Populism in Bulgaria Between Politicization of Media and Mediatization of Politics 1

. Populism as a political position and rhetorical style is nowadays an object of comprehensive research and multi-faceted social discussions. The strong critical attitude of populists towards the status quo , towards what they regard as the chimera of democracy, is generally intertwined with the function of the media as a corrective factor with regard to government authorities. The development of mankind in the present is characterized by transformation trends in technological, economic, and social spheres. These trends impact the political environment as well. The challenges of the economic crisis, as well as the migration processes are strengthening the position of Euro-skeptics and revitalize the development of populism. The present text is focused on the developments of political populism in Bulgaria. The political environment in the country is characterized by almost permanent merge of political entities, which gradually escalates the use of populist approaches, styles and rhetoric. Research attention to this political phenomenon is determined by the success of some newly formed populist parties during the new century, gradually winning considerable numbers of seats in the parliament. The use of populist phraseology is evident among all political parties in the country, whether left-or right-oriented. Bulgarian political actors of a populist trend – including political leaders and parties – have mixed, oftentimes changing, characteristics. This populist phraseology is transmitted to audiences mainly through the media. It has to be noted that the dynamics of the pre-election campaigns during the period of democratization since 1989 has been developing alongside demonopolization, liberalization and transformation of the media system. Deregulation of the radio and TV broadcasting sector dragged on, giving way to the development of two mutually bound processes – politicization of the media and mediatization of politics. The paper is structured in three methodologically interconnected parts, presenting: an overview of the process of politicization of the media and mediatization of politics in Bulgaria; an analysis of the political populist trends in the country; a discussion on the connections between populism and the media.


Introduction
New information technologies are enhancing the communication process of identifying and setting the public agenda.Today, changes in society are catalyzed by the opportunities provided by the blogosphere and the social networks, and by mobile electronic connections.Mediatized mobile communications have proven to be emblematic for mediatized society [Peicheva 2003]. he international stratiication in communication development seems to be, to paraphrase Zbigniew Brzezinski, "out of the control" of competing strategies, including social, cultural, political, economic, technological, demographic, and ecological strategies [Petev 2001, p. 112].
his fundamentally new situation of social disintegration and shortage of social synergy is a nourishing environment for the revival of populism, primarily by non-systemic political parties.hough it has one of the leading world economies, the European Union is still feeling the sting of the economic crisis.Long-term unemployment is rising, and the pressure coming from the entry of more than a million migrants into Europe in just one year is strengthening the position of Euro-skeptics and populists.
Populism as a political position and rhetorical style has been the object of comprehensive research and multi-faceted social discussions.he strong critical attitude of populists towards the status quo, towards what they regard as the chimera of democracy, is generally intertwined with the function of the media to be a corrective factor with regard to government authorities.
he prevailing approach to populism is perceived as a threat to democracy.However, it is also viewed as an expression of democratic shortcomings.Positioned between the people and the elite, the nourishing element of the performances of the populist actors is the media.In contemporary times, when audiences have transformed from passive consumers to active participants in the creation of media products, the signiicance of the political communication strategies has unprecedentedly risen.
Research attention in Bulgaria has started to be focused on populism recently, but it is increasing in terms of the engagement of scholars and the expansion of the range of study.his interest was determined by the successes of newly formed populist parties during the new century -parties of the harder or soter variants -which succeeded in periodically winning considerable numbers of places in national parliaments.he methodological challenges brought due to the multiplicity concepts and the lack of clear categorical indicators makes it diicult to it the phenomenon in the traditional political system.Practically, almost all political formations and political actors use populist strategies, especially in pre-election times.hat is why it is extremely diicult to perceive an entire political party or a political leader a populist.
he speciicity of research on populism derives from the speciic techniques and approaches used by populists.Among Bulgarian researchers, there is still no unanimity on populism and its speciicity.Yet this does not mean that there is no agreement that it involves "playing the role of the ordinary people".
