Throughout this semester we have evaluated different political structures and discussed the attitude, theories, and values that are associated with those structures. Because understanding different cultures has become so increasingly important in today’s world, it is a worthy investment to understand the political systems of which different societies operate. From the Comparative Method, to ticketed UN diplomats, to authoritarianism, we have discussed why political systems function the way they do and what motivates reforms toward freedom or oppression.
More importantly than the technical definition of “Comparative Politics”, however, is the way in which we now apply the knowledge we have acquired of different political systems. Now that we have acquired a greater understanding of political institutions and what motivates their operation, we now have a new set of tools than can affect attitudes and policy implementation. Personally, I believe this course incurs the most success when it equips students to have informed opinions as to what makes international political institutions “tick”. This course study of Comparative Politics was a success to me because it gives me valuable approaches to analyzing events in other parts of the world. Whether we’re talking about international humanitarian crises or the preservation of liberty, I have gained a more informed Worldview through the study of Comparative Politics.
Like Andrew, it was very interesting for me to participate in this activity. I could very well relate to it, because when I was still living in Bulgaria in the summer of 2005, I witnessed the same situation. The “Bulgarian Socialist Party” had the most votes (33.98%), but it needed to form a coalition in order to have a majority and form a stable government. Those were times of great bargaining, or “пазаруване” as we say in Bulgaria, because it was well known that Bulgaria would be accepted into the European Union — so everyone wanted a place in the ruling coalition. At first the BSP wanted to form a coalition with the “Movement for Right and Freedoms.” However, the parliament voted against its staff. Later on, seeing that there is no other way and the stability of the country is at question, the two parties decided to let the “National Movement Simeon II” into the coalition and that is how a “grand coalition” was formed. Very similarly to our mock elections, there was a great deal of negotiation about which party is going to have a representative in one or more of the Bulgarian ministries.
As you can see, I wasn’t surprised at all when I saw all of those shady negotiations/bargaining, because I understand that they are also an important part of politics. However, the real problem comes when in their effort to provide a strong coalition, the parliament fails to predict how efficient this coalition is going to be in the future. Bellow you can find a Bulgarian add telling the people to vote.
“Did you decide which party you are going to vote for?”
This isn’t our official “required” post for the week, but I wanted to take a minute to comment on our in-class experience in the Mock German Elections. I had read/heard about different democratic political systems before, but this is by far the most interaction and experience I’ve had. It was interesting to participate in a hands-on environment and simulate the election process of another country. Once elected the SPD winner for District 2, I (as well as my party) faced the challenging and rewarding task of forming a coalition with other parties in order to obtain a majority in the Bundestag. This was particularly difficult because we had to negotiate and compromise on issues without selling out our party platform. Eventually, the SDP, CDU, and Green parties were able to overcome differences and combine their strength to beat the FDP. I thoroughly enjoyed this eye-opening experience.
The United States is sometimes referred to the bedrock of Democracy in the West. Structurally and culturally, democratic concepts and values have been hardwired into the foundation American society. While the United States is technically a Republic, power is ultimately vested and executed by the people at-large. Both social and economic institutions have played an extremely important role in the development of the democratic process in the United States. The institution of Capitalism and relatively free-markets, according to Fareed Zakaria, plays and enormous role in the development of a democracy and this has certainly been true for the United States. Socially, the United States also fulfills all of the outlined requirements articulated by Schmitter and Karl for that of a successful democracy. On issues ranging from Constitutional accountability, popular elections, freedom of expression, information outlets, and the formation of independent organizations more than qualifies the United States as a democratic powerhouse.
It is quite clear that Bulgaria has made great strides in the realm of democracy since the fall of the USSR. Structurally, Bulgaria has made great strides in helping the progression of freedom and democratic values. Free elections have been held and there has been quite a capitalist movement in the last decade. In fact, the Heritage Foundation recently marked Bulgaria with an 86% free trade rating, signaling the progression of free markets in a democratic country. Culturally, Bulgaria has experienced slightly more difficult obstacles in perpetuating democracy…and understandably so. There are still vast percentages of generations that have the memory of the Soviet Union still ingrained into their past. Although private press outlets are allowed, the state still provides much of the information to its citizens. Fortunately, critics are becoming a bit more optimistic about Bulgaria’s future in light of recent free elections and substantial voter turnout. (See the Social-Democrats political advertisement below). Regardless, Freedom House continues to mark either maintained or enhanced progress in most indexes contributing to free, democratic states.
Patrick O’Neal defines nationalism, as “a pride in one’s people and the belief that they have their own sovereign political destiny that is separate from that of others” (48).The concept of nationalism can often be taken to the extreme.One such case is the “National Union Attack’” which is a nationalist political party in Bulgaria.
“The party’s two program documents, the ‘20 Principles’ and the ‘Program Scheme’ feature a number of nationalistic characteristics. They define Bulgaria as a one-nation state and assert the supremacy of the state and the ‘Bulgarian nation’ above ethnic and religious diversity, but at the same time want to have an official religion and participation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in legislative work and in all important government decisions, as well as teaching of that Church’s doctrine in primary school. The ‘20 Principles’ envisage formulating a crime of ‘national betrayal’ and criminal prosecution of the ‘national traitors’.” Source
It is interesting how fast Attack managed to draw attention and get 9% of the legislative elections in 2005.Moreover, it succeeded in sending some of its members to represent Bulgaria in the European Union.One would ask why such a party, with so radical political views, got popular in a short amount of time?
