Nacheva and others) the problems of suffrage and electoral systems are given much attention [1].

The media as a mirror of public opinion. Problems of correct presentation of the results of sociological surveys // Context. – 2001. – No. 12. – P. 18Trofimova N. The government has a lot of power. The people want to more actively influence political decision-making // Day. – 2003. – No. 95. – June 4. – P. 4. Kucheriv I. The first Ukrainian exit polls during the presidential election // Flight. portrait of Ukraine. – 2000. – Vip. 22: Election-99. – P. 118. Khoma N. The main trends in the behavior of voters of independent Ukraine (1991 – 2001) // Ukraine in the twentieth century: lessons, problems, prospects. – Kyiv, 2001. – P. 775 – 776. Golovakha EI, Panina NV Trends in the development of Ukrainian society (1994 – 1999). Sociological indicators (tables, illustrations, commentary). – Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of NASU, 1999. – P. 48.

03/14/2011

Political processes of modern Bulgaria: the role of elections. Abstract

Elections in the Bulgarian political space have become a litmus test of socio-political, economic and socio-cultural changes. They show that society seeks these changes and is ready to bear the burden of change, but it also wants to see the prospects for its own development.

The political development of modern Bulgaria is determined by the general tendencies of post-communist transformations. The desire to move from totalitarianism to democratic norms of life, to gain independence and find their place in the world led to a change in the political system and the transformation of legal, socio-economic and other social institutions.

The study of transformation processes in post-socialist countries has both theoretical and practical significance for Ukrainian science. An analysis of political science publications shows that Ukrainian scholars are still showing insufficient interest in the problems of post-communist development in Southeast Europe, although politicians have shown some success in recent years, particularly in relations with Bulgaria.

The task of the publication is to analyze the electoral system of Bulgaria, which characterizes the degree of its democratic development. Based on consultations with the organizers and participants of the election process, studying the results of the election campaigns, the author tends to claim that it was with the 1990 elections that Bulgaria’s path to democratization of public life began.

In the Bulgarian legal and political science literature (S. Stoychev, G. Bliznashki, P. -E. Mitev, S. Nacheva and others) the problems of suffrage and electoral systems are given much attention [1]. Elections, as an institution for the exercise of suffrage, are one of the most important characteristics of modern democracy. The authors of the study note that in the evaluation of elections it is necessary to distinguish between their form and content. Often the politically and legally formalized right to vote and to be elected does not correspond to the real meaning.

Today, electoral systems exist in most countries of the world, but only in a third of them they are carried out in practice, in 1/5 are held one-party “elections” and in some the right to choose is quite questionable [2 ]. As you know, electoral systems have a long history. In some countries, they gradually transformed and established over the centuries.

Although the French and American bourgeois revolutions proclaimed all people equal, not all citizens were given the right to vote at that time. Even in a country like the United States, women did not get the right to vote until 1920. Only in 1965 were the last restrictions for them in suffrage abolished – the test of literacy, race, voting fee [3]. In many countries, equality of choice came only in the twentieth century, even in the second half.

Historically, the majority electoral system based on the majority principle emerged and was formed. Initially, it was implemented as a majority system of relative majority, where the candidate who received more votes than the other candidates who participated in the election was considered elected. This system had certain shortcomings, as it did not allow to really represent the public interest. Most voters were left without political representation, their votes were lost and could not affect the final result.

As a correction of this option, there is a majority system of absolute majority, which claimed a high degree of fair reflection of the will of the electorate. The winner was the candidate who received more than others, but not less than 50% + 1 of all votes cast, recognized as valid.

Although this system is fairer, it has a significant drawback – it is very rare for such strong and authoritative figures to enter the political arena to immediately gain an absolute majority of votes. As a rule, this leads to the second round, which means additional material and moral costs. Such a system with a dominant personal moment operates in the UK, USA, France, New Zealand, Tunisia and other countries (in modified versions).

