DOCSLIB.ORG

Bulgarian Post-Election Study October 1991

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bulgarian Post-Election Study October 1991 ZA-Archiv Nummer 2468 Bulgarian Pre-Election Study September 1991 - .NAPOC6 OCTOBER 1991 - QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What is your attitude to the activity of the following institutions and organizations ? - Approval 1 - Disapproval 2 - No definite opinion 3 a) PRESIDENCY b) cl POLICE d) UNION OF THE DEMOCRATIC FORCES /uDF/ e) BULGARIAN SOCIALIST PARTY /BSP/ f) UDF - LIBERALS g) UDF - CENTRE h) BULGARIAN AGRARIAN PARTY - UNITED i) BULGARIAN AGRARIAN PARTY - "N.PETKOV" 3 MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND FREEDOM /TURKS/ k) LABOUR CONFEDERATION "PODKREPA" 1) CONFEDERATION OF THE INDEPENDENT TRADE UNIONS IN 2. What is your attitude towards the following politicians ? - Approval 1 - Disapproval 2 - No definite opinion 3 1) Alexander Yordanov 2) Alexander Karakachanov 3) Alexander Lilov 4) Alexander Tomov 5) Andrey Loukanov 6) Ahmed Dogan 7) Victor Valkov 8) Ginyo Ganev 9) Dimitar Loudjev 10) Dimitar Popov ,ll) Zhelyo Zhelev 12) George Gantchev 13) Ivan Gloushkov 14) Ivan Kostov 15) Ivan Poushkarov 16) Konstantin Trentchev 17) Krastyo Petkov 18) Milan Drentchev 19) Michael Nedeltchev 20) Petar Dertliev 21) Simeon Kobourggotski 22) Slavomir Tzankov 23) Stefan Savov 24) Stoyan Ganev 25) Philip Dimitrov 26) Christofor Sabev 27) Tzenko Barev 28) Yanaki Stoilov 3. Which party have you voted for at the Parliamentary elections ? - UDF ., 1 - BSP 2 - MCRF /Turks/ 3 : , ’ - BAP-United 4 - BAP - "N.Petkov" 5 - UDF-Centre 6 -'UDF-Liberals 7 - BBP /Bulgarian Business Party/ 8 - BBB /Bulgarian Business Block/ 9 - confederation "Kingdom Bulgaria" 10 - BCP /Bulgarian Communist Party/ 11 - Other party 12 -,I have not voted 13 - I am not willing to say 14 ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT VOTED 3A. Did something withhold/prevent/ you from voting or you have decided in advance not to vote ? /AFTER ANSWERING, GO TO Q.4/ -1 have decided not to vote 1 .- I haven't voted because of the big queue in front of the electoral section, otherwise I should have been voted for . 2 - I have some problems with the registration that withholded me from voting, otherwise I should have been voted for . 3 - I have some other reason for not voting, otherwise I should have been voted for . ..*.......... 4 ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE VOTED 3B. When have you decided which party or political coalition to vote for ? - Even before the pre-election campaign 1 - During the pre-election campaign 2 - At the end of the pre-election campaign 3 - At the very election day 4 - I can't remember 5 FOR EVERYBODY 4. For the mayor of what party have you voted at the municipal elections ? - For the mayor of UDF 1 - For the mayor of BSP 2 - For the mayor of MCRF /Turks/ 3 - For the mayor of BAP-United 4 - For the mayor of BAP "N.Petkov" 5 - For the mayor of UDF-Centre 6 - For the mayor of UDF-Liberals 7 - For the mayor of other party 8 - For an independent mayor 9 - I haven't voted '10 - I am not willing to say 11 5. Are you satisfied with the election results ? - Yes - Rather yes : - Rather no 3 - No 4 - I haven't voted 5 c ’ - No definite opinion 6 6. Are you satisfied with the election result of the party you have voted for ? - Yes 1 - Rather yes 2 - Rather no 3 - No 4 - I haven't voted 5 - No definite opinion. 