtaining considerable economic aid and an outlet for Bulgarian products on the large, easily-pleased Soviet market; as a result, a large part of the Bulgarian population enjoyed a good living standard comparatively to other communist countries. Moreover, by the end of his rule there was a certain degree of liberalization of economic initiative and culture in Bulgaria. One of the basic N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 5 mistakes of the socialist development model of economic policy was the accelerated, forced industrialization with a prevalence of heavy machine building, construction of giant factories, rapid and excessive urbanization, and a corresponding depopulation of villages, the irreversible depletion of the agricultural potential. Another consequence was that heavy industry collapsed when markets were lost following the break-down of the Soviet Union and COMECON. The ruin of industry led in turn to large-scale unemployment, a problem previously unknown in Bulgaria: the personnel of bankrupt enterprises were discharged and left with no alternatives on the labour market. This mistaken economic policy was the basic cause of the dramatic change in the everyday lives of people and serves as a framework for explaining their political, economic, and cultural attitudes, evaluation, and expectations.
The changes in the country were initiated from above, from members of the political elite who deposed T. Zhivkov from power on November 10, 1989. This event unlocked wide public activity toward political changes, a social fermentation leading in various directions. A multitude of non-communist or anticommunist political parties and organizations was created, the major one of which was the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF). After several parliamentary elections and changes of cabinets, the former communists, united in the renamed Bulgarian Socialist Party (BCP), again became the dominant power in the period 1993-1996. By the end of 1996 the Socialist administration ended in complete failure, and after an entire month of mass public demonstrations, the ex-communists relinquished their mandate. Parliamentary elections soon followed, in which the UDF won a solid majority. The government then formed ended of its term of office, and this is the first time that a complete parliamentary mandate of government served out. In these four years the country achieved definite macro-financial stability. The governing party pursued a clear policy oriented to the European Union and NATO, and the country is now in preliminary negotiations for entering these organizations. As it was said, after the last regular parliamentary elections on 17th of June, 2001, a recently formed movement “National Movement – Simeon, the Second” (NMSS) won a half of the all mandates of the Parliament and constructed a new government together with the political party of ethnic Turks in Bulgaria.
Macro-economic frame: After the acute crisis of the financial system, eager to achieve economic stability of the country, the government of UDF introduced a Monetary Board in July 1997 under the control of the International Monetary Fund; accordingly, the Bulgarian currency was made equivalent and tied to the German mark (1 Bulgarian Leva = 1 DEM). The gross domestic product according to market prices for 1998 was 21,6 billion leva, and the proportion of the private sector thereof was 56.7 percent. The employment in private sector has prevailed since 1999 (see Figure 1, All data are from national representative surveys of the Agency for Social Analyses-ASA): 6 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01
Figure 1: Dynamics of private and state employment
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 State 5 Private 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2000
In the same year the GDP per capita was $1484. The external debt of Bulgaria by December 2000 was $8,968 billion. Inflation in 2000 was 9.9 percent. Through the year 2000, unemployment varied between 16 and 19 percent of the economically active population (it was 18.5 percent according to data of the National Employment Office, published on Feb. 20, 2001)2.
3. Historical background of the Bulgarian monarch
Simeon Sax-Coburg-Gotta, or Simeon II for short, was born on June 16th, 1937 in the village Banya, near Plovdiv, Bulgaria. He is a descendant of a broadly-branched family tree of famous royal people in Western Europe (the present Queen of Great Britain is his cousin, another close relative is the Spanish King Juan Carlos; other royal relatives live in Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.). His grandfather, Ferdinand Sax-Coburg-Gotta was the founder of the Bulgarian monarchy in the new time. Simeon’s father, Boris III reigned Bulgaria until 1943, when his sudden death immediately followed a visit to Adolph Hitler. The latter insists on Bulgaria’s involvement in World War II on Germany’s side. Boris III refuses to join, which some reckon is the cause for his untimely death. On August 28th, 1943 his son Simeon, still underage, is proclaimed King of Bulgaria – Simeon, the Second.
After the end of the war Bulgaria votes for a republican constitution (highly pressed by Soviet instructors), and Simeon II is forced to leave the country together with his family on September 16th, 1946. At first they settle with relatives in Egypt, where
2 See: Statistical Yearbook. 1998, 1999, 2000. Sofia: National Statistical Institute; See also: Vladimirov, J., ed. 2000. Bulgaria after 1997: Current Situation and Development Tendencies. Sofia: Sofiiski novini. N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 7 he graduates from Victoria College in 1948. Later he graduates from a French lyceum in Spain, studies law and political science, receives a diploma from the military academy “Valley Force” in Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA in 1959 and takes classes in business administration. During the years 1962 - 2001 he works as a businessman on boards of companies, as a director of the Spanish affiliate of the French consortium Tomson, on the board of the Moroccan holding Omnium, and as an administrator and consultant in a hotel chain. He is married to a descendant of a rich Spanish family and has four sons and a daughter; all children carry Bulgarian names.
