The cult of Bulgarians towards amateurs in politics News and analysis from Bulgaria | DW
Over two-thirds of the people in Bulgaria think that it is best to be managed by experts. So before, such a question is of course misleading, because it is abundantly clear that it would be good for every ruler to have some knowledge. The thing is, for many Bulgarians in our country, the expert is a negation of politics, and his elevation would open us up from the fruitless quarrels in the parliament, behind which we suspect the fight for the bone.
In the foreground, here we see the notorious expectation of new faces. Politics by definition is disappointment, perhaps because it implies compromises. That’s why we’re ready to throw again and again. And we get tired of old faces more and more quickly, just as we get tired of too long TV series. There is probably a purely democratic element in this desire of ours – we believe that politics should not be a profession, everyone should be able to take the empty place of power, including us. And appearing on new faces feeds this belief.
The cult of new faces
Again, you have to make distinctions here. Of course, no one is born a politician. New faces are Petkov and Vassilev, who entered the field after successful participation in caretaker governments. As much as I called them boys and tourers, they went their own way. Unlike Trifonov or Gabrovski, who landed there without any experience. And precisely this political virginity was an argument that they would do the job.
If you think about it, we are witnessing a real cult of amateurism. We are inundated with journalistic analyzes written in the lunch break; we’re entertained by influencers we don’t know whether to laugh at or mock. It is natural that this cult should spread to politics: the amateur is natural and spontaneous, without backstage. Where it is said to confuse the work, it will be from a good heart.
But the politicians-experts, who are not offered, are not what it is – they are distinguished in some sphere of their own. It turns out a bit like the intellectual from the previous era – he wrote a popular romance novel and journalists start inviting him to speak on the international situation. Favorite characters at the beginning of the transition were the literati who filled the first national assemblies. Some literature washed us away, so the professors took the stage, followed closely by the generals and doctors. All the favorites of the experts of the people.
Why not the experts memories Petkov and Vassilev? Well, because the business they understand is the realm of selfishness, as opposed to knowledge, defense, health. Also because the media debates seem to be directed by some definitional centers.
Populism in politics
The question is whether there is specific expertise in politics. Or, as in Mayakovsky’s poem, every cook will learn to rule the state. Apart from something like ideology, the gift of speech and the knowledge of state authorities, a politician must be able to distance himself from his private sphere and act on behalf of the public interest. In purely technical terms, he/she should have a network of contacts on hand that he/she can count on. And such are built in the course of political work, of the struggle for one cause or another.
Imagine, for example, that someone nominated me for prime minister (I’m also a professor, a new face, and sometimes I cook!). And I trade to make a cabinet. Well, I will fill it with an expert from the social sciences and culture, a chat-pat some TV presenter, without a single energy or military person. And so-things I will turn to the previous ones who raised me – please recommend someone to me as a minister. And this self will remain a good-looking (expert?) facade for some other, political things.
The worst thing about expertocracy is the connection ì with populism. What does it mean for a society to want to be ruled by technocrats? It means that there are no political alternatives in front of him, but everywhere there is a single right solution and we just need to find a suitable person to implement it.
Is there a single correct solution?
Politics means redistribution of resources and balance of interests. One political decision is by definition the opposite of another, alternative, defended by the opponent. And after debates, elections, and maybe the protesters, the citizens stand behind one or the other. Only the correct decision of the expert simply makes the political process meaningless, because the technocrats “up there” supposedly know better than us, they have studied. Should we borrow or follow strict austerity? Should we enter Schengen or not? Should we vote by paper or machines? Should we participate in the sanctions against Russia or should we clinch?… Let’s stop arguing – let the expert come and not say how things are.
Prof. Ivaylo Dichev
Combine this with the above. The expert turns out to be a specialist in a very specific field – surgeon, historian, showman – from which he transfers his prestige to politics. And we are waiting for the right decision to forget politics and watch the football championship. Well, of course, we won’t believe him – neither about Covid, nor about the euro, nor about global warming, because we are Balkans. Because we like to be disappointed and wait for another, even more successful expert, more unquestioned. Forgetting that behind the expert there is always an invisible populist politician who seeks to make political choices meaningless and put citizens to sleep.
*This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial and of DV as a whole.