6 I. Was there any other party you had been hesitating whether to vote for ? If "YES", which one ? /For those, who hadn't voted, the question would be : Was there any party you had been hesitating whether to vote for ? If "YES", which one ? / - For UDF i - For BSP 2 - For MCRF /Turks/ 3 - For BAP-United 4 - For BAP "N . Petkov" 5 - For UDF-Centre 6 - For UDF-Liberals 7 - For BBP 8 - For BBB 9 - For Confederation "Kingdom Bulgaria" 10 - For BCP 11 - For other party 12 - No 13 8. According to you, what could be the importance of the election result for the future development of the country ? - The country would be developing to something better 1 - Nothing important could be changed 2 - The country would be going to something worse 3 - For the moment, I can't judge 4 9. According to you, would the election result have some impact onyour personal future ? - I think that now a better future comes up for me 1 - I don't believe that for me personally there would be any change 2 - I think that now a worse future comes up for me 3 - For the moment; I can't judge 4 10. Are you willing to say for whom you had voted in June 1990? - For UDF 1 - For BSP 2 - For MCRF /Turks/ 3 - For BAP 4 - For other party 5 - I had not voted 6 - I am not willing to say 7 3 11.. The presidential elections are forthcoming. Who is the most appropriate person for that post, according to you ? The options .for /Q.ll/ are as follows : - Zhelyo Zhelev - George Ganchev - Ginyo Ganev - Andrey Loukanov - Georgi Pirinski - Dimitar Popov' - Alexan,d,er Tomov - Philip Dimitrov - Petar Dertliev - Simeon Kobourggotski - Alexander Karakatchanov - Alexander Lilov - Victor Valkov - Stefan Savov - Stoyan Ganev - Dimitar Loudjev - Ahmed Dogan - Petar Mladenov - Ivan Kostov - Blagovest Sendov .- Chavdar Kyuranov - Roumen Vodenitcharov - Atanas Semerdjiev - Velko Valkanov - Milan Drentchev - Alexander Chirkov - Petko Simeonov - Philip Bokov - - Yanaki Stoilov - Alexander Yantchoulev 12. If the Parliamentary,elections are to be conducted now, which party would you vote for ? - For UDF 1 - For BSP 2 - For MCRF /Turks/ 3 - For BAP-United 4 - For BAP "N.Petkov" 5 - For UDE'-Centre - For UDF-Liberals 7" - For BBP 8 - For BBB 9 - For Confederation "Kingdom Bulgaria" 10. - For BCP 11 - For other party 12 - I wouldn't vote 13 13. What is your attitude towards the following ideas ? - Agree 1 - Disagree 2 '. - Can't judge 3 a) A danger of persecuting people because of their political views exists now b) It is right that representatives of the Bulgarian Turks could participate in the municipal authority bodies . c) BSP should be forbidden by law l d) It is right that MCRF/Turks/ could participate in Parliament e) Many people are now afraid.of expressing publicly their views on political matters f) It is necessary, in the shortest possible time, to give back or to compensate to the ex-owners /or to their heirs/ the city property, taken away from them after September 9th, 1944. g) The National Assembly should seize at first the property of the BSP h) UDF-Centre and UDF-Liberals should become anew members of UDF 14. It is known that UDF-Centre, UDF-Liberals, BAP "N.Petkov" and BAP-United couldn't have representatives in Parliament. How would you evaluate that fact .- as possitive or as negative one? - As a possitive fact .1 - As a fact with no importance 2 - As a negative fact 3 - I can't judge 4 15. What is your attitude towards.the following opinions, concerning the formation of the new Government ? - Agree 1 - Disagree 2 -'Can't judge 3 a) It would be favourable for the development of the country if UDF make a self-dependent Government b) BSP not to take part in the new Government c) It is possible for the new Government to have representatives of MCRF /Turks/ d) The best would be to form a Government of professionals, non dependent on any political party 16. /Showcard I/ On this showcard is given a couple of opposite 'views on the trend of social development, most generally speaking. The numbers between them show the degree of