POLITICAL SCIENTIST: When parties are on the brink, they PROMISE more. The campaign will be muddy – they are mobilizing the hard cores according to the good versus bad formula

Follow us on Google News Showcase

When parties are on the edge, they promise more. See liberalization and electricity prices. There is a rule that such socially significant measures are taken at the beginning of a longer governing term, so that the higher trust can be used then, and by governments with higher trust. And recently, we mainly have official offices, and the regular ones enjoy extremely low support. The overarching goal of the last regular governments was simply to have them to ensure the temporary political survival of some party elites.

WINBET – 3 initial bonuses + 3 gifts for Sports, Casino and Live Casino! (18+)

And in such a context, we cannot expect a reformative transformative program. It’s just that the purpose of these governments and their participants is not to realize solid strategic public goals and policies, but simply to expediently use the public resource that participation in power implies. This was commented by the political scientist Strahil Deliyski in an interview for “Maritsa”.

We should not have too high hopes either, because these same political subjects will have to do the next governments as well. And we must demand from the parties to tell us the meaning more convincingly than the governments that will do. Because the last regular cabinet was very easily sold – it was claimed that it was important to be formed because of the big lurking threats from the bad guys – Putin, President Radev. In the end it was a fiasco. So we have to have higher demands when we are sold governments.

When parties on the edge of their survival are in power and elections are coming up, they have no other political resource through which to build trust. And this is not even about trust. And this agreeableness is not even based on producing trust, but on minimizing the hatred and disgust of the electorate.

An attempt will probably be made to confine the campaign to the “good or bad” tribal talk of campaigning, which only the die-hard electorates are caught on. For some, it will be the mafia against the European reformers, for others – the able-bodied against the casuals and amateurs.

This will, I believe, be the strategy of those who perceive themselves as big contributors, which will doom the campaign to blandness in terms of the wider public, as well as dirt.

Peripheral actors who enter the campaign with no idea of ​​a long-term political perspective cannot produce a meaningful political conversation beyond recriminations and sloppiness. This is a campaign that cannot attract a fringe.

They can expand their support, for example, “Vazrazhdane”, which was not in power and can count on opposition.

Expansion is not possible in BSP, where the problem of survival is very acute. With PP-DB, the reputational damage is dramatic and I don’t see them trying to do anything different from what they have been doing so far.

We vote for political representation in the National Assembly and it is the politicians who form the government. And they are absolutely irresponsible reactions of the type “Now it is too early to say how it will be managed, let the people say!”.

We are in a severe crisis of political leadership, which is being experienced traumatically among voters. In this sense, the subject who manages to tell convincingly what the formula of power will look like after the elections will gain some margin from the electorate. People will want this from the parties.

Each party’s proposal does not necessarily appeal to everyone, but each must have a proposal if it wants to look serious in the eyes of voters during this campaign.

And the unpopular measures remain for a future government, which will enjoy a little more trust and will be composed of parties for which the prospect of being in power is more than five or six months, says Deliyski.

Follow PIK in Telegram and Twitter