The New Measures Against Crisis and Corruption: Fight Against Civil Society
In its first plenary session in February, the National Assembly rejected at first reading the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the formation of a parliamentary committee to investigate the activities of Soros-funded foundations. Does this mean that civil society can relax, and supporters of democratic principles can be calm? The short answer to these questions is rather “hardly”. In fact, the cases with the future of the rejected bill and the ad-hoc parliamentary committee are different, and both will likely be on the agenda very soon. A more detailed insight into the behavior of the various parliamentary groups and the rhetoric in plenary during the debates clearly indicates that the rejection of 05/02/2025 is mainly the result of the current political situation, and not so much of deep values. And the situation is rapidly changing (conjunctural), especially in the Bulgarian parliament…
THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN BULGARIA
Before answering the questions above, I would like to recall or present the Bulgarian political situation in a few lines. From 2021 to this day, there has been permanent political chaos in the country, which (unlike in ancient mythology where chaos gives rise to cosmos) has failed to bring any order. During these years, 7 parliamentary elections were held and no government managed to remain for more than a few months. Mistrust and contradictions between the parties (even between those who share similar ideologies) have been the only permanent status quo. In October, another snap election formed a National Assembly with 8 parties/coalitions. In January 2025, after long negotiations, the current government was formed, consisting of 3 parties/coalitions and supported by a fourth. The main party in the government is the GERB-UDF coalition, which is also the largest parliamentary force, with a Euro-Atlantic orientation, a member of the European People’s Party. Coalition partners are the significantly smaller groups of the Bulgarian Socialist Party – United Left (a member of the Party of European Socialists, though with a not very clear European orientation, with conservative bias and positive attitude towards Russia), and the There Is Such People party (with relatively unclear political profile, but with a European orientation). The ruling coalition does not have a majority in parliament and is supported by the Democracy, Rights and Freedoms – DRF group (also known as Movement for Rights and Freedoms – Dogan, with a clear Euro-Atlantic orientation and a strong orientation against the other part of DRF led by D. Peevski). The opposition parties include incompatible political entities. The largest coalition is We Continue The Change – Democratic Bulgaria (with a clear Euro-Atlantic orientation, but also an orientation against the other large Euro-Atlantic coalition GERB-UDF), Revival (a nationalist, anti-European, anti-NATO, and pro-Putin party), MECH (with an unclear political orientation, but with a categorical anti-GERB bias), and Movement for Rights and Freedoms – New Beginning. The last one is led by Delyan Peevski, who was sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act, but managed to attract a large part of the Turkish, Bulgarian-Muslim, and Roma voters of the unified Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DRF) until June 2024. Around this party, most of the others built the so-called “sanitary control”, denying the possibility of interaction with Movement for Rights and Freedoms – New Beginning. Against the background of this colorful political situation, the vote took place on 05/02/2025. The situation is obviously too dynamic and would probably easily get changed.
THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT
— Not a man, but iron —
hissed the fascist agent.
The dead quietly said:
— No, a communist!
Veselin Andreev, Ballad of the Communist
In Bulgaria, the word “agent” is subconsciously associated with foreign, fascist, murderer, and other negative connotations. That is why the proposal and discussion of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) are very different from those of other draft acts. What is FARA about?
In any case, it is not an original Bulgarian initiative. Despite the claim of the submitters from the Revival political party that it was “inspired” by a similar act in the United States, the real prototype is far further east, in Putin’s Russia. The idea of the act is to register as “foreign agents” all legal entities and (please note) individuals who receive more than BGN 1,000 from abroad within 5 years. If anyone believes that this does not concern them at all – let them not be quick to calm down, as it is very likely that they will also appear on the “Revival’s list”. For sure, hundreds of thousands and even millions of Bulgarian citizens will turn out to be “foreign agents” as they receive funds from their relatives (children, spouses, cousins, etc.) who live and work abroad. For years, the Bulgarian diaspora has been the largest foreign investor – hundreds of thousands of Bulgarian citizens work in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, and other countries (their number in Russia is significantly smaller) and send part of their savings to Bulgaria to repair their houses, help their relatives, etc. If FARA is passed, the relatives of such foreign investors will turn out to be foreign agents.
