What are the most prominent characteristics of populism in Bulgaria? Is the populist situation temporary or is it stable? The State of Society 2 survey makes an attempt to answer these questions. The results from the survey reveal the existence of a newly formed "minority of intolerance and radical change". However, how stable is that minority?

Vassil Garnizov

About populism

Since the 2005 parliamentary elections, there has been more talk in Bulgaria about populism than about communism. Whether there exist serious grounds for this or not, the populist movements have come to replace the authoritarian alternative as a primary source of insecurity for the still new and fragile democratic institutional order. On observing this phenomenon, prominent analysts have produced different forecasts of the future. They view populism as:

• Deviant conduct, perhaps even of criminal nature, sometimes described through medical terms (such is the opinion of journalists working in this field, human rights organizations, etc.);
• Long-term basic characteristic of the public environment (Stefan Popov);
• Medium-term political cycle (Ivan Krastev);
• Short-term rhetorical act (Dr Nikolay Mihaylov).

Each of these statements and forecasts is grounded in solid argumentation and drafts its own specific strategy to address populism as a source of insecurity:

• In the first case, the populist manipulation has to be exposed and denied, and the populist leaders to either be brought to court or be sent for medical treatment;
• In the second case, the populist techniques have to be carefully studied, comprehended and applied by the politicians;
• In the third case, the populist epoch should be endured, because in principle liberalism does not defeat populism, but outlives it;
• In the fourth case, the populist rhetoric should be patiently ignored until the moment when its effect on voters will be naturally lost.

The choice of any of these strategies brings forth several risks:

• Fierce public opposition by the elite in the end strengthens the influence of populist leaders and formations;
• Attempts to incorporate populists techniques into their work usually have a negative effect for traditional political parties because thus they drive away some of their voters;
• Building endurance carries fewer risks, but may bring surprises because the integration of populist formations also gives them a chance, under particular circumstances, to transform the margin into a center;
• Ignoring populist rhetoric does not necessarily contribute to conditions for its self-consumption.

About the survey

Along with such risks, the existing vigorous debate on contemporary forms of populism might have made the topic redundant. The concept of populism itself has been overused and become banal instead of problematic and attracting active criticism. Hence, in my analysis of this section of the survey on the State of Society 2, I would like to abandon this term for a while together with the urge to necessarily construct a clear and true image of society as a whole. Instead, I shall try to distinguish the existence of a not so large, yet influential - in the electoral sense – section in Bulgarian society, which quickly responds to such radical messages.

Neither is it a group in the traditional sense of the word, nor can it be identified according to the categories of class, nor perceive itself as "the common people" or the moral alternative of the elite. In a sense, it may be viewed as multiple issue public, especially designed for the purposes of the survey, just the way it is often constructed in a pre-evection environment. Its existence is not permanent, clearly visible or objective, but gains prominence at the time of elections.

To construct this multiple issue public, we need to apply various indicators, primarily by using the answers to two particular questions. Through the first one we ask of an evaluation of the situation in the country according to a three-level scale. The categories and definitions of the situation which we use have been taken from the interviews carried out during the preliminary field study:

		April 2006	November 2006
How would you define the current situation in the country?	Stable, good	4%	5%
	Acceptable, bearable	30%	35%
	Unacceptable, unbearable	54%	50%
	I cannot say	12%	10%
	TOTAL	100%	100%

The second question seeks to identify the link between support for the current state of affairs and that in favour of radical change. To signify the current political state of affairs have been selected the "democratic government", "political parties" and "the parliament" because, as bodies of representative democracy, they have traditionally been the first target for any populist rhetoric and politics.

		April 2006	November 2006
In your opinion, despite all current challenges and hardships, should this form of government be preserved or should it be abandoned for radical change?	No answer	11%	3.5%
	Preserve democratic government with political parties and parliament	59%	60%
	To move toward radical change in the current form of government	30%	36.5%

The group of people we analyze has been formed through selecting interviewees, some of who are individuals defining the current situation as "unacceptable, unbearable" and who at the same time favour the argument that we should "move toward radical change in the current form of government".