His first recent return to Bulgaria was after 50 years of exile, on May 25th, 1996 (then he is issued a Bulgarian passport), but it took him five more years to express his desire to take part in Bulgarian politics. Undoubtedly his first inclination was to nominate himself for a president of Bulgaria, which is a high and prestigious position, but quite representative in nature, without any strong actual power in a real policy-making. However, some governors placed obstacles in front of him: they added a statement in the constitution that the candidate for presidency must have lived the last 5 years prior to the elections in his country. In spring 2001 Simeon II switched to another strategy, when he established and registered a new movement (National Movement – Simeon, the Second – NMSS), which achieved victory on the parliamentary elections on June 17th, 2001, winning half the mandates.
Although Simeon II probably preferred to secure a position of honor and somehow hide behind the stage curtains, after a while he accepted the nomination for a new premier of Bulgaria.
4. Sparkling the interest (A well-considered mysteriousness)
It is important to note that the interest towards the king in exile3 was planned and stimulated particularly during the years of the perestroika (the period after Mikhail Gorbachov assumed power in the Soviet Union that began in 1985) and the first years of changes after the end of 1989. The most popular Bulgarian TV show broadcast in the second half of the 80s Vsyaka Nedelya showed an interview with Simeon II in Madrid, conducted by the lead speaker Kevork Kevorkyan. This interview was shown several times, with additions and it was also published several times in the mass media and widely discussed by politicians and social figures.
Simeon II’s political activity grew particularly noticeable in the first half of the 90s.
3 Here and at other places I use “the King” for the sake of brevity, not only because this is how Simeon II is popular among the people, but also because he has not abdicated officially since 1943. The discrepancy is obvious – the king has not denied his throne, yet the country operates with an approved republic constitution from 1946. 8 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01
He welcomed to his home in Madrid several tens of prominent Bulgarian politicians, cultural figures, journalists and even famous sport stars (higher members of the ex-communist nomenclature4 and the first democratically chosen president Jelio Jelev5, famous Bulgarian cultural figures, opera singers, folk ensembles, and even the famous Bulgarian soccer player Hristo Stoichkov). All these people have a certain impact on different layers of the public opinion in Bulgaria and activate and support the mass interest in the country towards the king’s personality, which undoubtedly was the purpose of the event.
The beautiful Bulgarian names of his 5 children (his four sons carry the names of Bulgarian kings) - Kiril, Kardam, Konstantin-Asen, Kubrat and Kalina also connect Simeon II to Bulgaria. At the same time they were all kept away from the mass media, and information about the king’s family was always well filtered. His son Prince Kiril was personally invited by the second democratically chosen president of Bulgaria Peter Stoyanov to be one of the expert-consultants in economics as part of his Presidency. This was a gesture aimed at the admirers of the king in exile, although Prince Kiril’s counsel was not very popular either6. Simeon II’s sister – Countess Maria Louisa was included on the prestigious board of directors of AUBG (American University in Bulgaria), along with prominent Bulgarian intellectuals, businessmen, and politicians. These were all signs that showed direct continuity among the current government and the pre-ex-noncommunist past of the country.
The interest was also increased by the well-managed scarcity of information, even with a little well-considered mysteriousness. This turned out to be a very successful strategy. Against the background of talkative politicians and commentators, Simeon II and his family stood out with a composed, sparing on comments behavior. Gradually and particularly in the year of the elections (2001) his composed and dignified silence became even more likable. He would frequently respond to journalists with a simple, “I will tell you when the time comes!” “It’s still too early to say!” “Everything has its time,” and “Trust in me!” This was quite distressing for politics, political scientists and journalists, who were impatient for more information and more weak spots. Some of these phrases entered the political lexicon with a mocked connotation. Nevertheless the king slowly and steadily built his image in the mass consciousness – an image of a highly honorable man, with the dignity and charisma of an educated aristocrat, who does not talk much, but keeps his word7. That is why the slogan that he ran during his short and quite
4 It is argued that namely people belonging to this group have agitated Simeon’s active participation in the new political life. 5 Dr. Jelio Jelev openly showed resignation towards the king in exile, perhaps because of pro-republican preferences or simply personal fear of competition. Despite the visit, Dr. Jelev has commented on the “little, insignificant businessman in Madrid” etc. 6 Maybe this was just a flirt on Stoyanov’s behalf, which aimed at Simeon’s beneficial attitude in the future 7 The sociologist Andrey Raichev remarked after the elections in Sega that the aristocratic look of Simeon II cannot be denied, his amazing ability to turn things around, so that the more power he gets, the more it seems N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 9 successful pre-election propaganda seemed so natural, “New Morality” in politics, “Honor in everything!”.
This slogan hit exactly where it was aimed at. It came as a sign of hope to the digruntled mass Bulgarian voter, who could not take any more of the rude manners of its politicians – both post-communist and new democrats. It turned out that the emotional factor was quite important in forming and developing the social attitude. In the election night of June 17th, 2001, when the first results of Simeon’s lead came out and the well-known political scientists were still confused, a commentator stated something very precise, “After all the 11-12 years of hard and fruitless transition, Bulgarians needed to be caressed, Simeon did it, and he won!”
Drawing a general conclusion, the sociologist Prof. Peter-Emil Mitev notes, “Elections 2001 were a victory of social psychology over ideology, of mass consciousness over organizational structure, of personality over parties… The vote was critical, personalized, rational.”
