Party Capitalism or the Difference Between UDF, BSP and National Movement Simeon II
Among schemes for coalition building between the UDF and Political Movement Simeon II (PMS) that appeared widely (because supposedly these were “rightist” parties), the first rose its voice against: “they can be rightist”, for they advocate capitalism, whereas we – don’t. People were expecting a “social” program, not “liberal”. Debating on coalition building is not situational, but rather expresses disappointment in UDF, low prestige of BSP and the popularity of this new Movement.
Here forth, some explanations on the content of these messages are given, to facilitate the curious that are eager to read.
Between UDF (Coalition of Democratic Forces) and BSP (Coalition for Bulgaria) there exists a profound ideological and value similarity. Both understand capitalism as a zero-sum-game; welfare is a constant exhaustible resource that can be plundered; wins are equal to losses. The issue of elections is elaborated more in terms of class conflicts and “who pillages more effectively”. If it is “our” party – it is “good capitalism”. Therefore, the period since 1997 for the socialists is a period called “dark”, one of economic decay, decrease in living standards and democracy. Consequently, expansion of economic freedom, articulated in PMS, though quite abstractly, is translated by Ivan Kostov in shady colors.
Actually, reforms after 1997 were not at all “rightist”. If BSP had retained somehow its power, it would probably had fixed the exchange rate, prohibited the Central Bank from crediting the Government and re-financing commercial banks, closed down loss-making enterprises, and under IMF pressure – discontinued the practice of off-budget accounts, as well as privatize the banks. Where UDF had the freedom to choose, the latter actually performed what was later called “Gechevism”. The issue in dispute is exchange of ownership against bonds – only instead of privatization bonds compensatory notes were used. And, of course, privatization was “social-oriented”, with the participation of workers through MEBOs.
No doubt, UDF carries out such reforms better than BSP would have managed. Of assistance were the “clean background”, pro-Western direction, and the entire “rightist” image, imposed by the 3-year Agreement with IMF. However, all explained above does not alter attitudes towards the patters of these capitalistic reforms. Both, UDF and BSP use such reasoning when arguing on State capitalism. Henceforth, the long history of BSP frustration from UDF governance, the so obvious fear of Simeon II Movement chances for winning elections, that brought about accusations of “liberalism” and “dark capitalism”. On this basis, the shared core of key messages. Both platforms promise retaining the Currency Board Arrangement, soon membership in EU and NATO, reduction of unemployment to a 12%, state and municipal programs for job creation, 5% economic growth, decrease in taxes, computerization and Internet access to almost all schools, conclusion of deals for the Thermal Power Station Maritza Iztok, and so on and so forth.
However, the trick lays in the details. In the UDF program, there is no “social refectories”, “state-financed medical tendance”, adoption of a “new Labor Code, in conformity with European regulations”, etc. UDF assures “radically improved standard of living for every Bulgarian citizen for the next four-year period”.
The vocabulary of the Bulgarian Communist party and the late Todor Zhivkov from the mid-80-ties, preaching for “conceptually new growth” of the economy and welfare, nowadays can be evidenced by the political scientists. In its essence, there is no difference between the other two messages, commented herewith. His Highness also promised “considerable improvement” of the living standards for mere 800 days.
If one tries to comprehend “conceptually improved”, there are a lot of commonalities in pure socialistic insights. The only distinction, i.e. the qualitative improvement of life for the past four years was not financed by the State (via money printing and implementation of meaningless projects), but is due to individuals’ ability to dispose of their own resources. Of course, for some these resources were more, for others – less. The Government did somewhat interfere in resources allocation by conceding rights on compensatory bonds to some, and authority to sell (or liquidate) state ownership to others.
The Socialist Party would have done only the second. The new living standard can mean three things: either removing privileges, establishing a new set of such, or selected “strategic” state projects will be financed by money printing. Premier Kostov labeled the PMS’ statements to introduce new privileges for those who work, profit and pay their taxes as “dark capitalism”. The prospective beneficiaries of such policy are same as of the Socialists: small and medium enterprises, local and foreign investors, farmers, scientists, information technology sector, students, retired and handicapped. True, applications are very similar to those of BSP: the State (understand the Government, or at least the Majority in Parliament) will be determining who wins and who should lose.
So, does the above-discussed mean that PMS is an alternative for economic policies after the elections is over? Well, the answers are yes and no. PMS speakers are so vague in their discourses, so that it is always true. So, Nikolay Vassilev claims to do the same, as BSP and UDF had stated (retaining the Currency Board, no spending of reserves, balanced budget and diminishing taxes). The last item is often considered as more radical measure, than securing revenues to cover the debt or other vital expenditure items in the State Budget. Professor Gerdzhikov asserts that PMS will make its best to permit all that was prohibited to the citizens, and vise versa for the administration. If one reads the records of the 7th National Assembly, there appear repeatedly these phrases. Vladimir Karolev claims that “financial sector will be encouraged to partnership with the competitive businesses”, though this is something the Government s trying for the past four years and is present in some form in both programs – of UDF, and BSP. Mr. Panayotov is noting that joining EU and NATO is just means, not purpose. The advantage of such behavior is that it gives reminders to the basics: campaign issues – the budget and decreasing taxes.
At first glance, PMS has a peculiar detail in their statements, often omitted – their views are based on both: Union of Employers and BIBA ideas. Which actually contradict, and even if this can be managed, these provisions protect businesses that are already established. In other words, the baseline concept that differs philosophically from those of UDF and BSP is: “we are to decide who wins”. Ironically, the underlined section in UDF platform says: “Bulgarian citizens will not only start paying lower taxes and social security installments, but will be eligible for taxation relief in conducting businesses, directly stimulating economic activity and job creation”. And this sums up everything that PMS and Union of Employers promise for the time being.
