Ivo Dimitrov

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Research Country: Bulgaria October 2010

SCHOLAR RESEARCH BRIEF:

HISTORICAL RECONCILIATION MODELS: FACING THE PAST IN POST-COMMUNIST BULGARIA

In my research, I was interested in how Bulgaria, as a new democracy, absorbs the legacy of its former communist regime. Using Spain as a theoretical model, my aim was to study in greater detail the causal mechanism for how an internal push would lead to historical reconciliation. I also sought to identify which political and social actors have served as partners or veto points in this effort. I interviewed various members of parliament and the political elite. Furthermore, I met with NGOs that deal with democratization, historical memory, and education in order to determine how the communist past was being integrated into public memory.

The following opinions, recommendations, and conclusions of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IREX or the US Department of State.

WWW .IREX.ORG

RESEARCH IN CONTEXT In 1946, Bulgaria was declared a Peoples Republic after a referendum abolished the monarchy.1 A policy of Stalinization followed, as the economy was centralized and state repression destroyed political opposition. It is estimated that over 50,000 of seven million Bulgarians were killed. 2 The regime further monopolized power by establishing over 100 workreeducation concentration camps, which may have processed up to 186,000 prisoners by the end of their lifetime in the late 1980s.3 Meanwhile, government policies that prioritized light industry, tourism, and industrialization secured unprecedented living standards, a generous welfare state, and promoted the cultural heritage of Bulgaria. When the communists lost their political monopoly, a traumatic transition to democracy, punctured by economic collapses, followed. I believe that societies in transition must face their past to bolster a mature and stable democratic identity. The histories of Spain and Bulgaria were dominated by repressive authoritarian regimes. Yet while Spain adopted a contentious Historical Memory Law, condemned its fascist legacy, and legislated victim restitution laws, Bulgaria lagged in reconciling with its communist past. Whereas Spain worked to remove Francoist vestiges from its political and administrative system, former State Security officials assumed authoritative positions in the governmental and economic hierarchies of Bulgarian society. This inaction has created a clear conflict with the countrys commitment to civil rights, democracy and EU standards of transparency. In recent years, there has been a debate over identifying the agents and victims of State Security, but little action has been taken. Unlike Spain, Bulgaria appears to lack an internally-driven desire to reconcile with its past. Yet, there are underlying structural and social explanations. Firstly, the communists neutralized the Church and rival political factions as societal forces. Secondarily, the vast portion of the population benefited from the increase in living standards under the communists. Thirdly, market liberalization created a clientelistic system where allegiance to a political party became more important than frank dialogue on issues.

Fig. 1: The mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov was the representative symbolic center of the socialist state. It was demolished in 1999 in an attempt to erase the totalitarian legacy.

The end result is not surprising, if tragic. There is no group or institution to transmit the pain of repression, the communist victims are lost in the public psyche and they have no collective voice. This has made the need to reconcile with the past less salient. Yet, recognizing human rights abuses is a weapon against recurrences in fragile democratic regimes. Without resetting ideas of justice and truth that have been flouted for decades, citizens cannot build allegiance to a democratic system that prioritizes the rule of law and the equality of citizens. Without restitution or social condemnation, the crimes of repressive regimes are legitimized and subversion of civil rights remains a viable alternative. Recent attempts to radically re-write or forget history in post-communist states, as well as Texas, show that it is not a mere academic exercise.4 Its reading translates into educational curriculum, shapes public policy, and serves as the cornerstone of the civic mindset of youth and national identity.