Pobrane z czasopisma Mediatizations Studies http://mediatization.umcs.plData: 13/09/2023 21:28:42 U M C S Georgi Karasimeonov denotes three features of populism: emergence, organizational form and political practices.He points out that populism arises from mass discontent provoked by the crisis of the legitimacy of democratic institutions.Organizationally, the populist movement is formed around charismatic leaders and is built around centralized structures.As a political practice, populism is generally aggressive, sometimes violent, ignoring established democratic rules, a plebiscite-oriented, opportunistic and demagogic [Karasimeonov 2008].
Svetoslav Malinov [2007] deines populism as a form of political thought and speech, as a set of rhetorical igures and techniques, possessing a single leading characteristic: constant appeal and reference to the collective image of the "people".his characteristic is complemented by features such as "ofering what people want to be ofered", "brilliant promises", "identifying oneself with, and speaking in the name of the people"; "labeling", etc., in the context of the seven propaganda techniques deined in the US in 1937[How… 1937].
Daniel Smilov stresses on three aspects of the concept of populism: "At times it is used to describe the process of backsliding from the achievements of liberal democracy made before the accession to the EU.At other times, it refers to the emergence and growth of nationalist or radical right-wing parties.Almost all of the Bulgarian scholars agree with Cas Mudde that populism is an ideology that places the people in opposition to the corrupt political elite" [2008, p. 26].
he conceptual schemes of Margaret Canovan [1981] and Cas Mudde [2007] have been used as keys to understanding and explaining the phenomenon, as well as to deining populism in Bulgaria.Scholars have accepted Mudde's idea that "even if populism as an ideology is viewed as a basic threat, in fact the basic threat in Europe today is populism as a style" [Mudde 2007, p. 115].
Atanas Jdrebev deines populism as a way of political thinking, speaking, and action inherent in modern politics, which has the following characteristics: • anti-elitism -criticism of the dominant political elites as corrupt and their opposition to the ordinary people; • anti-partyism -opposing traditional parties as separating the people and hindering the materialization of its common will; • anti-institutional -denying the role of political institutions as a tool for making legitimate political decisions, representing the common will of the people; • anti-democracy -non-compliance with the principles of representative democracy and their systemic undermining; • anti-constitutionalism -opposing the principles of constitutional order; • anti-pluralism -rejection of the principles of political pluralism and their opposition to the general will of the people; • demagogy -populists speak what people want to hear; • lack of a core of values, collaboration of populism with let and right ideologies; • manipulating public dissatisfaction in situations of unsatisied social and political demands; Pobrane z czasopisma Mediatizations Studies http://mediatization.umcs.plData: 13/09/2023 21:28:42 U M C S • emergence of crisis in the legitimacy of the political system; • plebiscitary direction -populists insist on frequent referendums; • a charismatic leader who catalyses populist mobilization; • rejecting the role of the institutions as mediators between the populist leader and the people; • using the resources of media democracy for direct and immediate communication between the leader and the people; • opposition of ethnic minorities, immigrants and foreigners [Jdrebev 2016].Bulgarian researchers stress on the moral overtone of the phenomenon, related to categories such as truth, lie, manipulation, honesty, decency, sincerity, etc. hey have debated whether populism is good or bad, whether or not it is a threat to democratic processes, etc. [Malinov 2007;Karasimeonov 2008;Smilov 2008;Kabakchieva 2009;Badzhakov 2010;Krastev 2007;Krasteva 2013;Jdrebev 2016, etc.].
here is no consensus in academic circles regarding the types of populism present in society.In resting upon the four types of types of populism (complete, excluding, anti-elitist, and empty populism) outlined by Jan Jagers and Stefaan Walgrave [2006], and on the indicators for them, it may be concluded that these types exist in Bulgaria, although they have not been classiied in the terminology used by these two authors.
Nearly all parties in Bulgaria have displayed some populist manners and have lirted, to a greater or lesser degree, with the people, speculating on popular expectations and hopes.