Undeniably Simeon II applied perfectly calculated psychological tactics in achieving his success. But at the same time it can be stated almost for certain that even with his most honorable image, which he built so diligently, he would not have had chances for winning the elections before 1999-2000 – then he would probably have ended up in a fiasco. His popularity and eventual necessity still had not been established, there still did not exist the need for a “Savior”. Many surveys have supported this notation. After he initially evaluated his chances after his first visit in 1996, he decided not to get involved, and withdrew patiently to wait his time. For the whole next 5 years.
5. Objective causes for the success (How did the King’s day come?)
Why did it happen? Why in previous years did the king not have any chance of winning?
The Bulgarians from the end of the 80s and during the 90s were eager for civil action. This was a natural compensation for previous years of political idleness; they were intoxicated with joy from the fact that they were becoming creators of their own history. Even today many people remember with a sour smile the free moments of hope and security, the thought that finally something is changing for the better, that everything depends on the initiative and enterprise of people themselves. The last proof of this was the mass demonstrations and marches in January 1997 and before the last elections the same year. It was a time of enthusiastic anticipation, of the next big, spontaneous and massively expressed hope.
he is helping people. 10 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01
Two and a half years later, however – particularly since the fall of 1999 – the sociological surveys started indicating a swift drop in the social trust of the governing party – UDF8. People felt that things were not going as they were supposed to: in spite of the officially presented situation of financial stability, the living standard of people was not improving at all, on the contrary – it was getting worse; the corrupted people in government remained unquestioned and unaffected, and small and middle business were being smothered, etc. The elections for local organs of power in October 1999 confirmed these social evaluations – in many of the municipalities where UDF had governed, it was taken down, because people throughout the country saw (through of the mass media, personal impressions, etc.) that the work of their governors was not worthy –they did not care about solving people’s problems, they obstructed the development of small business (or they only supported the businesses of those close and loyal to them), bureaucracy and corruption had penetrated the system – judging by actual criteria like their luxurious houses and villas, cars, privileged relatives, etc. Even if there was no legal conclusion from a law organ, people noted these deviations with their own devices, throughout their own everyday life.
After the local elections there were no decisive actions on the board of UDF to remove and punish highly-positioned corrupted officials – both in the capital and around the country, which further lowered the level of trust in this party during the first half of 2000. Independent sociological surveys clearly noted this drop. For example, monthly national representative surveys of MBMD show that the last peak of trust in the ex-premier and leader of UDF Ivan Kostov was in January 2000, when he gathered 46.3% approval rating (and 40.3 – unapproved), a continuous drop follows, bringing him down to 20.7% approval in June 2001 (and 72.7 – unapproved) - this is about the same percentage that UDF won in the elections, which means that approval and trust are expressed only by the firm supporters. Agencies Alpha Research and BBSS-Gallup also point out a collapse of social trust in government namely for that period.
Wide spread corruption among all basic governmental and bureaucratic positions, as well as a halt in the development of market economy (including private business) had a great impact on people - on their material status and way of life. The explanation for the abrupt drop of trust in government is mainly connected to people’s lowered standard of living, and the lowered material and economical condition of their families.
This is what numerous resondents state in national representative surveys, and these are not just subjective opinions. There is plenty of statistical data9 that support the
8 Here and in other places I will use the abbreviation “UDF” meaning the Union of Democratic Forces, not United Democratic Forces. The Union actually was the driving force of the coalition, which also included some insignificant in number and impact unions and parties. 9 I view data from the National Statistical Institute, as well as from research institutes and centers at the two N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 11 validity of these evaluations. Today with the minimal monthly salary of 100DM and the average monthly salary of 250 (in fact the salary of 150DM predominates), it is exceptionally difficult for many Bulgarian households to make the ends meet: a monthly bill for central heating is about 100-130DM, monthly electricity bill – 30- 40DM, water supply – 5-7DM, telephone services – minimum of 10DM, etc. The rest is basically spent on food. So how should a family with children in school, or worse – an unemployed adult10 - cope? What about clothing, cultural necessities? Many surveys show that the relative percentage of people living below the social minimum is at least 70 %. People indeed are concerned about their physical survival. Many western researchers have shown their wonder - how can Bulgarians survive in these conditions? How could one expect solid support for economical and social politics for the corresponding governors? Where is the limit of tolerance, of mass protest?
There are five ways, five “life-belts” in my opinion that are most often used by Bulgarians in these difficult times: a) utter economy of expenses – reduced to a minimum the expenditures of the household; b)extra salaries from additional work; c) the “jar economy”11 – using home-made jars and tins with food – vegetables, fruit, meat – that was either bought at very low prices or supplied by relatives who live in the countryside; d) starting a small business – for some people; and e) income from an activity in the “informal economy” – unaccounted for, unregistered job or unofficial lending of property.