About the results

On first observation, State of Society 2 outlines mainly the good news: there is a decrease in the number of people who find themselves at the lower levels of social hierarchy and more tend to move to a medium standing; higher levels of consumption are declared; fewer respondents state that at least one person in their household is unemployed; despite our expectations, the number of families with a sick or disabled member at home is not that high. Against the background of such relatively encouraging results about everyday life and about the tendencies in determining improved social status, a significant number of respondents give a surprisingly negative evaluation of the situation in the country. Among the interviewed, 54% define it as unbearable - in full contrast with the overall positive social climate. About 23% of the people in the country consider the situation unbearable and insist on undertaking a radical change.

When we compare the data about the group with the "unbearable-radical" opinion to the average results for the country, or only with those who are "nonradical", the picture of society becomes completely different:

• In general, among the respondents there are several dividing lines based on the amount of their income: over 300 BGN per person – high tolerance (+23) and low intolerance (-28). The lower the income, the higher the intolerance (below 50 BGN +25; below 100 BGN, +19; below 150BGN, +5, below 200 BGN, -5; below 300 BGN, -19) and the lower the tolerance (below 50 BGN, -20; below 100 BGN, -15; below 150 BGN, -6; below 200 BGN, +4; below 300 BGN, +18; over 300 BGN, +22). In other words, the upper boundary is 200-300 BGN, and the lower is 100-150 BGN;
• Thus, the average income for those in the "radical group" is somewhere up to 100 or 150 BGN. More often than the average citizen they declare that their income is smaller than their actual expenses;
• In the radical group of respondents united as such through their answers, the majority declares that the money they earn is not sufficient to buy food;
• Among them, the predominant part declare that their financial state is below the average as well as that their position in the social hierarchy has been lowered compared to previous years;
• The number of pensioners in this group is higher than the average for the country, while these are also pensioners who are not additionally employed. Some of them continuously declare that one or two people in their household are unemployed, or that the working conditions they face are bad;
• Those of them who are pensioners in reality receive no other income (apart from their pensions) and generally they do not tend to pursue strategies for improving their situation (for example, if along with their pension, they start work and ensure additional income);
• In reality, with age, intolerance among the respondents increases: among those under 30 years strongly dominates the evaluation of the situation as "acceptable, bearable"; among those in their 40s, responses are balanced; while among those above 60 years, a high percentage say that it is "unacceptable, unbearable";
• They have significantly lower education than the country average; the lower the education, the higher the intolerance, where the latter is overrepresented among respondents with primary or lower education;
• This radical group of respondents has the least number of representatives in the capital Sofia, while it is overrepresented in the villages. In district centers and in the towns their numbers are about the average for the country;
• Analyzing the respondents in view of their ethnicity, ethnic Bulgarians occupy the average levels, the Roma are highly represented in the category of intolerance, and the ethnic Turks are overrepresented in the category of tolerance;
• According to the respondents’ family status: intolerance is lower among those who are single (-8), and highest among widowers and widows (+8). In families with members suffering from a severe illness or disabled, intolerance is high;
• According to respondents’ income vs. spending: when income is sufficient or more than sufficient, tolerance is high; when it is insufficient, intolerance is high (+15). When the respondent has practically no income, intolerance reaches its highest levels (+32);
• Among the radical respondents, the percentage of people who say they rely on no other person is several times greater than with the rest of the respondents (the latter usually rely on relatives, friends or neighbors).

Their opinion about politicians is much more severe than with the rest of the respondents. For example, to the question "If you are unsatisfied with the social and economic situation, who would you blame?"

• In 2002, 58% of all respondents answered that they would blame the politicians;
• In 2006, only 24% of all respondents would blame politicians for their unsatisfactory situation;
• However, in the self-constituted group of respondents with radical opinion, blaming the politicians corresponds to 80% of the answers.