Classical populism coincides with the European, mostly xenophobic populism of the 1930s; social populism, considered to be let-oriented, is associated primarily with the old let-wing parties and the newly formed letward-inclined parties; while the speciic "pro-European" populism is ascribed to newly formed parties with a liberal orientation.
Hard populism has restructured itself in recent years to become a mixture of nationalist and extremist elements, with an accent on othering.
he sot version of populism encompasses general appeals to people, catch-all politics and demagogic discourses.
he elements of let and right populism are hybrid in nature.In reality, populism in Bulgaria is neither let nor right, because some of the outstanding parties falling under this category combine extreme let and extreme right practices along with hate speech.
he discrepancy between economic expectations and reality, between political expectations and concrete policies, etc., as well as the presence of contrary evaluations of the transition to democratic society and market economy are the grounds of the varieties of populism in Bulgaria and of the diiculty of building a relevant conceptual Pobrane z czasopisma Mediatizations Studies http://mediatization.umcs.plData: 13/09/2023 21:28:42 U M C S framework for the phenomenon.It is not accidental that the most malicious manifestations of populist political actors, including in the media, have been organized ater Bulgaria's accession to the Euro-Atlantic structures and are a result of disappointment in the efects of this new situation.
Ana Krasteva, referring to the comparative study of populism in Central and Eastern Europe made by Jacques Rupnik [2007, p. 130] and of the three main features he deines, has concluded that Bulgarian populism is a typical example of post-communist East European populism, and is highly imitative."Extremism is not a spontaneous internal attitude but is a learned political game" [Krasteva 2013, p. 11

Politicization of the media and mediatization of politics
he dynamics of the pre-election campaigns during the period of democratization since 1989 has been developing alongside demonopolization, liberalization and transformation of the media system.Deregulation of the radio and TV broadcasting sector dragged on, giving way to the development of two mutually bound processes -politicization of the media and mediatization of politics.
In spite of the fact that Bulgaria has taken considerable steps towards democratization, the political system faces an immense challenge owing to its unclear identity, both at conceptual and at representative level.he long years of one-party dominance were replaced by an ever-growing host of new political parties, unions and organizations, which constantly split, regrouped and entered into coalitions, especially on the eve of upcoming elections.he breakdown of the bipolar model (socialists vs. democrats) with the aid of some newly formed structures of leadership, has failed to bring sustainability to the political system which is weighed down by diicult economic and social tasks.Gradually, the situation of social disintegration and shortage of social synergy has become a good environment for the revival of populism, primarily by non-systemic political parties.
On the other hand, politicians fail to carry out the necessary reforms that would meet the European commitment of the country and the expectations of the people.Even the unique Bulgarian ethnic model, formed ater long years of efort on the part of all ethnic groups and not by the contemporary parties and politicians, has been put to abusive purposes.he ever deeper gap between rulers and society has proved a grave obstacle for the trust and entrepreneurship of citizens.he absence of Pobrane z czasopisma Mediatizations Studies http://mediatization.umcs.plData: 13/09/2023 21:28:42 U M C S distinct program platforms encourages inter-party migration and erodes the foundations of political pluralism and decreasing election participation: from 90.79% in the irst round of elections for the Grand National Assembly in 1990, to 28.6% in the irst elections for the European Parliament in Bulgaria in 2007, and further down to 20.22% for the First National Referendum in 2013 [Central Election Commission 2015].Slowly but steadily, Bulgarian electors have refused to yield to the instruments of political, survey and media propaganda, have rejected joining the process of social imitation, and have acquired a position of active passiveness.As a result, the eforts of state regulation fail to efectively overcome self-regulation that can be traced back to the dawn of democratic changes achieved at the National Round Table, back in 1990.A telling example is the Code of Conduct for Election Campaigns which forbids the ofering, demanding, giving out, or promising any monetary amounts, or any other advantage for the elector's signature in support of, or for nomination of a candidate, or for voting in favour of any political party, movement or an independent candidate (National Round Table 1990).he observance of this self-regulatory norm has proved unattainable for participants in the country's elections and thus, years later, it had to be legally decreed that the purchase and sale of votes is a criminal ofence.However, this statement repeated as a must ater every piece of political advertising has failed to rid the country of the problem [Raycheva 2017].
