The journalists of Bulgaria regularly experience pressure from politicians to censor their questions and their stories. High-ranking officials openly threaten journalists’ jobs to ensure their cooperation. Despite these troublesome occurrences, the state of democracy in Bulgaria may not be in as great of trouble as even the Freedom House scores reflect.
On October 11th, members of the Bulgarian media protested in front of the Cabinet building against infringements on their freedom of speech.
The protest occurred after member of Parliament Anton Todorov made an implicit threat against television journalist Viktor Nikolaev. Todorvo referenced Nikolaev’s former co-host and her exit from the show, implying the same could happen to Nikolaev. “You are using very strong words and they might cost you your bread [livelihood]. They already cost the bread of your colleague – she had taken a certain direction, and as far as I can see, her chair is missing now.” Todorov warned Nikolaev. (Bulgarian Politicians Alleged Threats 2017)
On the same day, deputy prime minister Valeri Simeonov also appeared as a guest on Nikolaev’s show. After being asked about alleged corruption scandals and conflicts of interest in Prime Minister Boyko Borissov’s government, Simeonov threatened to organize a “Victorgate” – а reference to the Nikolaev’s first name and of course Watergate, which ended Richard Nixon’s career.
The branch of Association of European Journalists in Bulgaria, who organized the protest, stated that the purpose of the protest was to defend their right to work freely and to ask questions without fear of losing their jobs.
A few days later, the Association of European Journalists released the findings of a poll taken by over 200 journalists in Bulgaria. “Politicians are the ‘primary censors’ of the Bulgarian language media, demanding to edit interviews with them before publication and to determine questions in television interviews in advance.” (Politicians are Primary Censors 2017) According to the survey, politicians interfered by remarking on how a topic is covered, contacting media owners, and re-editing finished stories. Two thirds of interviewed journalists cited political pressure as more common than both economic pressure and pressure from advertisers.
“The European Broadcasting union (EBU) reminds Bulgarian politicians, that Public Service Media in Europe are guarantors for freedom of expression and media pluralism and each attempt to attack their independence is an attack against democracy.”(EBU Supports Bulgarian Journalists 2017)
An attack against democracy. Are these findings and these threats as dire as they seem? In recent years, Bulgaria’s decline in Freedom House score has primarily been caused by a decline in media rights and protection. Are these threats against the media a sign of the beginning of the end for democracy in Bulgaria?
Not so fast. Democratic backsliding is significant changes in the qualities of democracy. These changes occur in the areas of competitive elections, liberties, and accountability. Lust warns that we should be cautious when applying the term democratic backsliding to a country. Tighter restrictions on press freedoms, including persecution of independent journalists, are certainly disturbing and may be precursors to democratic backsliding. However, when such restrictions are limited in scope, it is unlikely that a country could be said to be backsliding. These changes are part of the normal push and pull of democracy.
Mueller makes the same warning when comparing populism and illiberal democracies. While populist practices can certainly escalate into the creation of more authoritarian regime, a populist country should be differentiated from an illiberal democracy. A populist may threaten certain media outlets, but an illiberal democracy will attack the very right of freedom of speech itself.
Hope for these regimes can be found in the responses to threats. The presence of protests, supported by large non-governmental groups, prove the presence of a strong civil society in Bulgaria. While politicians did threaten journalists, the government did not stop the protest, allowing for the expression of freedom of speech.
Furthermore, Todorvo resigned his position a few days after his interview. Todorvo’s party pulled away from him, leaving him without support or backup. Although Simeonov refuses to admit to his threats, the protest has won half the battle in this case.
Perhaps we can learn from the case of Bulgaria. Maybe we should hesitate to cry the fall of democracy due to the actions of a single individual. Lust and Mueller certainly encourage us to be vigilant, but also be less liberal with the use of the term democratic backsliding. If civil society is fighting back, perhaps democracy is not eroding.
I agree. The disturbing incidents of infringement on liberal rights alone cannot indicate democratic backsliding; an accurate assessment must consider the institutional response to those incidents. In your post, you demonstrated response mechanisms whereby a functional democratic society self-equilibrates, fending off the “attack against democracy”.