The proportional system, which emerged much later, in the late nineteenth century, with the claim to a higher degree of representation, became especially popular after World War II. It works well in a multi-party system, as it allows all the most significant and influential parties to be represented in parliament. The criterion of their political weight is a predetermined barrier – the required minimum percentage of votes cast for the party as a condition for participation in the distribution of seats. Such a system exists in different versions.

Tested for the first time in Belgium, the proportional system first spread to northern Europe and, after World War II, to almost the entire continent. It is also used in some Latin American countries. The most difficult thing in this system is to determine the measure of proportion, or the price of one mandate. Different methods were used in the search for the mechanism of proportional distribution of seats.

In Bulgaria in 1990, a fairly common method of Ondt was adopted. Each of the classic models has certain disadvantages. Electoral laws often introduce a strong majority element into the proportional system to mitigate their disadvantages. Or vice versa. According to this principle, there were mixed systems that synthesize elements of both systems. They are used, in particular, in Germany, Italy, Hungary, Australia. The mixed system is also used in a number of post-socialist countries, including Bulgaria and Ukraine.

Both types of electoral systems are not new to Bulgaria. They have been used since the time of the Third Bulgarian State, after 1879. Scientists have estimated that since then, in the process of 45 parliamentary elections (7 – to the Grand National Assembly and 38 – to the People’s Assembly) – 28 were held by majority, 15 – by proportional and 2 – by mixed system (in different versions) [4]. This diversity does not suggest that Bulgaria has a strong national tradition or a strong political practice of holding elections. It seems that Bulgaria has been looking for an adequate electoral system for over 120 years.

In fact, Bulgarian suffrage originates from the Tarnovo Constitution and the Law on Elections of Representatives to the Ordinary and Great People’s Assemblies of 1880. [5] The law enshrined the widespread in Europe majority system with universal, equal and direct suffrage. The exception is the period from 1882 to 1885 (the so-called regime of powers), when not only property and educational qualifications were introduced, but also indirect elections. In 1945, the law restricted the right to vote for persons who had anything to do with fascism.

Restrictions on women’s suffrage were introduced in certain periods.

Since 1911, Bulgaria has had a proportional electoral system. It was then that the experiment was conducted in a sense, because as a result of the election, only 10% of seats were won under the proportional system, and 90% – under the majority.

After the 1934 coup, parties were banned in Bulgaria, and a long period of “non-partisan regime” began in parliament. Only in the autumn of 1944 did the proportional system work again, albeit for a short time. Since 1947, a new model of socio-political life and a new design of electoral legislation, which was in force for forty years. The formal bipartisan model, the legal consolidation of the leading role of the Communist Party, the lack of alternative programs and personalities made the very idea of ​​choice meaningless.

Bulgaria returned to the classical models of the electoral system only in 1989, after the fall of T. Zhivkov’s regime. https://123helpme.me/write-my-lab-report/ Unlike many post-socialist countries, the Bulgarians did not create a new electoral system, but in fact recreated a not completely forgotten, but for various reasons rejected political tradition and practice.

In the conditions of violent political processes, under the strong influence of the decisions of the National Round Table in 1990, the law on elections to the Grand National Assembly (HEI) was adopted, which provided for the introduction of a mixed system [6] … It mechanically combined elements of majority and proportional systems. According to this law, 200 university deputies (400 of them in total) are elected by the majority system in two rounds, and another 200 – by proportional. Elections to the National Assembly and Public Councils are held on a proportional system.

This option allows to determine both the nature of citizens’ demands on candidates and the degree of influence on society of parties and other ideological and political entities. The parties that existed before – with precisely defined roles for them, found themselves in qualitatively new, non-standard circumstances. The restored parties, as a result of their long absence from the political scene and even with new leaders at the helm, could hardly benefit from the old experience gained in other conditions. The new parties, which, although they had no political experience, did not feel the burden of the past, claimed a worthy, perhaps even a leading position in the new political space that was just beginning to take shape.

The law allowed parties to take advantage of both the pros and cons of both the majority and proportional electoral systems. Each party could in practice assess which of the two components of the mixed system allowed them to provide the best result. And voters could determine which version of the electoral system is more in the interests of society and ensures adequate representation of citizens in the system of government.