Bulgarians given Hobson’s choice in presidential election

Date: 17/10/1996

By Mark Turner

AS the citizens of Bulgaria prepare to choose their president later this month, their country is going through a period of profound economic and moral crisis which is raising question marks about its future membership of the EU.

Both major candidates for Bulgaria's presidency are firmly agreed on one thing: accession to the Union is crucial for the country's long-term future.

“I have never noticed the slightest difference between the main parties where the EU is concerned,” said one diplomat.

But while that is a positive sign from a country which applied for EU membership in December 1995, others are fuelling grave doubts about what kind of partner the Union is contemplating letting into its fold.

The recent murder of socialist MP Andrei Loukanov has only served to highlight the bitterness at the heart of Bulgarian public life, engendered by an economy sliding into disaster.

The tripling of interest rates to 300&percent;, and a panic sell-off of 15 of the country's juiciest state enterprises, have cast doubt on the teetering policies of the former communist government.

The lev plunged from about 70 to the dollar in January to 239 to the dollar in late September, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently withdrew support until economic reforms were pushed through.

Economics have consequently dominated the election battle, which has often been terse and unpleasant.

And while this is not a race for the top Bulgarian job - the president's powers are strictly limited - commentators believe that the forthcoming elections will be crucial for the country's future.

Standing for the ruling socialist coalition, led by the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), is Professor Ivan Marazov.

His main opponent is Peter Stoyanov, representing the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF), a multi-party coalition which challenged the communists after the USSR's break-up. Current President Zhelyu Zhelev lost the UDF ticket in a June pre-election battle.

But this apparently straightforward contest masks a political Gordian knot so tangled that even Alexander the Great would have difficulty cutting through it.

For several years now, a UDF president has nominally headed a state run by a BSP prime minister. This has led to a profound split in Sofia's personality, with often disastrous consequences for Bulgaria's foreign policy.

Indecision over NATO membership and an inability to appoint new ambassadors have characterised the stalemate.

Most importantly, the government has shown an inclination lately to move back towards Russia, in blatant contrast to the president's western commitments. It is therefore widely expected that a presidential win by the UDF would spark a parliamentary election shortly afterwards. Electors would then have Hobson's choice between two equally ineffectual parties.

While the socialists have greater experience in the whole business of politics, their recent performance provides little hope for the future.

On the other hand, when the UDF was last in power (1991-1994), its showing was, if anything, worse. It is, nevertheless, currently ahead in the polls.

President Zhelev argues that the only way to avoid the “incompetent rule of a government elected by popular vote” is to make Bulgaria a presidential republic, but his influence is dwindling.

Nonetheless, Bulgaria is far from a lost cause. It occupies a strategic position on the Black Sea, has a skilled workforce and offers a very attractive natural gas network.

And if current restructuring plans, banking reforms and the liquidation of state enterprises go according to plan, there will be a basis for recovery, say optimists.

But, as crime rates climb and unemployment soars, many feel that this is a last chance for the beleaguered country.

If it is missed, EU membership may well become a distant dream.