At the core of this equilibration is the civil society’s pressure on the government and — crucially — the government’s ductility to that influence. Of course, we do not with certainty know what would have happened if the protests had not occurred, but Deputy Prime Minister Valeri Simeonov’s same-day response indicates that the government would not be able to course-correct in the absence of the pointed reaction from the Association of European Journalists. As you say, the lack of protest repression, GERB’s distancing from its member, and Todorov’s subsequent resignation comprise the government’s equilibrating response to the incident. Had the protests been repressed and the party’s position consolidated around Todorov, we would have been justifiably more alarmed. That the cost of neglecting civil society interests is higher than the cost of estranging a Parliament member bespeaks a yet functional democracy.
I have to disagree with you that the threatening of the media is just part of the normal “push and pull” of democracy. A robust civil society and the freedom of expression are, I would argue, central to a vibrant democracy. Politicians in Bulgaria are using their power to threaten what the media, which they view as the opposition. Authoritarian regimes do not have robust opposition because there cannot be opposition. They threaten them and try to delegitimize them, just as politicians in Bulgaria are doing. These are not small threats either – they are contacting the owners of newspapers and TV stations and re-editing stories to say what they like and openly threatening the security of journalists. That is clear interference with the free press, not just unsatisfied politicians complaining about media coverage. The fact that someone as high up as the deputy prime minister is involved in this as well is discerning. There have been protests, yes, but in the future there may not be.
While you are right that populist practices aren’t undemocratic, they do go hand in hand with authoritarian regimes. Many authoritarian leaders, like Chavez, went from being populist to authoritarian. And, as we have seen, authoritarian changes do not happen overnight in the modern age. The chipping away at democratic practices happens slowly and they do not alone appear to be undemocratic – this is called “stealth authoritarianism.” Yet, the persecution of the media coupled with, say, getting rid of presidential term limits would be a sign that we should worry. While Bulgaria may not be entrenched in democratic backsliding yet, the restrictions on free press and persecution of journalists is a sign that it could happen soon. We should pay close attention to Bulgaria in the coming year and look out for the other signs of stealth authoritarianism and democratic backsliding.
* using to threaten the media, not what the media.
I have a less optimistic view of the strength of democracy in Bulgaria, as well as the nature of its state-journalist relationship. Though politicians have long sparred with the press, they have typically done so to decry inaccuracy or perceived bias. Though an American politician might favor MSNBC or criticize Fox, for example, she would not attempt to suppress opposing views. That is, a democratic politician and journalists are more likely to argue about how a fact ought to be interpreted, not if it ought to be reported at all. To threaten a journalist, to attempt to silence a critical voice, however, goes well beyond the confines of a functioning, liberal democracy.
Doing so shows a desire to take “controlling the narrative” to a concerningly literal level, to cripple the people’s source of information. This “stealth authoritarianism” appears harmless, but it reveals authoritarian desires, particularly after Simeonov threatened to sue media outlets. In that framework, allowing the protest to continue is not surprising. Had the government suppressed it, malevolent intentions would become authoritarian actions. Perpetuating the veneer of normality allows the state to mask the eroding democracy behind it.
Though you correctly note the limited scope, I am concerned that the implications of their actions have a greater reach. As Jan-Werner Muller notes, targeting a single journalist or media outlet sends tacit warnings to the entire industry (Muller, 45). A single threat or lawsuit could preemptively silence far more journalists. I am skeptical, therefore, that the Bulgarian government truly respects the right of free speech, the hallmark of civil society. A state cannot protect free speech while actively limiting the ability of journalists to exercise it. If Bulgaria continues down this path, therefore, its civil society will become hollow. Its democracy, like its journalistic freedom, will have eroded long before.
I thought your discussion was very intriguing and nuanced. While I want to fully agree with you, there are some aspects where perhaps I am yet completely convinced. I think you’re right in saying we should be vigilant and hesitate before we define countries as democratically backsliding. And I certainly agree that when “civil society fights back,” democracy is present within a country. But the threatening of free speech should always red flags. While Bulgaria is not an illiberal democracy but perhaps populist, as you suggested, the latent presence of populism indicates a regression of true democratic values. True, we do not have to be overly alarmist about it, but we should at least look at such instances with a more critical eye.