Since the main topic of this blog is about the democratization of Bulgaria, it would be helpful to see how the issue with ethnic minorities was dealt when Todor Zhivkov (discussed previously) was in power.Under Zhivkov, the members of the Turkish minority who lived in Bulgaria had to change their names with Bulgarian ones.Moreover, they were not allowed to freely practice their religion and speak their language.The fall of Zhivko’s communist regime brought a change.Turks were allowed to restore their Turkish name, practice their religion and speak their native language.Most importantly, they were allowed to form a party called “Freedom and Rights Movement.”
The catalyst for the “National Union Attack” to do so well in recent years is that the “Freedom and Rights Movement” is in the current ruling coalition.Furthermore, it gives more reasons for the proponents of the “National Union Attack” to assume that the minorities have too many privileges.Another reason, which coincides with one of the more recent discussions in the Comperative Politics class, is the fact that the electoral system rather than the level of ethnic diversity is usually a source of tension.It is a widely known fact that Ahmed Dogan, the leader of the “Freedom and Rights Movement,” uses a loophole in the electoral system in order to pay for buses to drive ethnic Bulgarians living in Turkey to vote for members of the “Freedom and Rights Movement” and change the outcome of the vote for their advantage.The video bellow was taken during an election day when a group of Bulgarians formed a blockade in order to stop one such bus with potential voters.
Many argue that the relative success of the nationalist party is a normal phenomena and a direct outcome of the creation of of the “Freedom and Rights Movement.” Which brings up the question — do most people “turn on” their nationalistic identities only when somebody tells them that their country is under threat? And more importantly, is a party with such radical views a part of the problem or a part of the solution? I think that in times when there is a wide disapproval of the current political parties in charge, a nationalistic party has a bigger chance to gain popularity.
Works Cited
O’Neil, Patrick. Essentials of Comparative Politics. Second Edition. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2007.
The political culture surrounding systems of government in two different countries can provide valuable insights to their status as states. One would expect two different countries, like the United States and Bulgaria, to have different factors and roles of institutions, but ascertaining the extent of those factors can help one understand HOW those norms and institutions cause a society to function the way it does.
In a developed democracy like the United States, classical liberalism characterizes the basis of most institutions. While welfare does exist in the US, the attitude of most political settings is such that the government should take a back-burner position in most situations. The most basic forms of legislation have their roots in the belief that the people ultimately have autonomy in controlling their affairs. Rights of the individual are the emphasis. This concept can be observed in the immense faith placed in our family and religious structures. Many US citizens approach their affairs from a “help yourself” perspective. The unequal nature of our capitalistic economic structure emphasizes a political culture of classical liberal thought as well. Citizens in the US perceive the government as more of a hindrance that should, in most circumstances, not control the intricacies of people’s lives.
An emerging democracy like Bulgaria approaches its political affairs from a different perspective. Bulgaria has enjoyed its existence as a democratic state for less than two decades. The principles and philosophy surrounding a totalitarian variation of communism only fell from ting the political structure in 1990. With the memory of the Soviet Union still fresh in the minds of the middle-aged population, the approach to dealing with issues in a democracy is both new and largely unexplored. Unlike the United States, Bulgaria still has a substantial population favoring a socialist system of government controlled by an elite few. Therefore, the means and institutions used to deal with issues in this relatively new democracy are different from that of the United States. As depicted in the video below, Bulgarians don’t perceive the same level of autonomy in controlling their institutions. Therefore, it is necessary for them to become more proactive and involved in changing political activity through petitioning their government. One of the most influential and prominent changes in Bulgarian political culture occurred during the 1997 political protests in the capital city of Sofia. Tens of thousands of people were protesting daily against the government of former Communist (now Socialist) Zhan Videnov, and calling for early elections to maintain democracy.
We decided our topic to be concerned with the democratization in the post-communist world. Since I, Zhivko, am from Bulgaria and thus have a deeper knowledge of that subject and Andrew is from the US, we think that it would be a very good idea to compare Bulgaria’s transition into a democracy with the already established and used as an example democracy in the US. We think that, the fact that we were born and raised in two very different countries would prove beneficial (especially when using the qualitative method of research). To give you some idea of the history of Bulgaria prior to its democratic transition I have collected information from various web sites.
“The History of Communist Bulgaria encompasses the period of Bulgarian history between 1944 and 1989. During this time, the country was known as the People’s Republic of Bulgaria (PRB) (Bulgarian: Народна република България, Narodna republika Balgariya) and was under the administration of the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP). BCP transformed itself in 1990, changing its name to Bulgarian Socialist Party, and is currently part of the governing coalition government. Bulgaria was an Eastern Block Soviet satellite state during the Cold War, a member of the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon.” Link
Todor Zhivkov (click here for information about him), has been associated with communism in Bulgaria. The concept of charismatic legitimacy, which is in our current readings, can be applied very well in this situation. Zhivkov possessed that kind of legitimacy which allowed him to rule Bulgaria for 33 years (1944-1989). The first free elections since 1931 were held in 1990, paving the way for democracy.
Bellow you will find two videos. One is from a Russian channel which was one of the only choices that Bulgarians could watch prior to 1974. The other one is from a modern, private-owned channel called BTV which shows Bush’s recent visit to Bulgaria. It is a very radical example, yet it is interesting to see it.
“For many years, without translation and the only choice on a Friday night, until Bulgarian TV started its second channel in 1974″