But here is an important point: the government reached its “critical point” during 2000-2001 not only because of mass poverty, but also because misfortune was not shared proportionally by the empowered. On the contrary, people both in the capital and in villages faced the constant arrogance of rich Bulgarians – but rich because of their proximity or involvement in power. Many cases became public, when corrupt governors secretly took part in privatization of entire banks and hotel chains along the seaside, owned luxurious villas, houses, and cars, and also included close relatives (wives, sons, daughters, brothers, etc.) in director boards of large companies12. Corruption and clientilism, in all their forms and shapes, opposed by total wretchedness, caused a readiness to change the actual government, even the system of government. People became more and more
major syndicates. 10 Although the official percentage of unemployed in Bulgaria is 19% from the active population, in certain regions (where major enterprises have been shut down or agriculture has deteriorated) unemployment reaches over 50%. Examples are Pernik city and the regions around cities of Kurdjali and Razgrad. This practically means that there is at least one (usually more) unemployed person per family. 11 The term was introduced for the specific Bulgarian case by Canadian anthropologist Eleanor Smolet in 1988. 12 This practically bring them monthly income that is usually higher than the average monthly salary. Furthermore, these members do not really participate in the meetings or perform any duties. This “new nomenclature” was called “’cousins’ management”. 12 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01 convinced that this government is doomed and cannot serve them. Four more years like this would have led to irreversible consequences.
Figure 2 shows the development of mass consciousness – the percentage of people for which things got better or worse during the period of 1994-200013.
Figure 2: Evaluation of the material and economical condition of the household
45 40 35 30 Very good 25 Fairly good 20 Fairly bad 15 Very bad 10 5 0 1994 1995 1997 1999 IX'2000
Thus, in the period around the middle of 2000 there was a turnover in mass consciousness of the subjective pyramid of social standing and inequality. Usually transformations in mass consciousness and attitude lead to serious changes in the practical behavior. This was the case at the next parliamentary elections. In brief: in 2000 people started realistically evaluating their present day as more difficult that the past, where their living conditions were much better. To the ordinary man today seemed less just even more so than during socialistic period.
The people’s differing appraisal of their economic situation in this period of time can be illustrated by using the so-called “pictorial approach to class” of the Australian sociologist Jonathan Kelley14. The figures – formed by the answers -
13 Data for the first four years are from representative surveys of Agency for Social Analyses (ASA) within the modules of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), and the last is from the comparative international survey “Political Culture in Central and Eastern Europe”; the latter is a part of a project of an international team under the leadership of the German group incl. Prof.D.Pollack-head, J.Jacobs, O.Mueller and G.Pickel at the Frankfurt Institute for Social Transformation (F.I.T.), European University Viadrina. The field survey was carried out in Bulgaria by BBSS “Gallup”, 15-30.09.2000. 14 The approach has been applied in ISSP modules in the surveys on social inequality in 1987, 1992-93, and 1999. See: Evans, M., Kelley, J., Kolosi, T. 1992. "Images of Class: Public Perceptions in Hungary and Australia", In: American Sociological Review, Vol. 57: 462-480. Figures of the stratified social body are re-produced, images with different configurations of the seven “subjective social strata” showing the self-identification of people in fact with one of the seven positions or scales ranging from “top” to “bottom”. In the case one and the same respondents were asked where they would put themselves in one of seven points into 7-point vertical scale in three periods of time. Here the data N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 13 concerning valuations of the past seem strangely Utopian. The time around the early 80s is imagined by most respondents as a “golden age” of material well- being, and most positions are between the middle and to the top (Kelley Figure E - Figure 3):
Figure 3: In the beginning of 80s
Top 9,4 19,7 25,1 27,2 6,9 2,2 Bottom 1,7
Even the time immediately before the 1990s is remembered in a rosy light: most people place themselves in the middle for that period (Kelley Figure D, which reflects an ideal egalitarian image of a middle class society - Figure 4):
Figure 4: In the beginning of 90s
Top 4,3 9,8
20
34,4
19,1 6,3
Bottom 2,1
Obviously the subjective embellishment of these two past periods in memory is due both to their distance in time and to comparisons with the present day, when the structure is inevitably considered to be pyramidal in shape, with few at the top and a growing number of people to the bottom (Kelley Figure B - Figure 5).
are from the survey “Political Culture in Central and Eastern Europe” mentioned above. 14 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01
Figure 5 - In September 2000
Top 0,9 2,2 6,7
14,4 20,4
27,4
Bottom 26,5
This transformation, this in fact negative evaluation of the present day – even compared to recent periods – gradually grew popular and became the opinion not of a small separate category, but in some’s opinion in large parts of all social groups in Bulgarian society. The question already was not whether unemployed (due to their unemployment) or pensioners (due to their low pensions) were against the government, but rather whether large parts of every social group would stand up against the government15 (see Table 1).
Table 1: “The UDF is a very important and important reason of poverty in the country” (June 2000) Social Group “Very important” and “Important” reason (relative quota of each group - %) Skilled workers and technicians 84,0
Routine employees 77,6
Pensioners 75,4
Unemployed 75,3
Students 74,5
Intelligentsia (professionals) 73,4
Low-skilled and non-skilled workers 71,9
Private businesspersons 69,1
15 The only exception is the small number of directors and managers at average level and above (less than 1%). N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 15
As you can see from the quoted data, there is a definite negative attitude towards the governing of UDF from each separate group even since June 2000. If traditionally a large part of pensioners, unemployed, and unqualified workers were turned against the government of UDF, then in this case it is obvious that the attitudes of people who are usually among the warmest supporters of UDF – the intellectuals, private businessmen/business ladies, students, qualified workers and technicians – are analogous. The trust in the status quo dropped quite low.