Political pluralism and the varied media environment in Bulgaria continue to experience constant diiculties. he still-in-the-make civil society fails to assist the creation of a stable public basis for professional journalism.According to the World Press Freedom Index 2017, Bulgaria has dropped down to 109 th place (out of 180 countries), which shows that freedom of speech and independent journalism is still a convertible phraseology for most of the media outlets and for many non-government organizations disbursing the funds of European and Transatlantic institutions [Reporters 2017].
Data provided by the National Statistical Institute vividly show the media trends in more than a quarter of a century since the start of the transition period.Currently, the number of print media amounts to 295 newspapers (55 dailies) with a total annual circulation of 315,712,000, and 668 magazines and bulletins, with an annual circulation of 27,831,000 [NSI 2015].In 2015, there were 337 radio stations and 187 television channels operating on national, regional and local level terrestrially, via cable or via satellite, and listed in the public register of the Council for Electronic Media [Council 2015].
For more than a quarter of a century, political, economic and social upheavals have signiicantly impacted the development of the mass media system in Bulgaria towards quick and lexible reactions to the social processes.he major signiicance of television was manifested in several critical situations during the years, including: the TV attack against President Petar Mladenov in 1990 that compelled him to resign; the resignation of the BSP Government headed by Andrey Lukanov in 1990; the mass media war launched by the UDF Government of Filip Dimitrov, which led to its toppling in 1992; the exit of the Government of Lyuben Berov (under the Pobrane z czasopisma Mediatizations Studies http://mediatization.umcs.plData: 13/09/2023 21:28:42 U M C S out Censorship, which was widely publicized when formed early in 2014.In recent months, however, it has completely broken apart.Its leader Barekov, formerly a popular TV anchorman, is a salient example of a mixed type of political populism.He combines right-wing ideology with letist slogans referring to protecting the interests of the poor.his is a typical case of populism based on unscrupulously "playing the role of the ordinary people", making "brilliant promises", and using the media for political purposes, turning them into political PR institutions.However, Barekov was later denounced by people from his own party in the Parliament as being dependent on corporations.At present, he is a member of the European Parliament but has been abandoned by nearly all members of the Bulgaria Without Censorship coalition; his parliamentary group now carries the name Bulgarian Democratic Centre. Falling under the category of empty populism, with its reference and appeals to the ordinary people, is the political activity of the former Bulgarian tsar Simeon II.In 2001, he became prime minister of Bulgaria, having won votes in the parliamentary elections through his populist phraseology.Simeon II and the party established in 2001 and named ater him, the National Movement Simeon the Second (NMSS) is precisely falling in the category of "pro-European" populism that may be deined as "sot" populism as well.Simeon II has a speciic style of communication marked by moderation in speech, a certain show of modesty and benevolence.hese traits were part of his charisma.He has used a technique never applied before him in Bulgarian politics: "the technique of non-speech" [Krasteva 2013;Malinov 2007].His political style and conduct towards others are based on respect and compromise.Speciic for him is the style of catch-all politics.hus, the former tsar included ministers of diferent party ailiations in his government, and during his second mandate, he entered into coalition with the former Communists of the BSP, whose opponent he initially was.
he present Bulgarian prime minister Boyko Borisov of the centre-right political party Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (CEDB), who also held two previous mandates (2009-2013 and 2014-2017), also falls in the category of "sot" populism.His style is very particular.He displays a certain amount of eclecticism, making references to the common people, yet also tending to discredit opponents.
Eclecticism and aggressiveness is common to the verbal style of all "excluding" populists and to those with anti-elitist views.
Charisma is the common feature of populist leaders, which distinguishes them from other party leaders and explains the high election results their parties have achieved at various times.Charismatic leaders present themselves, and are perceived, as father igures, who personify the messages of the respective party.he political plan of Simeon II in 2001 to try to "Europeanize" Bulgaria within 800 calendar days was a personalized plan, as is Volen Siderov's plan to de-colonize Bulgaria from Europe.Attraction, not repulsion, is the symbolic resource of Simeon II underlying his charisma; to the opposite, Siderov's charisma is based on aggressiveness and negation.
