Between ethnopolitics and liberal centrism: the Movement for Rights and Freedoms in the mainstream of Bulgarian party politics

Abstract

This paper examines a less researched aspect of East European party politics: change within ethnic parties, which are conventionally regarded as stable or intransigent political actors. The main argument of the paper is that the decreasing relevance of a bipolar model of political competition has affected the relative positioning of ethnic parties. Their programmatic outlook, role in the party system, and mobilization strategies are being mainstreamed. Ethnic parties are no longer regarded as inevitable participants in power sharing and informal elite accommodation. They are increasingly treated by voters and the party system alike as national-level parties and national-level competitors. The paper applies the concept of mainstreaming to explain the long-term evolution of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms in Bulgarian party politics as a critical case study of ethnic party repositioning from proximity to government to parliamentary opposition. It builds an argument about the MRF's continued relevance to the party system, ensuring minority representation beyond ethnicity, as a liberal-centrist party representing distinct economic interests and political orientations within the Bulgarian electorate.

Keywords:

• ethnic parties
• minority politics
• minorities in Eastern Europe
• Movement for Rights and Freedoms

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was supported in part by a fellowship from IREX with funds provided by the US Department of State through the Title VIII Program. Neither of these organizations is responsible for the views expressed herein.

Notes

MRF party leader Ahmed Dogan, press conference statement upon conclusion of the 5 July 2009 parliamentary elections (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, “Press conference”).

National Statistical Institute (2001). The 2001 census determined the ethnic composition of the Bulgarian population as 83.94% Bulgarians, 9.41% Turks, 4.68% Roma, and 1.97% other minority groups.

Besides the MRF, the Union For National Salvation (UNS) included the Bulgarian Agrarian People's Union Nikola Petkov, the Green Party, the Party Democratic Centre, New Choice, and Federation Kingdom Bulgaria.

The term “political mainstream” is mostly atheoretical. Conventionally, it serves to mark the boundaries of public receptiveness to and adoption of discourses and strategies at the margins, from gay and lesbian groups on the left (Rimmerman et al.) to the radical right (Mudde).

According to Ganev (70), the MRF's registration under the 1990 Law on Political Parties (which preceded the 1991 constitution but was equally restrictive to the creation of ethnic parties) was politically engineered. It was facilitated by the BSP in order to control the MRF for its own purposes while diverting the ethnic minority vote from the UDF-led democratic opposition.

The Constitution of Bulgaria, which the Great National Assembly adopted in July 1991, confirmed the restrictive regime with regard to the organized political activities of minorities established in the 1990 Law on Political Parties, despite the MRF's protest.

In accordance with European norms for minority protection, Bulgaria has adopted the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Framework Convention on National Minorities, and recognizes the political, cultural, and religious rights of ethnic minorities. On the role of European institutions in developing the regime for the protection of minority rights in Eastern Europe see Nancheva; Spirova and Budd; Sasse; Vermeersch (“EU enlargement”, “Minority policy”).

Reference is made to the United Macedonian Organisation (OMO) “Ilinden” – Pirin (a party representing the interests of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria), the Democratic Turkish Party, and, more recently, the OTOMAN party, among others, whose unconstitutionality has been determined according to Article 44 (2) of the Bulgarian constitution.

The court found that there were no grounds for withdrawing the MRF's registration, which was originally made in accordance with the Law on Political Parties with the Sofia District Court in April 1990 (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria).

On the deliberations of the Constitutional Court, see Ganev; Melone.

A second claim on the unconstitutionality of the MRF was submitted to the Constitutional Court in 1996 but was rejected; the court upheld the validity of its 1992 decision. See Ganev (87).

For example, in Parliamentary debate, Bulgarian National Assembly, 85 th Plenary session, 22 February 2006, Minutes. Web. 29 March 2011.<http://www.parliament.bg/bg/plenaryst/ID/104>. See also media report “Nadejda Mihaylova Warned about the Multiethnic State,” Dnevnik Daily [in Bulgarian], 17 July 2001. Web. 20 July 2012. <http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2001/07/17/23107_nadejda_mihailova_predupredi_za_multietnicheska_durjava/>.

See his interview with Yordanov. Chukov (“The Movement for Rights and Freedoms”) contends that Ahmed Dogan's reference to moderate nationalism was a symbol of the loyalty of the ethnic Turkish minority to the Bulgarian state, otherwise considered a paradoxical statement in a period of profound detachment from nationalism as a foundation of party allegiances. Chukov (“The Movement for Rights and Freedoms,” endnote 12) quotes Professor K. Petkov (United Bloc of Labor) to the effect that “only Ahmed Dogan could claim to be a nationalist without provoking local and international criticism.”

See also MRF's 2009 European elections platform of 14 May 2009 (online), <http://old.dps.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0437&g=>.

See “Lyutvi Mestan.” Lyutvi Mestan (Deputy Chairman of the MRF) made the comment with reference to the attempts to found the OTOMAN party.

MRF members from the northeastern districts under the leadership of Giuner Tahir (MP) voted to form an independent Turkish organization as part of the UDF (Ishiyama and Breuning 45).

Statement by Ahmed Dogan during the 2009 general elections campaign in the village of Kochan (qtd. in Karaabova). The MRF, and Ahmed Dogan personally, have argued that the statement was not political but addressed the “technology of policy making” whereby the role of a party leader was to consolidate the link between local representatives, mayors and councilors in the municipalities, and members of the national parliament (Trud).

Kamen Kostadinov (deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the MRF), quoted in “Interviews.”