nearness and of remoteness to each of these opposites. Please, determine the place of your views on this issue by giving the respective number of the scale. /Showcard l/ Communism Anti-communism -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 17. /Showcard 2/ On this showcard is given a couple of opposite views on the National question. The numbers between them show the degree of nearness and of remoteness to each of these opposites. Please, determine the place of your views on this issue by giving the respective number of the scale. /Showcard 21 Anti-nationalism Nationalism Unipositioning and Priority of national self-determination of all interests. Restriction of ethnic groups the rights of minorities. Banner for foreign citizens to buy immovable property -5 -4 '-,3 -2 -1 0 ,l 2 3' 4 5 18. /Showcard 3/ On tthis showcard is given a couple of opposite views on the economic development of the country. The numbers between them show the degree of nearness and of remote- ness to each of these opposites. Please, determine the place of your views on this issue by giving the respective number of the scale. /Showcard 3/ Free market economy. State controlled Low taxes on high incomes. economy. Strongly Free competition and trade. developed social security system. High taxes on high incomes. Low level of unemploy- ment. -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 19. /Showcard 4/.On,this showcard is given a couple of opposite views on the type of state system. The numbers between them show the degree of nearness and of remoteness to each of these opposites. Please, determine the place of your views on this issue by giving the respective number of the scale. /Showcard 4/ Republic Monarchy -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 20. Which of the following statements refers to you ? - I am getting into debts more and more 1 - For making both ends meet I have to cut down my savings regularly 2 - My money are just enough not to get into debts and not to cut down my savings 3 - I am managing to make some savings 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bulgaria – the Difficult “Return to Europe”
    European Democracy in Action BULGARIA – THE DIFFICULT “RETURN TO EUROPE” TAMARA BUSCHEK Against the background of the EU accession of Bulgaria on 1st January 2007 and the first Bulgarian elections for the European Parliament on 20th May 2007, Tamara Buschek takes a closer look at Bulgaria’s uneven political and economic transition – at its difficult “return to Europe”. Graduated from Graz University (Austria) in 2003 with a Masters in Law [magistra juris] after finishing her studies in European and international law. After gaining a grant from the Chamber of Commerce in 2000 to complete an internship at the Austrian Embassy in London, she carried out research for her dissertation in criminal law – “The Prevention of Sexual Child Abuse – Austria/Great Britain” - in 2001 at the London School of Economics. She studied European and administrative law in Paris from 2001 to 2002 as part of an Erasmus year. She is quadrilingual (German, Bulgarian, English and French). « BULGARIA – THE DIFFICULT RETURN TO EUROPE » MAY 2007 Table of Contents Introduction P. 1 2.3 The current governmental coalition, 2005-2007 and the P. 21 presidential election in 2006 I – Background Information P. 3 III - The first European Parliament elections, 20 May 2007 P. 25 1.1 Hopes and Fears P. 3 Conclusion P. 30 1.2 Ethnic Minorities P. 5 1.3 Economic Facts P. 7 Annex P. 32 II – Political Situation- a difficult path towards stability P. 9 Annex 1: Key facts P. 32 2.1 The transition from 1989 till 2001 P. 9 Annex 2: Economic Profile P. 33 2.1.1 The legislative elections of 1990 and the first P.