The data from other sociological surveys are analogous. In the beginning of June 2001 (right before the elections), according to a survey by BBSS Gallup, the people who have made up their mind for the elections are those who have significant difficulties in their household. If we combine the lowest, unfavorable statement of the surveyed (“we don’t have money for food” and “we have money for food, but not enough for clothes”), it turns out that in such a condition are most of the voters of the big political subjects. 78.2% of BSP supporters, 60.2% of UDF, 86.1% of MRF voters, 74% for other parties, 71% of those who will not vote and 77% of the NMSS’s adherents. The shared intentions for electoral participation coincide with the actual activity on the elections. It can be seen that both in the respective percentage of the social groups, and in the party supporters, the base of mass dissatisfaction was quite wide before the elections. And for the people the fact that the pre-previous socialist government of Zhan Videnov (1995-1996) was also very corrupted with a wide spread clientelism was not a justification for Ivan Kostov’s government of UDF.
The same tendency was evident in another surveys from the same period. According to the data of the already quoted “Political Culture in Central and Eastern Europe” that was conducted during the second half of September 2000, a mere 5.2% declare “large amount of trust in government”, another 29.3% - “some level of trust”. On the other hand, mistrust totals 62%. Even more catastrophic is the lowered level of trust towards politicians and political parties – they receive between 73 and 84% mistrust from the surveyed. The larger part - about the half and more – of the respondents think that politicians do not care at all what ordinary people think, that they do not strive to keep their pre-electoral promises, that most are corrupt, that parties look at the country as at a private property, etc.
The concrete analysis from the same survey shows that the appraisal of the way the government worked in the former socialist political and economic system is definitely nostalgic, and “fond memories” of past times are prevalent on this point; when comparing the present system of government with the past system, positive appraisals of the past predominate.
In the two histograms in Figure 6 and 7, we clearly see the distribution across the continuum -100 +100: there is a clustering of appraisals regarding the former, socialist economic system mostly in the positive area of the scale (Mean= +44.9) 16 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01 and an accumulation of opinions about the present economic system mostly in the “mirror- opposite” - the negative part of the scale (Mean= -40.3).
Figure 6: Estimations how the socialist economy works
200
100
Std. Dev = 53.64 Mean = 44.9 0 N = 7 80.00 -100.0 -60.0 -20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 -80.0 -40.0 0.0 40.0 80.0
econom y: socialist econom y before 1989
Figure 7: Estimations how the current economy works
200
100
Std. Dev = 49.90 Mean = -40.3 0 N = 805.00 - 100.0 -60.0 -20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 -80.0 -40.0 0.0 40.0 80.0
econom y: current econom ic system
Most important, there is a direct correspondence, a strong correlation between appraisals of the state of the economy and of the political system, and this connection contains its own explanation. Besides the logical hypothesis that such a connection is inevitable: the two questions have identical scales of response options and the statistical significance of the correlation is quite high, as obvious from the tables of values of the correlation coefficients of Spearman's rho (0.771) and N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 17
Kendall's tau-b (0.684) (Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level) for the connection between valuation of pre-1989 socialist economy and socialist politics. The values of the particularly significant correlation between appraisals of the present-day economy and present-day politics are similar. In brief, the opinions of respondents about the political system and the work of the government (today and before) is an analog or a consequence, a result of their opinion of the respective economic system, of the states of the economy before and that of today.
As the time of past social security - guaranteed employment, state-paid services, health care, education - grows more distant, the former social order acquires a retrospective, secondary legitimacy for a large part of the population, appearing a “looking-back person”, which compares it with the material hardships of the present-day situation16.
Thinking over these data, we can only conclude that the loss of the governing party in the June 2001 elections in Bulgaria was a “long predicted loss” (to rephrase a famous title by Gabriel Garcia Marquez).
The elections in June 2001 were different and remarkable because they calmly, legally and directly introduced and expressed the will of the voters, as well as their disapproving attitude towards governors. The ex- communist government was also overthrown from below, but this happened after a mass dissatisfaction that gave way to gatherings and demonstrations. After long days of marching (December 1996 - January 1997), followed by a temporary cabinet was appointed and new elections were scheduled. At the June 2001 elections, the situation was qualitatively different – the governors were overthrown again very decisively, but without any sharp collisions, just by the electoral vote. As the sociologist Miroslava Yanova (director of agency MBMD) said, “In these elections people understood that when they are not satisfied with politicians, they can just replace them”. With their vote the people actually punished the politicians for their weak job, but they did it quietly and calmly. It is yet another question whether the new distribution of positions will last long, whether new elections will come soon again. The positive lesson is in the establishment of elections as a normal democratic practice for replacing government.