Parliamentary Group
| Number (4) VOTE held 05/02/2025 11:54 on the Foreign Agents Registration Act – first vote | |||||
| National Assembly | For | Against | Abstain | Total votes | |
| Total: | 38 | 112 | 48 | 198 | |
| GERB-UDF | 51 | 0 | 53 | 7 | 60 |
| WE CONTINUE THE CHANGE – DEMOCRATIC BULGARIA | 51 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 |
| REVIVAL | 51 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 34 |
| MOVEMENT FOR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – NEW BEGINNING | 51 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 28 |
| BSP – UNITED LEFT | 51 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
| DEMOCRACY, RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – DRF | 51 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| THERE IS SUCH PEOPLE | 51 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 |
| MECH | 51 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
Will this be followed by taxation of funds sent from abroad? We would hardly be surprised by any such measure to fill the budget deficit… It is important to keep in mind that such an act will affect a very wide range of citizens, and not only NGOs and media to which it is directed.
Of course, there is hardly any doubt that the main target of FARA is precisely the media and organizations, especially those that can criticize the political elite. The Bulgarian state budget categorically does NOT fund civil society organizations. Unlike most European countries (especially in Western Europe), our state budget is more than modest in terms of NGOs. For years, the budget has included the very modest amount of BGN 1 million to support projects of civil society organizations, which is not being used. The reason – the state has never managed to give life to the Civil Society Development Council, which should distribute such funds. The problem is not the inability of organizations to elect their representatives to the Council – this happened back in 2020. At that time, politicians were not satisfied with the representatives elected (not that this is an assessment that politicians should make), but to this day there has been no serious political will for the activities of the said body. The operational programs cannot compensate the lack and significantly develop Bulgarian organizations – their contribution is also quite modest.
Thus, for non-governmental organizations, the only option left is to apply for and receive projects from foreign donors. There is nothing bad about it at all, nor is it a way to “promote foreign influence”. Such donors are mainly foundations with clear funding and accountability. The latter is also a requirement for the projects to be funded by them – for each project, organizations must have a clear visualization, publish information about the activities and the budget of the project… All these are things that non-governmental organizations must comply with. Which is definitely not the case with the national institutions receiving funds from our taxes.
Much of the above also applies to the media. Of course, the state budget partially funds public media such as BNT, BNR, etc. But for private media, support from foreign donors is an important part of ensuring its functions. A key source is advertising, sometimes tiresome to the viewer/listener, but private media could not exist without it. Any addition, including projects funded by foreign donors, is welcome. The other option for it is to receive unclear funding from Bulgarian oligarchs, politicians, shady businesses… Thus, they it will not be a “foreign agent”, but will this make it more independent and empathetic to the needs of Bulgarian citizens? It is very unlikely…
The rejected at first reading FARA stipulated that all the media must include a “foreign agent” message in each of its publications. It sounds absurd, but this was exactly what was intended. Where an organization or media says, “Stop early marriages!” or “Don’t stop girls from education!”, (I’m giving a random example of messages often used in the activities of the Amalipe Center), it should be presented as being said by a “foreign agent”. Quite logically, Bulgarian patriots will do the opposite – enter early marriages and stop their girls from school – so that they do not follow the calls of foreign agents…
The act had been previously proposed by the ultra-nationalist and anti-European party Revival. In September 2024, this bill caused serious concerns, as only a month before, the National Assembly approved another proposal by the same party, which had previously been rejected several times – amendments to the Preschool and School Education Act to prohibit LGBT propaganda at school (which never existed). The amendments to the education act were supported by some of the other parties, defining themselves as pro-European due to the political situation. The latter was also the main reason for the concern that FARA could also be adopted. Moreover, the EU is not “immune” to such legislation as it was adopted in Hungary and is being discussed in Slovakia.
