Talk:History of Bulgaria (1990–present)

Obscene lack of any sort of neutrality

My rabious admirors of the United States and what it calls democracy, you should note that Communism and Democracy aren't anthonyms, and so contrasting Communism/Democracy is a biased and obscene insult not only to any marxist on Earth but to Wikipedia's credibility and what should be a rigurous respect for NPOV, that in what has to do with article names must imply not adopting anything too much suggestive, or belonging to a certain opinion or view on the issue developed there.

The post-1989 division has no political charge and is used on most encyclopedias, articles and newspapers; as you know Wikipedia isn't a primary source so this isn't the place to impose new terminology. There is also another big error: Bulgaria was never Communist, even if governed by the Communist Party. If the Communist Party supposeadly looked at Communism as its final goal is another issue, but the fact is that the Bulgarian state was at that times Socialist, as was the GDR, the People's Republic of Poland or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The discussion can be then in wether what those Socialist states called democracy was democracy, and wether what Capitalism calls democracy is democracy, but Wikipedia isn't capable of giving final conclussions, and even less a conclussion can be reflected on article titles. Why not Socialist Bulgaria/Capitalist Bulgaria? Socialist Bulgaria/Multiparty Bulgaria? Socialist Bulgaria/Bulgaria post-1989? Perhaps you want to avoid using socialist because it still has positive connotations, while communism has been transformed into a taboo expression by Western media, and that is good for your ill-intentioned naming patterns... --200.85.112.116 19:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

---

If you are referring to the way Bulgarian history is divided into a Communist and then a Democratic period - well I believe that this is literally because they were two different periods, with different types of government. Communism as a theory does not select a specific form of political leadership. As far as saying that communism and democracy are not antonyms, the article never suggests that. However they are surely not synonymous, they cannot go hand-in-hand in the way capitalism and democracy pair up (at least not in our time).

I also do not understand how it is an insult to contrast democracy and communism, especially to a Marxist. First of all Marx never developed the concept of 'communism'; his communist manifesto doesn't do that. He cannot be called a political theorist or philosopher on the ground of this idea. Therefore it is virtually impossible to compare the underdeveloped theory of communism to an existing form of government, on a hypothetical ground. Realistically however, democracy and communism can be compared on many grounds and they do show contrast in many ways, for example:

   - The ideal of democracy promotes individualism where as communism doesn't
   - Democracy promotes capitalism hugely - communism is an opposite futuristic (supposed) outcome of capitalism, a revolution of the proletariat in which the rivalling companies are overthrown.

Another criticism which I have towards your comments is that it is absolutely foolish to not call Bulgaria communist between 1944-1989. This is because there is not a single pure democracy in the world either, yet countries call themselves democracies because there are democratic goals in their present stage and form of government. In the same way Bulgaria was communist because its form of government (dictatorship) at the time (supposedly and/or for propaganda at least) had communist goals. That it wasn't the perfect paradise type of communism is very true, otherwise I'd be as rich and poor as everyone else there. Hence, whether the final goal of the communist regime was communism is precisely the question and definitely not a different one. Finally, as you may well know, Marx was an economic historian, one that looked on history and drew conclusion from it prioritising economic aspects over political and diplomatic ones. Hence, in those 45 years of dictatorship, Bulgaria should be regarded as a communist country because its economic goals (which were communist) preceded the political ones, and thus the political form of government. This is why Bulgaria, after World War II, should be called Communist Bulgaria rather than let's say Bulgaria under Dictatorship or anything of the sort.

        10/04/2006
        International Relations, History and Political Theory student at LSE

I am Bulgarian and I am born and raised in middle-class family. I think that calling not Bulgaria a communist country between 1944-1989 is hilarious. Elan Morin Tedronai 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

Bulgaria has been democratic before. This includes periods between 1878 and 1944. If anybody objects to this, then (s)he should read some Bulgarian history (please!). The regime beween 1944 and 1989 was also considered democratic throughout the 45 years. What more can be said about POV? If there is an objectoin to the current title, please voice it. However, let us not name an article with a measure of democratisation. Belive me, Bulgaria has much more to develop until it gets even close to the modern definition of democracy. --Cryout 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In Response

I do agree with the above that Bulgaria has far to go until the democracy described in its constitution becomes feasible, as Assen Agov said in a speech "The democracy in Bulgaria is but a facade democracy". However we must acknowledge that elections mean nothing to democracy if there is only one party, whose members can only endorse one policy. The basic point of representative democracy is that the members of a parliament or national assembly speak and act in representation to their electors, and that those members are free to do so. In the form of government between 1944 and 1989, even though there were elections; a one party system was forced into existence; any opposition was suppressed beyond legal and humane means and without a doubt at the absence of justice (referring to the sending of nonconformists to concentration camps without trial). Nowadays however, this is not the case. In the present Bulgarian Constitution is embedded the order to establish a democracy alike that of the more developed countries in the world. This is why articles of the period after 1945 can be named with a 'measure of democratization' when referring to Bulgaria itself.

On a more global and objective look, we must consider also the end of the Cold War. The Cold War had divided Europe into democratic (excluding Spain) and communist states (and as I said on the 10/04/2006, democracy and communism are not synonymous). After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent breakdown of the USSR, the process of democratization begun in most of Eastern Europe. This is the other, stronger reason for which articles of the period following the Second World War can be named with 'a measure of democratization'.

       International Relations, History and Political Theory student at LSE
       --YokoBaggins 04:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is 100% true and I can assure you that I support a very similar view. An encyclopaedic article title, however, is not the place for endorsing a point of view. Modern representative democracy is a "democratic system", but is far not the only possible system, where "people rule" (see translation at democracy). Indeed, the origin of our understanding of democracy is Athenean democracy: where every single Citizen is allowed to get involved in governing and at least 5% of the Citizens are policy makers. Well, today we would denounce Athenean democracy as cruel and unhumane, because it was supported by a large number of slave labourers. Then, at the dawn of communism, it was only natural to see it as the most democratic system possible: think "People's Republic of X". Finally, there is today's European-styled welfare state, where social exclusion is still a serious problem. Arguably, when a part of the demos is left out of the cratos, no system can be fully democratic. Of course, we know that perfect democracy doesn't exist and that's why we are trying to improve what we have at the moment. Therefore, "democratic" cannot be the name of a system, let alone an era; it can only be a subjective measure of aggregate people's participation in governing. The rest is Rule of Law and good will.

Economics student in the USA with a semester taken at UCL (UK) :-)
--Cryout 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fall of GERB's government in the beginning of 2013 - reason?

As far as I remember the wiretapping scandals appeared after the fall of the government. The official reason as far as I remember were the high electric bills and the overall poverty. Not to mention that other articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_parliamentary_election,_2013 state that too. I'd like to point that out since it's ridiculous to have multiple articles on the same topic that state different things.