In brief
Bulgaria’s Continue the Change chair, Assen Vassilev, declared the presidential runoff’s low turnout a repudiation of the current government’s economic policies. He criticized the 2027 state budget for lacking public scrutiny and called for a new president who would oppose unconstitutional measures affecting citizens’ finances.
Assen Vassilev, chair of Bulgaria’s Continue the Change party, addressed reporters in Haskovo on November 1 after Sunday’s presidential runoff, demanding that voters choose truth over lies and return a president who would act as a corrective to those in power.
Vassilev’s remarks came as the turnout for the election was described by him as “the extremely strong vote of no confidence in the economic policies of the current government.” He saw the low level of participation as a clear message that the electorate was dissatisfied with the governing coalition’s performance.
During his statement, Vassilev urged citizens to differentiate between truth and lies, insisting that a president should be a genuine safeguard against political manipulation. He emphasised that the role of the head of state should be one of oversight over those in power, rather than a rubber stamp for executive decisions.
The Bulgarian MP also remarked on the striking comparison he had made to the number of young Bulgarians affected by war in Ukraine versus those affected by drug use over the past five years, implying that war had a far greater human cost and that national priorities should reflect this reality.
Speaking about the two candidates in the runoff, Vassilev singled out the nominee who had served as president for nine years and had reached the statutory retirement age, urging him to step aside. He said it was time that the presidency be refreshed with new leadership capable of resisting lies.
Vassilev criticised the scheduling of the 2027 draft state budget, arguing that it had been kept from public scrutiny. He noted that the statutory deadline for its submission had expired the day before the runoff, raising questions about the transparency of the budgeting process.
According to the figures announced so far, the budget proposal promised more than EUR 2 billion in additional tax revenue, while planning only EUR 50 million in spending cuts. Vassilev expressed concern that this imbalance might favour fiscal sovereignty that ignores social welfare obligations.
He also addressed the recent statement by President Rumen Radev that the delay was linked to negotiations with the European Commission over social spending. Vassilev countered that the Commission’s position contradicted the claim, citing that national budgets are drawn up by the respective governments of the member states.
In the same breath, Vassilev reiterated the need for a head of state to oppose unconstitutional provisions that could affect citizens’ financial interests. He warned that a president who does not confront such measures would effectively endanger public accountability.
Vassilev called for the electorate to elect a president who would champion transparency and fight against the manipulation of public funds. He framed this as a civic duty for citizens to seek a genuine corrective in the highest office of Bulgaria.
Public Scrutiny of the State Budget
The critique of the 2027 state budget stemmed from a perception that the drafting process had forsaken the public’s right to review. By keeping the draft from public scrutiny, Vassilev argued, the government failed to fulfill its democratic obligations.
The lack of transparency for a year‑ahead budget was highlighted against the backdrop of the statutory deadline that had just passed, reinforcing the view that the executive had prioritized expediency over accountability.
The numbers themselves—over EUR 2 billion projected in new tax revenue against a modest EUR 50 million cut in spending—were seen by Vassilev as a disproportionate focus on revenue generation rather than equitable allocation of resources.
He intimated that such an approach could undermine social spending, citing President Radev’s explanations linking the delay to EU negotiations. However, Vassilev noted that EU policy only requires coordination, not dictation, of national budgetary programmes.
In total, the criticism of the budget reflects broader concerns about fiscal governance, especially how the current coalition’s policies are portrayed in the public domain.
While the source does not detail the political composition of the opposition, Vassilev’s remarks suggest a unified stance among certain parties to demand greater transparency and accountability in the budgeting process.
Public–accountability consciousness is central to the debate, as a president who can effectively oversee the budgetary process would ensure that public funds serve citizens’ interests rather than the interests of the power holders.
This sentiment is echoed in Vassilev’s final call, that the electorate must elect a president who will resist unconstitutional measures that affect citizens’ financial well‑being.
In an environment where governmental institutions are being scrutinised for their economic decisions, the electorate’s role becomes crucial. Vassilev’s appeal serves as a directive that the public’s participation—and indeed the size of their participation—will shape the direction of the presidency.
The outcome of the presidential runoff will test these civic expectations. A turnout that is low, as Vassilev described it, will be taken as a signal that the public is looking for a change, especially in how political power and fiscal responsibility are exercised.
Vassilev’s insistence on truth and accountability extends beyond the immediate political office, calling on citizens to be vigilant of lies presented during election campaigns. His argument underscores the democratic principle that leaders must be evaluated against their track record and their legitimacy to undertake responsibilities.
In addition, he presented a wider vision where the head of state must actively challenge unconstitutional measures, thereby safeguarding the rule of law and ensuring that citizens receive the financial protection they deserve.
As Bulgaria continues to navigate its political future, the debate sparked by Vassilev’s comments serves as a reference point for the role of the presidency, the importance of transparency, and the expectation that public servants act as guardians rather than beneficiaries of power.
Ultimately, the message from the CC Chair is clear: the electorate’s voice, whether amplified by high turnout or a daring low turnout, holds the power to shape governance. Citizens are urged to heed the call for truth and accountability, ensuring that the next president stands in opposition to lies and for the real interests of the people.
