What the Bulgarian protesters mean by “EU, are you blind?”
Bulgaria’s first step into parliamentary democracy came in 1991 with the fall of the communist regime under Todor Jhivkov. Since then, corruption has been embedded in Bulgaria’s system, ensuring an absence of press freedom, rule of law, and other fundamental notions of democracy. Under the Borissov government, the situation has gotten increasingly worse, which is why 2020 saw the biggest protest in the country’s history. The EU seems to be equipped to respond to the public outcry for long-awaited democracy. But why isn't the EU tending to the issue, when the union has an interest in preserving democracy and Bulgaria is living up to its title as the poorest member state?
Build up to the protests
On the 7th of July 2020, a seaside-villa scandal made the national news. Onboard of a small boat, Hristo Ivanov, a former justice minister and leader of the “Yes, Bulgaria’’ anti-corruption party, live-streamed reaching the shore of a private beach to inquire into the villa’s owner and resident — Ahmed Dogan. Dogan is the founder and representative of Bulgaria’s ethnic Turkish minority party (DPS) and one of the most powerful politicians in the country. He had illegally taken over land and coastal beaches, which by law are public property. Ivanov was met by National Security Services (NSO) on the beach, threatened and pushed into the water. The president and leader of the Socialist party BSP Rumen Radev commented that Mr. Dogan is not allowed such protection. Reportedly, NSO was providing security for another member of DPS: Delyan Peevski, a media oligarch.
On the 8th of July, an inquiry was made into their position to receive tax-paid beach security, which prompted the president to call for said protection to be withdrawn. It seemed as though Radev’s criticism was not left unnoticed, as the next day police raided his office, on chief prosecutor Ivan Geshev’s notice, and detained two aides on various baseless charges. The government did not drop the charges. Anger intensified among citizens over the chief prosecutor’s notice which seemed to be another example of his paralegal approach and a few weeks later it was the judiciary and the government that were being asked to step down.
On the 9th of July, thousands gathered on the streets marking the first day of peaceful protests. In an article by Foreign Policy, the events leading up to the protests were summarized as small samples of the many corrupt practices within the system. The practices are corrupt because they allow those with power and means to be above the law and consequently, provide the mechanisms of the judiciary which work in their favour. The stakes of the protest are seen as the last preventative measure to ensure autocratization is halted in the EU’s poorest member state.
Historical context of Bulgarian democracy
Corruption has not gradually risen over time, but rather has been the building block of the country’s contemporary political dynamics, as the data from Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index suggests. Bulgaria’s political regime drastically changed with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 — Bulgaria’s long-term totalitarian leader Todor Zhivkov stepped down. In the following years, a group of oligarchs took control over a large portion of the economy as the successive government struggled to overhaul the country’s institutions. Over time, despite economic growth weakening their control, most oligarchs maintained their political connections. Institutional corruption within the country has been largely observed in hostile takeovers of businesses and procurements. Procurement is not transparent and fair, because money is transferred to the politicians’ own companies, thereby pouring state money into private-owned bank accounts. The fact that this is happening is obvious in infrastructure — instances of billions of Euros poured into highways and streets which collapse in a short timespan, ensuring the continuous string of expensive repairment done by companies, owned by politicians.
A former firefighter and leader of the center-right party GERB, the current Prime Minister Boyko Borissov has been dominating Bulgaria’s politics with a mix of patronage and populism for more than a decade. During his time, democratic backsliding has significantly increased. Three basic elements of democracy have been breached: 1) the separation of powers, threatened by the sole candidate chief prosecutor Ivan Geshev; 2) freedom of the press restricted by media moguls such as Delyan Peevski; 3) increasing institutional corruption. As a result, the demands of the protests call for the resignation of Geshev, Borissov and his cabinet.
Bulgaria and the EU
The government responded to the protests’ demands by announcing a “restart of the system” with a draft for a new constitution. Under scrutiny, the proposed changes support the autocratization process and render the people’s vote useless: basic rights were removed, parliamentary seats were reduced by half; the power of the chief prosecutor increased and that of the president and justice minister — diminished. This comes to no surprise as the draft was suggested by Borissov and laid well with his political interests: the president and justice minister is where his political opposition lies. The significance of the proposed amendments is that Bulgaria’s future will be largely dependent on the self-interest of politicians who craft a system that sits comfortably in their favour.
Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party where Borissov’s loyalty lies, expressed his support for the Borissov government in their “anti-corruption” battle. The statement was based on subjective evidence provided to him by the government, and with little connection to actual data. Despite Bulgaria’s EU funding being cut in 2008 due to corruption, EU Values and Transparency Commissioner Věra Jourová stressed that the European Commission is powerless in a situation whereby problems fill throughout an EU member country: “ the Commission cannot do much if the things go too wrong in the member state … We have to bear in mind what the Commission is and isn’t.”. The Commission’s position highlighted a loss for the protesters, who sought for the European Union to hold the government accountable, rather than providing a soft approach to the situation. The EU’s consideration of the issue began long after the protests had commenced, hence why one of the main mottos born out of the protests has been “EU are you blind?”. The motto asked both why the EU failed to acknowledge the protests and why is the union not interfering when there is strong evidence to suggest a history and continuation of misuse of EU funds.
It is in the EU’s interest to take part in the discussion of Bulgaria’s political situation. The misuse of EU funds within a member state harms the taxpayers in the whole of the union. Since the union has a responsibility to provide security to those funds, Bulgaria’s crisis is posing a threat to the union’s principles. The bloc should also hold accountable those member states who are acting against the basic principles of democracy, agreed upon entry via the Copenhagen criteria. Even though the Commissions’ statement suggested they would not interfere, under pressure from the Government to pass a new constitution, the Venice Council criticized the government’s breach of democratic principles four months after the beginning of the protests. This event was crucial, as it proved the EU could interfere and it could prove effective.
Given the importance the EU places on anti-corruption policies, Boyko Borissov still managed to secure a 29 billion funding package from the bloc in 2020. A new instrument to ensure countries are following the rule of law is currently discussed by the EU. It proposes the rule of law is upheld within a member country, otherwise, their funding will be frozen. Hungary and Poland have been the first to potentially suffer from freezing of their EU funding, which is why they blocked the EU budget. The secured funds for Bulgaria in 2020 are at a high stake. Whether democratic backsliding in the country will slow its course might largely depend on the EU’s actions.