After the disappointment of the “new-formed communists” followed by the “new liberals-democrats”, the disgruntled voter faced the crisis and the senseless of the next elections. The solid cores would vote for their parties, but the rest were hesitating whether to give their vote just for the “less worse” because of the lack of an alternative, or not to vote at all. From the fall of 2000 (9-10 months before the
16 More detailed on this and on the concrete dimensions of the “looking back person” see in the paper of N.Tilkidjiev “Barriers of Democratic Consolidation: Bulgarian Case”, prepared for the meeting of the research team of the mentioned above research project “Political Culture in Central and Eastern Europe” held in Tallinn, 24-27 May, 2001. 18 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01 elections) the demoscopic surveys proved well that half of the potential voter would not vote. Thus, the way for a new alternative hope was paved. It was then when Simeon’s time came.
6. In expectation of The Savior or Godot (Unnerving the opponents)?
Simeon II indicated his definite intention of taking part in Bulgarian politics on several occasions. The first was to state that he had bought a one-way ticket to Bulgaria. The second sign was his official introductory statement, made on April 6th, 2001. Simeon II literally seemed like “the only hope” for getting Bulgaria out of the crisis and for improving people’s material condition. He personified these hopes and many people started counting on him to do things that realistically no one could accomplish17.
Vladimir Kvint, Professor of Governing Systems and International Business in The University of Fordham and advisor in economics of Simeon II, offers a view from the “inside”. He shared in front of a correspondent of The Washington Times that the previous government only spoke of macroeconomics, but gave nothing to the ordinary Bulgarians, many of whom live in misery. In such a condition people often pray for miracles and choose untraditional leaders. The widespread corruption made many Bulgarians turn their backs on the previous reform-minded government.
At this moment many people indeed viewed Simeon II as a Messiah, a Savior who would take them away from the Kingdom of suffering and misery and lead them to the Kingdom of wellbeing and justice. On the other hand, many of his statements also helped to form his image of a Savior. In the Russian magazine Itogi on July 11th, 2001 he clarified that his aim is to decrease political segregation in the country and motivate people to vote on elections. He adds, “I had to tell them: This is me and I am coming for you.” In addition to that, one of the main points of his pre- election campaign was that the first significant positive results of his government will be felt in just 800 days18. People saw this as an acceptable deadline. A similar preelectoral trick expressed in figures was the 5000DM no-interest credits that
17 Simeon II himself admitted this with a slight uneasiness after he won the elections. “This is a terrible responsibility,” he shares in the conservative English newspaper Spectator in the beginning of August 2001. “We can save the country if we unite our efforts, but not if we sit and wait for one person do it alone.” The same magazine notes that Simeon II’s main problem is that he can never become what the Bulgarian voters expect him to be – a Father-King, a Savior. Simeon II shares such apprehension on the issue also in Bild am Sontag a few days after his victory. 18 Of course it is quite naïve to expect that anything could be accomplished in such a short period of time, having in mind the country’s condition – full of poverty and unemployment. As it became obvious later, the number 800 was picked as an analogy – how quickly can a company be made successful (Simeon and several of his adherents are specialists in company management). Undoubtedly this analogy between a company and a post-communist society is quite an exaggeration. N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 19 would be offered to anyone who wants to start a new business. It seemed like many people accepted this, despite the numerous attempts of experts to explain that this would lead to depletion of the country treasury, to inflation, etc. Furthermore, even for a small country like Bulgaria 5000DM is not sufficient to start a serious small business. There were other direct promises – that the budget salaries and pensions would increase, which also served the purpose of attracting the trusting, “praying for a miracle” voter. Who was the Bulgarian voter expecting – The Savior or Godot19?
People had their grounds for their unrealistic expectations. Some emphasized Simeon’s rich and aristocratic origin and family relations with many Western and Eastern monarchs, who would surely stand behind him and would “flood” Bulgaria with advisors and investments. Others underscored the importance of the fact that the country had finally ended its relations with its communist past and was coming back to its initial position from the end World War II, and now is the time to start all over. Still others pointed out that the king wasn’t affected by the latest political games, nor connected to any of the politicians, but stood way above them, was not corrupted as the others, and was way richer to be tempted by money or power. As Tina Rozenberg from The New York Times noted, “The monarch’s mysticism tempts people to attribute unusual qualities to kings. This is particularly true in ex- communist countries.” As a whole, in the short period since Simeon II’s comeback until the elections, his image was significantly idealized and exaggerated, which also helped him on his way to success.
The political reaction against his participation in the political pre-electoral battle was very insignificant. The short time between his return and the elections (just about two and a half months) was quite insufficient for organizing a campaign against him. Even some artificially created formal obstacles (for the legal registration for his participation in the elections) showed a lack of coordination between the rest of the political players. Most probably the headquarters of his closest advisors noted all this. The short time did not allow reorganization of the pre-electoral teams of basic political parties against this unexpected and at the same time very serious rival.
The major opponent – UDF, as a governing party (having high self-confidence and desire to keep the power), did not manage to build a strong propaganda against the newly arrived opponent. The main argument that they presented against the king and his movement was that it does not have a coherent program for change and for concrete governmental actions. But this, as well as the warning that the aim was reestablishing the monarchy20, did not affect the mass consciousness.