Apart from being highly critical of the police, the group has a negative attitude toward the state as well as toward the political parties in general, and often declares a readiness to join radical actions. To the question, "Do you think you could take part in a riot?", the average number of positive answers constitute a minor share. However, in the radical group readiness to take part in radical action is twice the average. Of course, when they say that they are inclined to participate in a riot against the parliament, their statement should not be taken literally. The reason is that their age profile does not correspond to such action: two thirds of the people in this group are over 50 years and in fact half of them are over 60 years.

The radically inclined group is neither homogeneous, nor constant in its political affiliations:

• At the 2005 Parliamentary Elections, the number of people from this group who voted for the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) was higher than the average for the country;
• At the recent presidential elections, the group expressed support for candidate Volen Siderov, which was higher than the average for the country;
• Their loyalty to a particular political party is lower than the average; however its levels remain relatively high. At the same time, the percentage of those among them who do not vote in elections is higher than the average;
• People who fall within this category are more unlikely to take part in civic initiatives or action, because their skepticism about the success of such activities is higher than the average.

In other words, the hypothesis that Volen Siderov is a turned page does not receive confirmation in this survey. The conclusion is not so much based on the average data, but follows from its recognition of an identified stable group of people who respond to radical speech and are more likely to vote for radical leaders and organizations.

The survey indicates that, due to their age, it is unrealistic that these individuals join any activities causing mass disorder. Nevertheless, they will probably continue to partake in what the last parliamentary and presidential elections have experienced as, respectively, parliamentary and institutional disorder.

In the context of this angry but on the whole helpless minority, the issue of care is quite relevant and not groundlessly introduced as a key element in the rhetoric of President Parvanov as a father of care and a living symbol of "the care about care" (Petya Kabakchieva). In this sense, both the caring and the angry politicians of the present day consolidate the social factors in favour of populism in our political system rather than dissolve them.

Compared to them, other politicians frequently accused of populism do not have such an influence over and fail to gain significant support by the "radical group". Neither Boyko Borisov, seen as a powerful populist candidate, nor Simeon Sax Coburg Gotha, seen as a former powerful populist, are associated with their ideas or win their support as voters.

In conclusion

This summary presents only a small part of the findings made in the course of the survey on the State of Society 2, and has only partially outlined the profile of those who define the current situation in the country as unbearable and are ready to seek radical political change. However, even this brief summary shows clearly that:

1. They represent a limited group of people which at this point is not capable of actively influencing the political situation in the country.
2. The group is in fact divided in its support for the current state of affairs and the need for change.
3. Compared to the rest of the respondents, this group is less active during elections and becomes more dangerous in-between elections.
4. Expanding the influence of radical formations can only take place at the expense of softened extreme positions, greater stability and accepting the current state of affairs.
5. The presidential elections have not served as "a vent", nor strengthened a tendency for the populist rhetoric to make itself redundant. The latest survey by Alpha Research, made at the end of November 2006, indicates some developments regarding polarization in society: there is a rising number of people who consider the situation in the country "acceptable, bearable" (+5 points), but at the same time, the percentage of those in favour of radical political change has also increased (+6.5, with a shift from the category of those without firm opinion).
6. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect that this "radical" group will dissolve without any intervention and will find a new configuration in accordance with the mainstream social developments.
7. It has to be urgently addressed through the mechanisms of regional policy and the policy for the development of agricultural area - policies which are currently lacking (it finds overrepresentation in the countryside, primarily in the villages; and average representation in the smaller towns and the district centers).
8. It may be and has to be urgently addressed through the mechanisms of education policy (overrepresented among individuals of primary and lower education), social policy (especially elderly people in the countryside), and healthcare policy.
9. Due to the fact that so far the main impact mechanisms rely primarily on the structural funds (Operational Programme for Regional Development and National Plan for the Development of Agricultural Areas), which in reality will start contributing no earlier than the beginning of 2008, it can clearly be assumed that in 2007 there will be no major developments in attitudes among the members of this group.
10. This, on the other hand, is likely to impact the upcoming elections for Members of the European Parliament and the local elections, especially if presented as elections which should test whether one is in favour or against the existing political elite (in particular, against "the politicians" and "the political parties" of the period of transition).