    [Show full text]
  • There Has Been No Bulgarian Tradition of Any Long-Standing Resistance to the Communist Regime
    There has been no Bulgarian tradition of any long-standing resistance to the communist regime. There was neither any political opposition, nor any other kind of an influential dissident movement. Bulgaria never went through the purgatory of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, or the “Prague spring” of 1968. It is indeed difficult to find any counter arguments whatsoever against the cliché that Bul- garia was the closest satellite of the Soviet Union. The fundamental contradictions within the Union of Democratic Forces (SDS) coalition were present from the very first day of its inception. There were Marxists who were longing for “socialism with a human face”, intellectuals with liberal ideas, social democrats and Christian democrats, conservatives and radical demo- crats, monarchists and republicans. The members of the center-right coalition did not delude themselves about their differences; they rather shared the clear un- derstanding that only a painful compromise could stand some chances against the Goliath of the totalitarian Bulgarian Communist Party (BKP). It was this unani- mous opposition to the communist regime and its legacy that made the coalition possible. But only for a limited period of time. The United Democratic Forces (ODS) government under Prime Minister Ivan Kostov (1997-2001) completed the reformist agenda of anti-communism. At the end of the ODS term of office, Bulgaria was a country with a functioning market economy, stable democracy, and a clearly outlined foreign policy course towards the country’s accession to the European Union and NATO, which was accepted by all significant political formations, the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) included.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Key Events
    Chronology of key events 1990 13 July 1990 With a Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bulgaria accepts the invitation extended by NATO to establish regular diplomatic liaison. Mrs. Lea Cohen, Bulgarian Ambassador to Belgium, is authorized to maintain diplomatic liaison with NATO. 1991 4 April 1991 Establishment of the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria, the first non-governmental Atlantic association outside NATO member states. Since October 1992, the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria has been associated with the Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA), initially as an observer and later as an associate member. 12-14 June 1991 Dr Manfred Wörner pays the first official visit of NATO Secretary General to Bulgaria. 20 December 1991 Bulgaria participates as a co-founding state in the inaugural meeting of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC). 1994 14 February 1994 The President of Bulgaria, Zhelyu Zhelev, signs the Partnership for Peace Framework Document at NATO Headquarters. 25 November 1994 Bulgarian Deputy Foreign Minister Todor Churov visits NATO Headquarters. Bulgaria’s PfP Individual Partnership Program with NATO is formally accepted. 1995 28 September 1995 Bulgaria participates in a meeting at NATO Headquarters for a presentation of the conclusions of the Study on NATO Enlargement to NACC and PfP Cooperation partners. 16 October 1995 Bulgaria accedes to the Status of Forces Agreement between the NATO member states and the PfP countries (ratified by the National Assembly on 5 April 1996). 1996 1996-1998 Bulgaria participates in a number of meetings with NATO within the Intensified Dialogue with interested partners on NATO membership issues. 2-3 May 1996 NATO Secretary General Javier Solana visits Bulgaria.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgaria Political Party '. Development Assistance Assessment & Program Design
    BULGARIA POLITICAL PARTY '. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ASSESSMENT & PROGRAM DESIGN Preparedfor: U.S. Agency For International Development/Bulgaria Democracy & Local Governance Office Prepared by: Mark Hopkins, M.A. Sarah Birch, Ph.D. & John Mason, Ph.D. (Team Leader) Consultants for: Developmeut Associates, Inc. 1730 N. Lynn Street Arlington, VA 22209-2023 (703) 276-0677 April 29, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acronyms 1lI Executive Summary iv Chapter 1: Introduction I A. Purpose I B. Background I C. Methodology and Research Perspective 2 D. Organization ofthe Report 4 Chapter 2: Constraints to Enhanced Party Electoral Competitiveness 5 A. The Setting 5 B. Cultural and Social Attitudes towards Political Parties 5 C. Legal Framework ofParties, Voting Systems and Elections 7 D. Impact ofLocal Elections on Party Behavior 8 E. Party Election Campaign Capacity 9 Chapter 3: Challenges to Formation of Effective Party Structures 12 A. Overall Organizational Status ofParties 12 B. Internal Organizational Development 13 C. Institutionalization ofParty Structure 15 D. Prospects for Party Reform IS E. The Needs ofWomen in Politics 16 F. Youth Needs 18 Chapter 4: Potential for Effective Party Governance 21 A. Outreach Capacity 21 B. Links to Advocacy Groups and the Media 27 C. Coalition-Building Experience 29 D. Role ofthe Opposition 29 Chapter 5: An Overview ofDonor Experience in Assisting Party Development 31 A. u.S. Experience in Direct Support ofParty Development 31 B. Other Donor Experience in Direct Support ofthe Political Party Process 34 C. USAID Experience in Indirect Support ofParty System Development.. 35 • D. Future Plans and Potential Donor Cooperation 38 PoliJical Party Deve1JJpment April 2002 in Bulgaria ....' Development Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto
    Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto By Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Trinity College and the Theological Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar 2016 Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian group in Toronto PhD 2016 Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar University of St.Michael’s College Abstract This study explores how the Macedono-Bulgarian and Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox churches in Toronto have attuned themselves to the immigrant community—specifically to post-1990 immigrants who, while unchurched and predominantly secular, have revived diaspora churches. This paradox raises questions about the ways that religious institutions operate in diaspora, distinct from their operations in the country of origin. This study proposes and develops the concept “institutional vernacularization” as an analytical category that facilitates assessment of how a religious institution relates to communal factors. I propose this as an alternative to secularization, which inadequately captures the diaspora dynamics. While continuing to adhere to their creeds and confessional symbols, diaspora churches shifted focus to communal agency and produced new collective and “popular” values. The community is not only a passive recipient of the spiritual gifts but is also a partner, who suggests new forms of interaction. In this sense, the diaspora church is engaged in vernacular discourse. The notion of institutional vernacularization is tested against the empirical results of field work in four Greater Toronto Area churches.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Communism, Neoliberalisation, Fascism by Bozhin Stiliyanov
    Post-Socialist Blues Within Real Existing Capitalism: Anti-Communism, Neoliberalisation, Fascism by Bozhin Stiliyanov Traykov A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology University of Alberta © Bozhin Stiliyanov Traykov, 2020 Abstract This project draws on Alex William’s (2020) contribution to Gramscian studies with the concept of complex hegemony as an emergent, dynamic and fragile process of acquiring power in socio- political economic systems. It examines anti-communism as an ideological element of neoliberal complex hegemony in Bulgaria. By employing a Gramcian politico-historical analysis I explore examples of material and discursive ideological practices of anti-communism. I show that in Bulgaria, anti-communism strives to operate as hegemonic, common-sensual ideology through legislative acts, production of historiography, cultural and educational texts, and newly invented traditions. The project examines the process of rehabilitation of fascist figures and rise of extreme nationalism, together with discrediting of the anti-fascist struggle and demonizing of the welfare state within the totalitarian framework of anti-communism. Historians Enzo Traverso (2016, 2019), Domenico Losurdo (2011) and Ishay Landa (2010, 2016) have traced the undemocratic roots of economic liberalism and its (now silenced) support of fascism against the “Bolshevik threat.” They have shown that, whether enunciated by fascist regimes or by (neo)liberal intellectuals, anti-communism is deeply undemocratic and shares deep mass-phobic disdain for political organizing of the majority. In this dissertation I argue that, in Bulgaria, anti- communism has not only opened the ideological space for extreme right and fascist politics, it has demoralized left political organizing by attacking any attempts for a politics of socio- economic justice as tyrannical.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgaria Country Report BTI 2003
    Bulgaria Status Index 7.7 Management Index 6.4 (Democracy: 4.0 / Market Economy: 3.7) System of Government Parliamentary Population 8.0 Mio. Democracy GDP p. c. ($, PPP) 6,890 Voter turnout 67.03 (2002) Unemployment rate 19.5 % Women in Parliament 26.3 % HDI 0.795 Population growth -0.3 % UN-Education Index 0.91 Largest ethnic minority 9.4 % (1992) Gini-Index 31.9 Figures for 2001 – if not indicated otherwise. a) Annual growth between 1975 and 2001. Source: UNDP: Human Development Report 2003. 1. Introduction The beginning of the period under study coincided roughly with the formation of the Union of Democratic Forces (SDS) government under Ivan Kostov in early 1997. The previous Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) government under Zhan Videnov had run Bulgaria’s economy to ruin during its short mandate from January 25, 1995 to December 28, 1996, and was forced out by popular demand. Ivan Kostov’s SDS-led government, in power from May 23, 1997 to July 24, 2001, is, to date, the only government since 1990 to have completed a full term of office. Although it was able to bring stability to the country and its macroeconomic situation, the SDS-led government was ousted in the June 17, 2001 elections by former czar Simeon II Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and his three-month- old party the National Movement for Simeon II (NDSV). The SDS lost the election because it had been unable to improve economic conditions for the average person and because voters had placed unrealistic hopes in the former czar. This report concludes that, despite all apparent political and macroeconomic stabilization since the 1997 crisis, severe deficiencies remain in regard to the rule of law; administrative efficiency; and the fight against organized crime, corruption and mafia structures (Bulgaria ranks 45th in the Corruption Perception Index with a score of 4.0).
