"The ninth"

·THE NINTH

by Momchil HRISTOV magine a kid stops you and asks who the laws in a country are made for?

The trite answer that comes at the top of my head would be: for its citizens. Often, however, reality is quite different; especially when it comes to the so called ·laws for the memory”. Although the reference is directly or indirectly to the citizens, these laws tend to function primarily as instruments in the war between the political parties, which has been going on for decades. In Bulgaria this war has been happening - at least since the start of the transition - under the ·blue” and ·red” banners. The stake, well, that would be the monopoly over the interpretation of the past, and, consequently, legitimacy of current positions.

Similarly, we can interpret the recent boom of argument in parliament concerning the amendment to the Law on Political and Civil Rehabilitation of Repressed Individuals (LPCRRP), filed by the National Movement Simeon II (NMSS) MP Mincho Spasov et al. in the summer of 2007. In the original version of 25 June 1991, Article 1 of said law provided for the ·political and civil rehabilitation of the individuals who have been unlawfully repressed because of their origin, political views, or religious beliefs in the period between 12 September 1944 and 10 November 1989”. The amendment, on the other hand, envisaged a change of the date from 12 September 1944 to 9 September 1944. This is a logical and self-explanatory amendment. We all know that ·the people’s power” came to the front on ·The Ninth, 1944”1, and since ·the people’s power” is equivalent to ·communist repressions”, it would be logical to fix the beginning of the repressions at this particular day. This, however, seemed to greatly unnerve the socialists and the parliamentary Consultative Legislative Council appointed by the speaker of Parliament Georgi Pirinski, who all claimed that repressions during those three days - 9 to 12 September 1944 - were an ·indisputable act of retribution” against the participants in the coup d’état of 9 June 1923 and the fascist disciples in Bulgaria. In the end, through the combined effort of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms the amendment was voted down.

Let us, however hard as it may be, leave aside this topic of repressions, which is so brimming with emotions, and try to figure out some political strategies revealed by the amendment proposed by the NMSS. At first it would seem that there’s nothing that new the day 9 September 1944 divides the Bulgarian political elite from the very beginning of the transition, while its interpretation has swayed between ·coup d’état” and ·rebellion”, supported by the ·blues” and the ·reds” respectively.2 Remember how the two parties’ daily papers, Democracia and Duma, used to define this divide.

If for the ·blues” ·The Ninth” was ·the blackest day in Bulgaria’s thirteen-century history” (Democracia, issue 99, p. 5, 1994), for the ·reds” from Duma, this had been the ·peak of Bulgarian history” (Duma, issue 206, p. 1, 1994) and a ·day of pride and wisdom” (ibid., issue 226, p. 1, 1991).3 The paradox is that today we witness this old symbols feud being taken up by the party whose appearance was proclaimed as the beginning of a new age in Bulgarian politics and the end of the two-pole political model. Then why have the NMSS chosen to side with the ·blue” past despite their current linkage to the ·reds”? In short, why ·The Ninth” and not ·The Twelfth”, and why precisely now?

So, what is the real purpose of this ·radical” amendment to the LPCRRP, are these not just three days after all? Just three, yes, some will say, but this is about justice for the victims of the regime. In that case why not change the date much more radically. For instance, fix the beginning of the communist repression on 16 April 1925, the bomb plot of ·Sveta Nedelia”. Or maybe even the very origin of the communist movement in Bulgaria.

Why not? Is not the underlying assumption of this discourse that anything that has to do with communism is inhumane evil? Or maybe repressions must be limited to the state’s initiatives only?

Let’s not be fooled. This is not about seeing ·justice triumphant”. Clearly, 9 September is an important symbolic date for the BSP (·The Ninth”). This is a red-letter day, which the party needs to cherish in the pantheon of such days in order to preserve the integrity of its political identity (the Buzludzha Mountain convention has a similar function). Imagine the collision that would result in BSP’s constituent core from one such stigmatisation

1

2

I

This has even been fixed by the law, namely Art. 1 of the 2000 Law Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria as Criminal: ·The Bulgarian Communist Party (at the time called Bulgarian Workers’ Party /communists/) came into power on 9 September 1944 with the help of a foreign power, which had declared war on Bulgaria and in breach of the then applicable Tarnovo Constitution”.

1 OBEKTIV

For a detailed sociological analysis of this issue, refer to the collective research headed by Maya Grekova, National Identity During Transition: Historical Sources, Sofia, 1997, Minerva Publishing House.

3 Quote from Grekova, M., ·Coups and Rebellions - turning points in our national history and traumatic spots in our national memory”; from National Identity.

H” of 9 September 1944. Moreover, this would divide the unity of its political tradition, which purports to be the longest in Bulgarian history (the centennial party). In this line, the move of the NMSS MPs (let’s not ascribe this act to the whole party yet) makes perfect sense: for them ·The Ninth” is a symbol of communist terror, which is still living in many people’s memory; it must be divested of some of its symbolic value or rather transformed with the reverse (negative) value. Because the 9th is just as alive a red-letter day for other Bulgarian citizens but with a positive one; and this is especially so for the cores of BSP’s political identity.

Why is the NMSS bringing up this amendment right now? Here’s a guess: elections are coming, and the current sociological forecasts4 on the membership of the next parliament do not include the NMSS. Considering the current shaky triple coalition, it is unlikely that the party could hope for the same political model to be replicated. The NMSS is yet again trying to find its identity in the political spectre. As, following its partaking in the current government, there is hardly going to be a person left to believe that it belongs to the centre-right wing.

And that would not be owing to the ·left” politics of BSP - there is nothing more left-liberal than that, in as far as it fits almost perfectly in the global neo-liberal situation.

NMSS is losing its identity (and, consequently, its voters) by a kind of induction resulting from its very proximity to a party like BSP (and, of course, MRF, but that is another story). One of the steps towards its ·rediscovery” would be the collision with BSP’s sacred topoi and thrusting back from them; and that using the most categorical gesture of rejection - the legislative document.

Not a very long time ago sociologist Andrey Raychev described strategies of this sort as ·legitimisation through contraposition”. As it happens, this is still a valid axiom in the Bulgarian political field, which is, more often than not, parading as a gesture of justice. So let it be. The saddest thing about this situation, however, is that there are still those who believe that interpreting the past is an object of legislation. At the same time, the Bulgarian political context is as bipolar as ever, and old strategies of demarcation still present a powerful tool in the establishment of a party’s identity. That is, at least, what we are lead to believe.

4 With all my conditionality due to the non-election situation; in fact, the informational value of these forecasts lies solely in their provisional reference points for party leaders and managements.

OBEKTIV 2