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.