UDF’s critical remarks were confronted by the people of Simeon II in several ways:
19 The analogy is with the enigmatic and absurd character from Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”. 20 This argument is not very suitable, since some of UDF’s members have shown pro-monarchial views before. 20 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01
First, the movement of the king declared in its program the same priorities that were set in the program of UDF – pro-western and pro-NATO orientation, market economy, etc. It was clear that a significant part of people approved of the general way of the country’s direction, but they wanted to avoid corruption and improve the unsatisfactory living conditions. The movement actually openly declared a continuity and proximity to the program aims of UDF.21
Second, they insisted at the same time on correction and improvement of the recidivates and faults in the previous work of UDF – the malfunctioning of the market economy, the nontransparent privatization, corruption and lowering of the living standard.
Third, the king’s movement included members that were previous lead figures from the UDF (Stoyan Ganev – ex-MP and ex-foreign minister of UDF, now head of the cabinet of Simeon II; Solomon Pasi – ex-MP from UDF, now foreign minister; Emil Koshlukov – ex member of the board of UDF and ex-student leader, and others). In this sense the battle was not between two distinctively separated camps.
Forth, Simeon II consciously avoided direct confrontation with any political party, including UDF, because he not only wanted to have a positive campaign, but definitely wanted to play the role of a “Unitor.”
All of this simplified and significantly eased the diffusion of fans of UDF in support of NMSS. In the actual board of UDF, even before and after the elections, there were some leaders that were disposed to collaborate with NMSS (e.g. the powerful mayor of the capital Stefan Sofiyanski). In this train of thought there were many reasons to state that this is unseating of UDF by its own people, something like an internal coup d’ etat22. Of course, in realizing the king’s role it is important to note, is that all of these people in his movement wouldn’t have had any chances of winning the elections if they weren’t all under Simeon II’s wing 23.
21 This can be seen in NMSS’s post-electoral behavior as well: both Simeon II and other leaders from the movement have often evaluated some of UDF’s accomplishments as positive: macro-financial stabilization, success in foreign policy, etc. Accepting the premier position, Simeon II said the level has been set very high by the ex-premier Ivan Kostov. 22 Before the election day, as well as on the night and day after them, the Sofia streets were unusually quiet. There were no mass noisy pre-election gatherings, or post-election euphoria of the victorious voters. These were very typical of the Bulgarian public political life in the 90’s. Maybe one of the explanations was that it was mostly UDF’s supporters that overthrew UDF. After losing trust in their government, some of them – those who had trusted them four years ago – now not only withdrew their votes, but gave them to someone else: for a new unknown coalition, they bet on a new hope or chimera. In Sofia, as well as in other big cities that were previously “blue” places (with a dominant UDF majority), now had more King supporters, and all was quiet. The winners were not celebrating on the streets. There were no proud and excited voters on the radio either. The last 11-12 years proved that namely the blue are the noisy and boisterous supporters. Maybe it was the “syndrome of guilt” (whether they took the right choice or were fooled again?). Or this silence was simply a proof of the old saying, “If two equally strong armies meet, the sadder will come out as a winner”. 23 This can be easily proven by UDF’s near history. A few years ago several leaders split from the party and UDF broke into (besides the main body of UDF) UDF-center and UDF-liberals. The latter did not gain sufficient support on the following elections and gradually melted in the political space as insignificant formations. N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 21
The other significant opponent of Simeon II and of his movement, the second major political power – BSP, the reformed ex-communist party after the changes from the end of the 80’s – actually did not undertake separation and confrontation, but rather flirted with the new political opponent, aiming their attacks mainly at UDF. The next large political player – The Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF), the party of ethnic Turks in Bulgaria, turned out to be even friendlier towards NMSS. With the actual establishment of the king movement MRF demonstrated proximity and a clear readiness to cooperate. This way the scene was cleared of any major opponents for the king to take over.
It was greatly in Simeon II’s favor that he bet on the paternalistic and egalitarianistic expectations and moods among the Bulgarian population. This syndrome is clearly visible in many sociological empirical surveys during the 90’s (and it is particularly characteristic of many of the post-communist countries in Eastern Europe, according to data from comparative surveys of ISSP). Paternalistic moods thrive mostly among the left-oriented supporters, including some affiliates of BSP. There is one comparatively light and non-conflicting transformation of the collectivist towards paternalistic attitude. The expectation that someone from above should take care and responsibility is widely spread, especially among the poorer strata24. Whether it would be the State or the Savior, the Father (A King on a white horse) was not essential. In both cases someone is obliged to provide employment to all, acceptable salaries and so on. Thus, the broad layers with paternalistic expectations – in the Bulgarian concrete situation – would easily give their vote for the charismatic, and authoritative king. Socially and psychologically, the transition from paternalism towards pro-monarchism is quite easy.
Following this pro-paternalistic propaganda, Simeon II’s campaign was positive, it wasn’t anti, but invited for collaboration all political parties, no matter if they had previously acted as opponents. The King of course preferred the peacemaking, uniting role of a Father. Furthermore, this corresponded also with the mass attitude towards political opposition.