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing the Causes of Terrorism the Club De Madrid Series on Democracy and Terrorism Volume I
    Addressing the Causes of Terrorism The Club de Madrid Series on Democracy and Terrorism Volume I THE INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT ON DEMOCRACY, TERRORISM AND SECURITY 8 11March2005Madrid THE INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT ON DEMOCRACY, TERRORISM AND SECURITY 8 11March2005Madrid Addressing the Causes of Terrorism The Club de Madrid Series on Democracy and Terrorism Volume I The opinions expressed in individual papers are based on the discussions of the working groups at the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security. They reflect the views of their authors, but not necessarily those of the Club de Madrid or any of its members. The Club de Madrid Series on Democracy and Terrorism is available in Spanish and English. To order additional copies, please write to: Club de Madrid Felipe IV, 9 – 3º izqda. 28014 Madrid Spain Tel: +34 91 523 72 16 Fax: +34 91 532 00 88 Email: [email protected] © Club de Madrid, 2005 Series editor: Peter R. Neumann Editorial Assistance: Henrik A. Lund and Milburn Line Production: ESC/Scholz & Friends Contents Introduction by Kim Campbell 5 Addressing the Causes of Terrorism Psychology By Jerrold M. Post 7 Political Explanations By Martha Crenshaw 13 Economic Factors By Ted Robert Gurr 19 Religion By Mark Juergensmeyer 27 Culture By Jessica Stern 35 The Club de Madrid Mission and Activities 41 List of Members 42 The Madrid Summit 45 The Madrid Agenda 47 Introduction to the Club de Madrid Series on Democracy and Terrorism Dear friend, I am delighted to introduce the Club de Madrid Series on Democracy and Terrorism. The policy papers that can be found in this volume are the result of an unparalleled process of debate which culminated at the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security in Madrid in March 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgaria: the Greatest Vacillations Simeon Djankov March 1, 2014 In
    Bulgaria: The Greatest Vacillations Simeon Djankov March 1, 2014 In one of the most famous economics books, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter (1942) predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism. I grew up in the last two decades of socialism in Bulgaria and as students we were repeatedly told that socialism would prevail in the whole world, and that in Bulgaria it would soon enter its ultimate form, communism. Then everything would be free and nobody would have to work, unless they wanted to. A strange thing to tell children. Luckily, few believed. In the summer of 1989 I finished high-school and took the entrance exams in international relations at the Karl Marx Institute of Economics in Sofia. In my graduating high-school class was also the grandson of the Secretary General of the Bulgarian Communist Party Todor Zhivkov. He, too, fancied a career in diplomacy. This was a problem. There were rigid quotas for entering international studies – for fear of students taking off to the West after graduation – and in that particular year there was only one slot allotted for diplomacy. As luck had it, Zhivkov Junior failed the exams and did what most offspring of totalitarian leaders had done before – went to study in Switzerland. And I entered the Karl Marx Institute. I did not stay long at the Karl Marx Institute, and neither did its name. In December 1988 during a speech at the United Nations Council in New York, Mikhail Gorbachev had declared that the Soviet Union would no longer intervene in the international affairs of other countries from the socialist bloc.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Years Freedom in Bulgaria