In developing dynamically, the media also create a variety of forms used for political presentation.Populism is expanding in entertainment television as well, thereby leading some theorists to announce the start of a new populist practice based on the electronic media -show populism [Kabakchieva 2009, p. 1].
Hardly any political leader fails to be present in the new media, including blogs, social networks, sites of political parties, online television.heoretical and empirical analyses particularly emphasize the impact of populists on the online sphere.However, the activities of Internet trolls in online discussion forums that aimed basically at provoking the user, has not yet become a topic of researchers [Raycheva 2013].

Conclusions
he contradictions in the existing terminology, the national speciics of theorizing on populism, and the practices of the Bulgarian political leaders bring to the fore several sets of discussion topics.
Firstly, the identiication of anti-elitism and its manifestations.Is it true that the negative attitude towards those labeled as "elite" -including politicians, corporation members, bankers, oligarchs, businesspersons, etc. -is an expression of populism, as some European researchers claim, or does it rather represent a general denial of their elite quality?Is it not true that there is a widespread strong disapproval of the drastic dividing lines -in terms of wealth, power, governance -between them and other signiicant people, such as scientists, poets, artists, musicians, dramatists, medics, teachers, engineers, journalists, etc. (who, in the traditional perception of people, represent the authentic elites)?Is not the dubious and corrupt behavior of a considerable part of those who are labeled "elite" a strong justiication for the growing dislike towards such people throughout the world?hat is why the answers to these questions should be sought upon making corrections in the interpretation of this public intolerance as a form of populism.he deepening dividing lines can hardly be easily accounted for only in terms of populism.Such an understanding rather appears to be a subtle way to disregard the existing contradictions by placing them in a diferent framework of explanation.Elite status should generally be accompanied by intellect, creativity, spirituality, respect, upholding of principles, honesty, etc. Are these characteristics typical for the elite under consideration?
Secondly, it is also a debatable question whether nationalism, racism, and xenophobia should be placed within the framework of populism.hese are separate political ideologies and prejudices, and their self-reliance can hardly be questioned.he fact that they are applied in the rhetoric and programs of political leaders and parties can hardly change their speciic nature.
Pobrane z czasopisma Mediatizations Studies http://mediatization.umcs.plData: 13/09/2023 21:28:42 U M C S hirdly, the characteristic features of propaganda are "poured" into terminology relevant to populism.In our times, nearly all the above-mentioned seven propaganda techniques deined as far back as 1937 have been placed in the international research framework regarding populism.In this sense, the classiication of populism into different types seems an artiicial approach, given that the phenomenon manifests itself in a mixture of critique, speciic ideologies, stereotypes, insinuations, etc.
his discussion comes in response to the practical activities of political leaders and to the restless attempts at conceptualizing the phenomenon of populism.Although the multi-faceted approaches of the Bulgarian scholars to the matter, there is no consensus in the academic circles regarding the essence and the types of populism present in society -whether it can be viewed as an ideology, a distinct political movement or a rhetorical style, used by all political formations.hus, there is not enough evidence whether populism has to be applied only to certain political parties and their leaders and whether their activities can be considered as a threat or as a corrective to democracy.
he results of the content analysis and the existing ambiguity in the conceptual framework support the standpoint that populism can be adequately identiied in cases where speculation occurs with the unrealistic expectations of people, when politicians irresponsibly speak in the name of the people, or when they irresponsibly make promises.
]. he goal of the present text is to examine the current developments of political populism in Bulgaria.he authors of this paper have undertaken a thorough research on the populist political developments in Bulgaria.As members of the COST Action IS 1308: Populist Political Communication in Europe: Comprehending the Challenge of Mediated Political Populism for Democratic Politics, the authors have correlated with the goals of a broader research, conducted in the participating 31 countries [COST 2014].