Политика

The socialists from Velingrad gathered for an emergency conference on 21 February, the purpose of which was determined in advance by the Supreme Party Council: analysis of the performance of local elections and renewal of leadership. Of the 154 delegates elected, 102 participated in the work of the conference. Guests were Mladen Kostov and Daria Vasileva from the Supreme Court of the BSP, the regional leader Kostadin Kobakov and the regional secretary Bozhidar Popov. As a guest participated also the member of the Supreme Court of BSP Ivan Lebanov. The conference lasted nearly 9 hours. The main analysis of the local elections was presented by the municipal chairman Toma Pachalov. There was a proposal in the hall to be read and the assessment of the Supreme Court of the BSP for the results of the local elections in Velingrad, but it was not accepted. Mr. Pachalov traced the stages of the election preparation, which began in the summer of 2002. and the signing of the coalition agreement between 16 left-wing parties in June 2003. The analysis (part of the conclusions we publish separately) abounded with figures and comparisons with the results of all elections since 1991. This way. The main reasons for the election failure were the many candidates who divided the party; the underestimation of the polls; the underestimation that a new kind of election is taking place; the insufficient work for the runoff. Personal wines of BSP members who, according to the leadership, did not observe party discipline were also pointed out. Even "the annual biological fallout of the membership table" was cited as the reason. I am calm for myself, my conscience is clear, I have followed the line of the party, said in the final Toma Pachalov.
The speeches were quite a few (some of them we publish separately), with most emotionally searching for the reasons for the failure, rather than looking at the problem of how the BSP will change its style of work in the future. Ideas in this direction contained the adopted resolution that more young people should be included in the BSP leadership, meetings with business circles "to establish mutually beneficial cooperation", to strengthen the contacts of municipal councilors with voters and new forms of expression should be sought.
In the discussion of the new composition of the municipal plenum, one significant trend emerged: emblematic figures from BSP such as Ivan Lebanov and Ivan Trichkov made their own retreats on the grounds that the style and method should be changed, new people should be included. Zavarin Marov asked why he was fighting back, but some of the proposed new members of the plenum also announced self-repudiations. In the end, there were 42 names left, of which the delegates, after a two-hour secret ballot, elected the new 32-member Municipal Party Council. In it have the familiar names, renovation is minimal. Surprisingly, the municipal councilor Mikhail Alexiev, who did not attend the conference, dropped out of the plenum.
The proposals for the presidency were 10, but after self-repudiation only 2: the current leader Toma Pachalov and Georgi Dzharov, who was not left for the last vote. It was decided that the vote would be open and in the absence of Mr. Dzharov the delegates jointly, without a single vote against, re-elected Toma Pachalov.
The closing words were of VS member Mladen Kostov, who called for there to be dissenters, but to have unity of action when the decisions are implemented. Mr. Pachalov thanked for the new credit of trust and wished to make an effort together to get the BSP out of its current state. The conference did not give an answer to the important question what the role of the BSP in the local government will be - it will sustain the government or it will be in opposition. Partial response sounded in the analysis of T. Pachalov: "Without participation in the management of the municipality, the positions of the BSP are melting!". Also there it was recommended to look for common points with DPS, NMSS, BSD and IMRO. The new Municipal Party Council faces the challenge of choosing the winning option for the BSP, and there is not much time.
Elena Baeva

ANALYSIS
With 16 mayoral nominations, there were predictions that with so many candidates we have lost others that this shows the strength of the party and the availability of personnel. After the municipal conference, some of the candidates stepped up in morale and ran, driven by our cadres. Weakness was the lack of feedback on electoral attitudes. We passed information that was uncomfortable for us - we thought it was a sociological mistake. We also passed the signals for a breakthrough in the structures - BSP activists worked for Daskalov, Kolev, Ovcharov, and probably for other candidates. Parallel applications such as Dospatski in Graevo were put forward in places.
The trends: the number of votes in the villages (by about 3000) is increasing and this will continue in the future, with the generic voting principle above the party one. Various forms of pressure were also used in the villages without official complaints being received. In Velingrad, 9274 people did not vote in the local elections. The lowest was the turnout in Kamenica, and the highest in Chepino.
The results for the list of councilors show that support for the BSP is steadily decreasing, and this is a trend throughout Bulgaria. Apparently, the list didn't appeal to voters. Ivan Lebanov threatened to register as an independent and we rearranged the list.
Reasons for failure: BSP did not find a way to the business elite and had no funds for the campaign. We did not build a sufficiently profitable image of Zavarin Marov. The management projects did not reach the people. We did not appreciate that there was a new type of election between aggressive opponents, the economic clash replaced the ideological one.

THE EXPRESSIONS
Lilyana Hristova: All 15 mayoral candidates were born of BSP. The election was not between political parties, but between nouveau riche. Maria Alexandrova: The High Council said "renewal", but some interpreted it as an "extension". We didn't win the first round, but there was a candidate leading by 3,000 votes - why didn't we consider his proposal, and for family reasons we supported the other one? Georgi Pashov: If today we are faced with 10 candidates for chairman, this will be a moral and organizational test, an absolute disintegration. The party council is a closed structure, a group of 5 people who are at the head of the list. The alderman's list had to have another leader and composition. Dimitar Arshinkov: We haven't heard such a critical report in a long time. We shouldn't say "we lost" but "we didn't win" because we still have 5 councillors and we didn't have a mayor. Ivan Lebanov: Almost not Ivan Lebanov is to blame for losing the elections! I've given ideas other than the Bureau's. The entire civic knew that nine candidates was a mistake and that our candidate was unelectable. The list was also known which would be the first 6 and so I proposed to participate as an independent, and then to be together on the Municipal Council. My idea is for the BSP to move more pragmatically at the local level.
Ivanka Tsanova: Give way to others! It can't be the same in the plenum, counselors, and candidates.
Zavarin Marov: I have the biggest fault. But on a personal level, I also have the biggest loss because I gave my personal authority. If we were second in the runoff, we wouldn't have won. We can't provide that kind of money, and we can't buy votes with money. The Formula of Success of F. Beev was money plus a one-sided ethnic vote plus media, and the result was a crushing difference. We must now refresh the leadership through a reasonable balance and the party council to decide where our group will be on the Municipal Council.
Ivan Bandakov: We did not learn the lesson from the previous elections, which we lost in the same way.