RESEARCH PROCESS AND RESULTS Observations: Reconciliation may range from adopting historical amnesia about the abuses of past regimes, as was the case in Chile, to truth and justice commissions similar to South Africa. Spain, I believe, represents a middle ground, whose goals are not punishment and retribution, but reintegrating the values of truth and justice at the societal core. Thus, my research goal was to describe and understand why such reconciliation has yet to happen in Bulgaria. Then, I sought to identify the necessary political conditions to start a similar dialogue on state repression between Bulgarian civil society organizations, the government and the citizenry. Throughout my studies, I paid particular attention to the interplay between domestic and external (i.e. EU) factors in affecting the likelihood of a reconciliation process. My data relied on archival and media sources in order to highlight the limited process of historical reconciliation in Bulgaria. My aim was to describe in greater detail the causal mechanism for how the internal push would lead to societal reconciliation and to contextually identify which political and social actors have served as partners or veto points in this effort. Archival sources provided the main and richest depository of historical documents associated with the transition to communism; newspaper articles about the democratization period; media footage on the debate; and memoirs of intellectuals who have served to propel the cause of reconciliation. Most importantly, I conducted interviews with members of the political elite, the former president of Bulgaria, and local and international NGOs that prioritized democratic reform. This approach allowed me to gauge each partys position on questions of historical reconciliation. Moreover, it aided me in deciphering the political process and the social rules that serve as the dynamic behind the debate. Historical reconciliation in Bulgaria does not seem to be a societal priority, nor is it likely to become a divisive voting issue without concerted efforts from civil society. At the same time, the groundwork for such an effort is quite apparent. There are NGOs and academicians that address historical memory and former state repression. The activities and dossiers of the former State Security have (albeit briefly) engaged the attention of the public and politicians. Archives are more transparent and centralized and many among the public are wellversed about the complex legacy of socialism. These factors form the potential for an objective and fair reading of Bulgarian history and relevant policymaking. The political elites Deciphering the political landscape was challenging and I relied on formal interviews with political leaders, media statements, and secondary sources. I was surprised that, contrary to my earlier predictions, the political class generally offered a similar reading on the socialist legacy; the early vetting of communists (lustration); and the role of state archives. Despite their ideological differences, they maintained that the time for punishment and restitution had passed and they doubted that the archives could offer greater insight or expose any high-ranking official. I had predicted that the BSP socialists, as heirs to the communist party, were likely to block a

Shame-faced, we remain silent about the camps and political prisons, the repressions, forced collectivization, nationalization, etc. This is not fiction, even if it did not reach the deformed and exaggerated dimensions claimed by todays democrats.
- Sergei Stanishev, former prime minister and chairman of the Bulgarian Socialist Party

reconciliation process that may implicate MPs in past crimes. It would tarnish the reputation of the party and weaken BSP efforts to emphasize their output-legitimacy by refocusing media and citizen attention on civil rights abuses perpetrated by the regime. My research supported this analysis. Major newspapers, political analysts, and many in the public believe that the BSP party remains fundamentally unreformed and that the key decisions are taken by the older generation of communists. As an entrenched and major political force, it focuses on affecting current policymaking, rather than tackling its historical legacy. An exception is the chairman of the BSP, Sergei Stanishev. A relatively young leader with a history doctorate, he has commented on the excesses of socialism publicly and in his book. Nevertheless, even he emphasizes the overwhelmingly positive legacy of communism, downplays the extent and duration of state crimes, and maintains that the communists consciously and voluntarily chose to give up their political monopoly and reform.5 A fundamental party shift is unlikely unless the constituent base of the BSP changes. Since many of the voters are pensioners, they associate communism with a significantly higher standard of living, advances in culture, and welfare security. This ensures their continued support, whereas criticism of that legacy may imperil their allegiance. Still, the party has been successful at marketing itself among youth as a social-democratic alternative. In the long run, this may make its voter base more socially conscious and willing to press for a re-reading of history. A more likely source for historical reconciliation may be the right-leaning democrats (GERB, Blue Coalition, Attack Party). This is grounded in their reconstitution as a political and ideological opposition to the communists. They have charged that the BSP is essentially a party of unreformed communists, guilty of decades-long corruption and abuses of state power. Yet whereas these democrats have criticized the BSP for past crimes, levied charges against them, and proposed lustration laws, they seemingly no longer see such efforts as voting issues. Indeed, in my interviews they expressed little interest in reinitiating the debates on lustration and archive

transparency. Representatives generally stated that the budget deficit, admission to the Eurozone, and welfare reform were the important items on their agenda. Surprisingly, these democrats communicated that history revision and righting past injustices is out of fashion and without impetus. Moreover, they were skeptical of the power of archives to change public opinion or expose high-ranking officials because they believed that the most damaging portions of the files had been amended, destroyed or stolen to be used as blackmail. Paradoxically, they all stated that government records needed to be more transparent, so that they may expose the corrupt awarding of contracts (during BSP-led governments) and the mega-rich who made their wealth at the onset of democracy. Lastly, the DPS centrist ethnic Turkish party is the most enigmatic political force. In the past, it has entered into coalition with the socialists and the liberal NDSV party. Many of their colleagues grudgingly described them as a highly-organized and efficient organization, whereas others simply labeled them as a corporate entity entrenched in politics. DPS constituents bore the brunt of socialist cultural assimilation campaigns in the 1980s, which serves as an important internally cohesive element. Thus, I predicted that in coalition with a government that is grounded in the center, they are likely to advance reconciliation efforts in the public sphere. However, DPS deputies have rarely made allusions to former state repression as a legitimating trait.