The election results confirmed that this strategy was effective – the King’s movement received support both from adherents of UDF, and from MRF, and even from BSP. It wasn’t difficult for people with different political orientations to find something attractive in NMSS:
For the UDF supporters Simeon II stands on the same or close-to-the-same political pillars as their “blue party” in terms of the country’s development and its foreign- policy orientation, he had suffered from the communist regime (as an exile) and he would not be expected to have sympathy for the main political opponent – the ex- communists. He actually spent his life in the West and it is natural that his
24 See also: Leslie Holmes. Post-Communism. An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997, p. 264. 22 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01 sympathies would be pro-western. To the NMSS votes were also added those who were planning to restrain from taking part in the elections, and of those who were generally supporters of UDF, but were disappointed by them and would not vote for BSP.
At the same time BSP “red” supporters liked the fact that he was not a cheater or a corrupted person, he is more balanced and moderate in his political preferences, he was not a Russophobe, as many UDF people claimed they were, he envisions collaboration with Arabic countries, which could prove useful, and standing up to corruption and other recidivates of the previous government, he was expected to act anti-UDF, etc. Simeon himself gave away signals during the campaign that there could be some collaboration with socialists25. NMSS also gathered the votes of BSP supporters that had lost trust in their people, but would not vote for UDF.
On the other hand MRF people accepted the king as a traditionally honored figure, and he also gave a sign that he would let their representatives take over major political posts, in order to solve agricultural problems and unemployment in mixed ethical regions26.
Contributing to the success of the king was the votes of many people who were disappointed by all previous governments and politicians during the 90’s. Possibly also attracted to NDS were voters that were simply intrigued by the new political game seen during the last few months. Also here are the less significant voters over 75 years old of the “good old times” before World War II, including some members of pro-monarchial organizations.
Thus the NMSS electorate ended up with significantly colorful political contents, but still the strongest wave was the one coming away from UDF and BSP. This was undeniably proven by both pre-electoral and post-electoral probing. Results show that the part of non-voters was kept about the same, but the previous quotas of the “blue” and “red” electorate significantly decreased27.
So the electoral base for NMSS was wide enough for a definite victory. As one of indicators for the growing impact towards the king movement are the data from MBMD: if the trust towards Simeon II was 44.1% in December 2000, in April 2001 it was 63%, reaching 73.6% in the days of the elections.
25 Appointing two ministers close to socialists in the new cabinet confirmed these expectations. 26 Indeed after forming the coalition cabinet two recent mayors from the MRF became ministers – one of agriculture and food industry, the other as minister without portfolio. 27 An additional interesting aspect that proved the withdrawal from the 2 parties towards NMSS was supplied by a national representative survey conducted by MBMD on June 22 2001 (five days after the elections). The question was what party had the people voted for, and the results were strikingly contradictory to the real elections results: 44.8% for NMSS (about the same on the elections), 9.9% for UDF (in fact 18.18%), 9.6% for BSP (in fact 17.14%). A similar contradiction was demonstrated in surveys by BBSS “Gallup” and the National Center for research of the public opinion (the last one was conducted in the middle of 2001). It was probably people’s psychological inclination not to share publicly their “loss” and to prefer to run away from the “losers”. N. Tilkidjiev: The King as a Prime-Minister 23
7. Are Bulgarians disposed to restore the monarchy?
Does Simeon II want to reestablish the monarchy? Stated in another way this question would sound more rhetorical and even aimless: “Does the king want his kingdom back?” This is a question that excites many observers and commentators. Despite the King’s typical way of evading this question giving only conditional explanations, we can still find some revealing public statements. In front of the Russian magazine Itogi from June 11th, 2001 he gives a rather ambivalent clarification. “My only aim is to help get back the normal reign in the country. The fact that I am not a reigning monarch lets me use this transformed situation in accordance with my consciousness and beliefs. We have a wonderful democratic republic and this game ought to be played. I’ll have to wait until my ideas are accepted… The restoration of the monarchy indeed can make our lives more legal, more democratic and more constitutional.” Undoubtedly these words show some desire to restore the monarchy28 .
Of at least equal importance is the answer to the question: to what extent are Bulgarian voters prone to restore the monarchy? Because the last decision for this will be made by the main sovereign – Its Excellency the People – who can only speak through a referendum. If the situation comes to a referendum at all.
The data shows that the attitude towards the monarchial institute still does not prove any such orientation. According to the conducted surveys the monarchy is not among the desired state of political system. The data from the cited research “Political Culture in Central and Eastern Europe” from September 2000 show the monarchy is definitely among the variants for a form of government with low prestige in society.
It is interesting to note that the calculation underlying the responses is mostly negative, i.e. respondents are more inclined to say what type of government they do not accept. They find completely unacceptable (%):
28 The 1946 referendum for revoking the monarchy and establishing a republic is now argued by a series of politicians, who claim that this decision was highly dominated by the Russian observers and instructors. 24 F.I.T. Discussion Paper 12/01
Table 2: “What type of government is completely unacceptable?”
Military government 56,7 Government as the contemporary one 53,9 Restoration of the communist rule 44,8 Monarchy 40,1 Dictatorship 37,4 One party system 30,0 Powerful leader without parliament 29,7
For a more detailed picture it is good to keep in mind also the complete answer to the original question: “Isn’t it better to go back to monarchy?” It involves the
following distribution (Figure 8):