Ataka’s torchlight proces by Danail BREZOV
I
t was about 8 o’clock on the evening of 19 February 2008 when I bumped into some strange ghostly procession of a group dressed in black and carrying blazing torches. This was a picture supposed to emanate deep mourning but it seemed to horribly resemble a lynching. The crowd settled down. Then their leader came forward: a short middle-aged man with grayish, almost white hair and a tired face. His gestures and words were sharp, but his look seemed to remain dull and listless. His short and clear speech was about, more or less, the fact that there are people living on our land who subscribe to a different religion and speak a language we do not understand, and that was really annoying. As a result of some coincidence, those people happen to be descendants of other people who happened to rule our predecessors, and that was really driving us mad. Moreover, instead of apologising for their disgraceful past and leaving with their heads down, they were now even trying to partake in our government (this is where the crowd becomes exalted and starts wooing!). And, since we are really not happy with this government, our best bet is to blame it on those of different religion and drive them
1 OBEKTIV
away so that we can sleep better or at least until we put a name to the new threat... So far the whole scenario was sadly reminiscent of a low-budget production, while the saddest thing is that we are all in this film - as extras. The silence of those of some common-sense is often misinterpreted for silent approval of whatever idiocy one can think of. History teaches us that this sort of silence could sometimes cost us a lot. At the beginning, like many others, I thought that Ataka’s ideology was dangerous. In time, however, we all seemed to get used to the angry rhetoric and the spread of ethnic intolerance, as if it was but natural. This, however, does not eliminate the danger; quite the opposite, indifference is the perfect environment for spreading this deadliest of social diseases. Listening to Ataka leader Volen Siderov’s over-pathetic speech, a few phrases stuck into my head and still refuse to let go within the context of that somehow ridiculous analogy that he was making with the Bulgarian liberation movement of the second half of the 19th century. Ataka’s leader announced that ·Today Bulgaria needs a new national revolution”. I ask myself what sort of revolution would that be. Listening to the talk about national revolutions, I suddenly remembered this guy who once arduously preached about a nationwide ·slaughter” of the whole Roma minority, something like another St. Bartholomew’s. At first, I argued that this would be quite an expensive and logistically cumbersome operation, thinking it was a bad joke, but this gentleman went on to insist that this would be the best way. A chill creeps up my back when I think just how many people like these I meet every day - these are all our fellow-citizens who pay taxes, vote (needless to say, we know how), and are represented in both the national and European parliaments. These representatives’ political duty is, of course, to strive to fulfill their constituents’ expectations. Now the question is what would happen if Ataka won the next parliamentary election, and formed a cabinet? The first scenario envisages ethnic repression which will, at best, lead to a crisis similar to the one in Kosovo. Another variant would be for the party to change its pattern but that would mean lying to the majority of its constituents. In this case, all of Mr. Siderov’s election campaign rhetoric and that of his immediate circle would be no more than demagogy. And if that were so, that is, if this whole ethnic enmity is being spread just for political benefit, would the price turn out to be too high? Still, it will probably not come to this sort of dilemma, and Ataka seem to be sitting comfortably in the chair of aggression. Even the ·extreme right” definition, which was attached to it contrary to any known political logic, probably aimed to utilise the spacious political niche on the right.
ssion radiated hatred I was struck with the solemn tone of Mr. Siderov’s claim that we are witnessing the birth of ·a new miracle - the miracle of Bulgarian nationalism”. We have to ask ourselves what kind of miracle this is. All the persuasive panoply of the so called nationalists reveals that we are not talking about national pride based on confidence, but of a state bordering on paranoia, where collective discontent is channeled into hatred toward a thoughtfully chosen public enemy. According to the leader’s words, the ·Turkish freaks” responsible for the ·criminal murder” of our ·Apostle of Freedom” Vassil Levski, Bulgarian revolutionary and leader of the struggle for liberation from Ottoman rule, are somehow mystically linked to the present, as the parliamentary majority is passing the ·power into the hands of a Turk” who is, of course, leading ·the grandchildren of those who killed Levski”. A similar outlook was instilled in the younger generation in totalitarian times, but for a higher purpose: protecting the Kremlin’s interests. Today’s situation speaks of criminal negligence or, alternatively, a well-covered motive. Either way, we need to be vigilant and remember that to every action there is a reaction which, in more cases than one, has a stronger impact, depending on which side of the system (in this case society) is more vulnerable. Anyone who has tried to bang open doors with their head (and survived) will confirm this. Modern history, including that of the Balkans, offers a wealth of prime examples.
OBEKTIV 2