Ninety percent of the population is not interested in an individuals past, but in what he stole. We must show how wealth was amassed. Corruption has nothing to do with the past it is the nomenclature that robs Bulgaria. - Attack Party interview

RESEARCH PROCESS AND RESULTS Nevertheless, DPS flexibility in terms of political alliances and its guaranteed voting base places it in Body a powerful position to push for historical reconciliation. Should they regard such an effort as a relevant voting issue, their ability to ally with larger parties to form a government may give them a key role in placing it on the agenda.

In my research, I was particularly interested in the role of the European Union as an external incentive to face the past. I had hypothesized that since EU membership is highly important for political elites and the public, the EU might be a key factor in pushing for historical reconciliation. However, most political actors had a negative reaction to this idea. While some democrats regarded the EU as authoritative, few were willing to accept its role in the internal debate, stating that it would invalidate the process. Some maintained that the government itself had no role to play in the debate and that it should all be left in the hands of civil society and the citizenry. Curiously, NGOs adopted the opposite stance: they prioritized the weight, funding and authority of the EU as mobilizing factors towards reconciliation. NGOs and Scholars Several institutions tackle questions of historical memory. The Institute for Studies of the Recent Past (IIBM) has published a wealth of sources on memory, state crimes, and the communist period in conjunction with the Open Society Institute.6 The Reason Institute has led a project to train teachers on objective instruction of totalitarianism.7 They published a book about their efforts and have sought to create textbooks that may enter the school curriculum. The International Center for Minority Studies (IMIR) is an authoritative collaborative organization that deals with minority studies in the Balkans.8 It has published about repression of Bulgarian Turks during the assimilation campaigns of the 1980s. Various associations for victims of repression exist, though these are often marginalized and weak due to fracturing between themselves. Scholars are polarized into two camps depending on their treatment of communism. Critics often label it a totalitarian system and focus on state crimes.9 Those who have a favorable reading of the regime portray it as successful state socialism and

CONTENT comment on the repressions as a rare aberration.10 Unfortunately, much of the academic discourse still revolves around the Body definition of totalitarianism and whether monarchical Bulgaria was fascist before communism. Thus, each faction legitimizes its interpretation of the communist legacy, but they seldom present an inclusive analysis of the achievements and crimes of the regime. This binary threatens our nuanced and fair understanding of the regime.

Archival law Due to a law adopted in 2006, the archive of the former State Security agency started being transferred from the Ministry of Interior to a modern centralized archive in August 2010.11 A committee for dossiers is the sole authority that can verify whether public officials were affiliated with the secret police.12 Though any highranking public official is liable to undergo a background check, the procedure cannot happen without the consent of the examined individual. Moreover, the law does not seek to establish criminal intent, despite the vetting. The chairman of the committee states: it is not a lustration law by nature. Its application has a moral meaning. History is the best teacher for the future. 13 Nonetheless, many in academia and the public believe that the most compromising information may have been destroyed at the onset of the transition.

Truth isGraph, often painful. Picture, Quote Let us all make our own assessment in terms of our own prejudices, understandings, and knowledge of the time. - Evtim Kostadinov, chairman of the Committee for State Security dossiers

CONTINUING RESEARCH I am interested in how the question of historical memory and reconciliation can be translated in the educational curriculum. In my research, I discovered that the Ministry of Education, Youth and Science (MON) no longer imposes a single history textbook as the standard text. Rather, it would identify ones that have a positive, negative or neutral reading of the communist period. While this approach may appease several factions, I believe that the goal should be to create objective teaching material that emphasizes critical thinking in students and primary source analysis. What is the likelihood of producing such a work and which steps and organizations should be involved in the effort? Furthermore, many politicians mentioned that the awarding of state contracts is the nexus of corruption in Bulgaria, as opposed to ties with the former State Security. Therefore, a project on the causal mechanism of government contracts may shed light on lobbyism, conflicts of interest, distribution and misappropriation of EU subsidies, and corruption as a roadblock to democratic and effective governance. Policymakers that prioritize democratization must support civil society. The aforementioned NGOs already have professional teams and projects that suffer from scant funding. At the same time, United States aid is decreased as Bulgaria is seen as a stable democracy for which the EU should bear greater responsibility. Cultural programs between museums and archives between the two countries would facilitate exchanges of expertise. Fellowship programs, such as the Fulbright Grant, should be broadened to allow teachers and democracy practitioners to strengthen their credentials in the United States. Similar exchange programs for high-school students would allow youth to come in unmediated contact with another democracy. They would encourage young people to reevaluate their own society and their role within it. On a local level, policymakers should support debate initiatives such as the International Debate Education Association (IDEA). These would inculcate the values of reason, tolerance, and critical thinking in a generation of future leaders and policy-crafters. Although historical reconciliation must be an internally-driven process in order to be meaningful and lasting, US policymakers can help the effort by continued investments in professional training, cultural exchange and projects that prioritize democratization.