    25 YEARS FREEDOM IN BULGARIA CIVIC EDUCATION | TRANSITION | BERLIN WALL | PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA | FREEDOM | 1989 | INTERPRETATIONS | OPEN LESSONS | MYTHS | LEGENDS | TOTALITARIAN PAST | DESTALINIZATION | BELENE CAMPS | GEORGI MARKOV | FUTURE | CITIZENS | EAST | WEST | SECURITY SERVICE | ECOGLASNOST | CIVIL DUTY AWARD | ANNIVERSARY | COMMUNISM | CAPITALISM | ARCHIVES | REMEMBRANCE| DISSIDENTS | ZHELYO ZHELEV | RADIO FREE EUROPE | VISEGRAD FOUR | HISTORY| POLITICAL STANDARTS | RULE OF LAW | FREE MEDIA | NOSTALGIA | REGIME| MEMORIES | RATIONALIZATION | HUMAN RIGHTS | HOPE | NOW AND THEN | DISCUSSING | VISUAL EVIDENCES | REPRESSIONS | HERITAGE | INTELLECTUAL ELITE | IRON CURTAIN | CENCORSHIP | GENERATIONS | LESSONS | TRANSFORMATION | TODOR ZHIVKOV | COLD WAR | INSTITUTIONS | BEGINNING | INFORMATION | RECONCILIATION | FACTS | EXPERIENCES | CONSENSUS | DISTORTIONS | MARKET ECONOMY | REFORM | UNEMPLOYMENT | THE BIG EXCURSION | IDEOLOGY | PUBLIC OPINION | NATIONAL INITIATIVE | TRUTH | ELECTIONS years ee B 25 years free Bulgaria is a civic initiative under the auspices of the President of Bulgaria, organized by Sofia Platform Fr ulgaria years CONTENT ee B Fr ulgaria CIVIC EDUCATION | TRANSITION | BERLIN WALL | PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA | FREEDOM | 1989 | INTERPRETATIONS | OPEN LESSONS | MYTHS | LEGENDS | TOTALITARIAN PAST | 1. 25 Years Freedom in Bulgaria 02 DESTALINIZATION | BELENE CAMPS | GEORGI MARKOV | FUTURE | CITIZENS | EAST | WEST | SECURITY 2. Remembrance and Culture 04 SERVICE | ECOGLASNOST | CIVIL DUTY AWARD
    [Show full text]
  • President Clinton's Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign
    President Clinton’s Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign Leaders, Representatives, and Dignitaries from January 23, 1993 thru January 19, 20011∗ 1993 Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, January 23, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, January 23, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine, January 26, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, January 29, 1993, White House Telephone call with Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel of Turkey, February 1, 1993, White House Meeting with Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel of Germany, February 4, 1993, White House Meeting with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, February 5, 1993, White House Meeting with President Turgut Ozal of Turkey, February 8, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus, February 9, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom, February 10, 1993, White House Telephone call with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, February 10, 1993, White House 1∗ Meetings that were only photo or ceremonial events are not included in this list. Meeting with Foreign Minister Michio Watanabe of Japan, February 11, 1993,
    [Show full text]
  • Blagovest Sendov February 8, 1932-January 19
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Journal of Approximation Theory 254 (2020) 105406 www.elsevier.com/locate/jat In Memoriam: Blagovest Sendov February 8, 1932–January 19, 2020 Blagovest Hristov Sendov was born on February 8, 1932 in Asenovgrad, Bulgaria. From a very early age, Sendov showed an exceptional talent for mathematics. His strong desire to study mathematics at the Sofia University however could not be realized immediately. Being from a bourgeois family he was not allowed to study at the University. The communist system in Bulgaria at that time did not let young people of unreliable bourgeois background into higher education. With his typical perseverance and creativity he managed to overcome this first serious obstacle in his life. After being a laborer for three years, cleaning the streets in Sofia, he was admitted to Sofia University. Bl. Sendov graduated from the Department of Mathematics at Sofia University in 1956 (a year earlier than his classmates). Immediately after thathewas admitted as a graduate student in the same department, but again for political reasons he was not allowed to continue his education. He had to work as a teacher for two years. With the very strong support of the mathematics professors (most importantly Prof. N. Obreshkov) Bl. Sendov was appointed in 1958 as an assistant professor in the Department of Mathematics. With his enormous energy, perseverance, strong will and ingenuity Bl. Sendov succeeded in developing a brilliant professional career. He was promoted to associate professor in 1963 and to full professor 1968. In 1964 he was awarded a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]