RELEVANCE TO POLICY COMMUNITY The main purpose of historical reconciliation is to reintegrate truth and justice at the societal core. In turn, this decreases the likelihood that citizens can become the victims of ideology and engage in the subversion of civil rights. Moreover, by prioritizing the rule of law and equality as unconditional societal values, citizens build allegiance to democracy. The United States, as a global purveyor of democratization and civil rights, has had a longstanding commitment to promoting civil society as a bulwark against ideological extremism. Moreover, US foreign policy has emphasized the importance of Bulgarians as strategic partners, embedded in democratic Europe, and as a stabilizing influence on the Balkans. Thus, this effort at historical reconciliation echoes the American commitment to fostering democracy at the grassroots level and bolstering mature democratic identities, inoculated against radical political forces.

REFERENCES
Crampton, R.J. 2005. A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dimitrov, Vesselin. 2001. Bulgaria: the uneven transition. New York: Routledge. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1999. Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria. Translated by Robert Zaretsky. University Park, PA: Penn State Press. Stanishev, Sergei. 2008. (Because we are socislists). Sofia: Duma. Vachudova, Milada A. 2005. Europe undivided: Democracy, Leverage, & Integration after communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ENDNOTES
1 Crampton, 1997. 2 Dimitrov, 2001, 21-25. 3 Todoroff, 1999. 4 BBC News. A point of view: History, with rose-tinted hindsight. BBC News. 25 June, 2010. 5 Stanishev, 2008. 6 Institute for Studies of the Recent Past, last accessed October 25, 2010, <http://minaloto.org/index.php?lang=en> 7 Reason institute, last accessed October 25, 2010, < http://www.razum.org/> 8 International Center for Minority Studies, last accessed October 25, 2010, <http://www.imir-bg.org/> 9 See Plamen Tsvetkov, Luchezar Stoyanov, Ivaylo Znepolski, Misho Gruev. Also, Documents from the Archive of the Bulgarian Communist Party, last accessed October 25, 2010, <http://nbu.bg/webs/historyproject/index.htm> 10 See Iskra Baeva. Also, Todorova, Maria. 2009. Remembering Communism. Social Science Research Council. 11 , . . 10 2010. 12 COMDOS, last accessed October 25, 2010, <http://www.comdos.bg/> 13 COMDOS, last accessed October 25, 2010, <http://www.comdos.bg/media/Nashite%20izdania/Fullspisania1.pdf>

IREX is an international nonprofit organization providing leadership and innovative programs to improve the quality of education, strengthen independent media, and foster pluralistic civil society development. Founded in 1968, IREX has an annual portfolio of over $60 million and a staff of 500 professionals worldwide. IREX and its partner IREX Europe deliver cross-cutting programs and consulting expertise in more than 100 countries.

This Scholar Research Brief was developed as part of the Individual Advanced Research Opportunities (IARO) Program, an IREX program funded by the US Department of State. IARO supports in-depth field research by US students, scholars and experts in policy-relevant subject areas related to Eastern Europe and Eurasia, as well as disseminates knowledge about these regions to a wide network of constituents in the United States and abroad. The IARO Program plays a vital role in supporting the emergence of a dedicated and knowledgeable cadre of US scholars and experts who can enrich the US understanding of developments in Eastern Europe and Eurasia.

ABOUT TITLE VIII

The Title VIII Program, administered by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, provides funding for research and language training to American scholars and students for the study of Eastern Europe and Eurasia (Independent States of the Former Soviet Union). Title VIII maintains U.S. expertise in the regions and brings open source, policy-relevant research to the service of the U.S. Government. Grants under this program are awarded through an open, national competition among applicant organizations. Authority for this Program for Research and Training on Eastern Europe and Eurasia (Independent States of the Former Soviet Union) is contained in the Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983 (22 U.S.C. 4501-4508, as amended).

2121 K STREET, NW, SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 T +1 202 628 8188 | F +1 202 628 WWW.IREX.ORG