On the last working day of the 50th National Assembly, the members of parliament still rejected FARA, but it was clear to everyone that it would be proposed again after the formation of the 51st parliament. This was exactly what happened, and the bill was submitted on the first working day. At first glance, its rejection on 05/02/2025 seemed to be consensual: only 38 of the 198 members of parliament who voted supported the bill. The rest rejected it – 112 voted against and 48 abstained. Only the submitters from Revival (34) and 4 members of parliament from the Socialist Party demonstrated support. However, a more detailed look at the vote by parliamentary groups shows that some of them were primarily voting according to the current situation. FARA was categorically rejected by the two main pro-European coalitions – GERB-UDF and We Continue the Change – Democratic Bulgaria. Peevski’s DRF also voted monolithically “against”. This was not the case with three other parties supporting the current government. There Is Such People unanimously abstained: 17 abstentions out of 17 votes. The other party in the ruling coalition – the Bulgarian Socialist Party – was significantly more divided: of the 10 socialists who voted, 6 abstained and 4 even supported the bill, and none voted against. Democracy, Rights and Freedoms – DRF (known as DRF-Dogan), also supporting the ruling coalition, did not participate in the vote or abstained – 7 abstentions out of 7 votes. The members of parliament from the opposition party MECH also voted unanimously with “abstain”: 11 out of 11. It turned out that the ruling coalition voted against the bill only through the members of parliament from the main coalition (GERB-UDF), and the rest abstained. Hardly anyone can predict what would have happened in a different situation/conjuncture…
The Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly stipulate that if a bill is rejected at first reading, it shall be voted on again only after 3 months: Art. 78. (1) A bill that has been rejected at first reading may be submitted and reconsidered only after amendments to its main provisions, which are reflected in the reasons, and not earlier than three months after its rejection. That is, after 3 months, Revival could again propose FARA and count on the fact that the situation will then be different. It is possible that this will happen earlier if a bill with a different title and text is proposed. For example, the submitters could “fix” some of the most absurd paragraphs, especially those that are not at the core of their proposal and would reduce public rejection.
In addition, resistance to FARA could divert attention from including similar restrictive texts in other bills. For example, for civil society organizations, as well as for private media, the upcoming Lobbying Act could also bring “pitfalls” if it does not make a clear distinction between lobbying and advocacy, etc. The adoption of such an act is an objective necessity, it is part of Bulgaria’s commitments to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which the country has been striving for for years. Therefore, it is important that the texts of this act be discussed publicly and that they follow democratic standards.
THE PROPOSAL FOR A “PARLIAMENTARY ANTI-SOROS COMMITTEE”
On 05/02/2025, what was also not approved by the National Assembly was the creation of an Ad-Hoc Committee to Establish Facts and Circumstances Regarding the Activities of George Soros and Alexander Soros and Their Foundations on the Territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, Financing Bulgarian Individuals and Legal Entities and Non-Governmental Organizations, as well as Establishing Their Connections with Political Parties, Magistrates, Educational Institutions, Media, Business Structures and State Authorities (etc.). The proposal was made by Movement for Rights and Freedoms – New Beginning. That is, if the reader of the text above thought that this party was against the pressure on media and NGOs because it voted against FARA, here they can see the opposite. The said party loudly adopted the anti-Soros rhetoric as well as the related attack on private media (other than the media of the party’s chair and Magnitsky Act-sanctioned MP Delyan Peevski), as well as the attack on organizations funded by Open Society, the America for Bulgaria Foundation, etc.
| Number (6) VOTE held 05/02/2025 13:00 on the Decision to create an Ad-Hoc Committee to Establish Facts and Circumstances Regarding the Activities of George Soros and Alexander Soros and Their Foundations on the Territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, Financing Bulgarian Individuals and Legal Entities and Non-Governmental Organizations, as well as Establishing Their Connections with Political Parties, Magistrates, Educational Institutions, Media, Business Structures, and State Authorities – re-vote | ||||||||
| Parliamentary Group | National Assembly | For | Against | Abstain | Total votes | |||
| Total: | 62 | 74 | 43 | 179 | ||||
| GERB-UDF | 51 | 1 | 25 | 36 | 62 | |||
| WE CONTINUE THE CHANGE – DEMOCRATIC BULGARIA | 51 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 | |||
| REVIVAL | 51 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| MOVEMENT FOR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – NEW BEGINNING | 51 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 29 | |||
| BSP – UNITED LEFT | 51 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 12 | |||
| DEMOCRACY, RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – DRF | 51 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 19 | |||
| THERE IS SUCH PEOPLE | 51 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 16 | |||
| MECH | 51 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 | |||
Bulgarian “anti-Soros” public figures and politicians had their place long before Orban declared the expulsion of George Soros a matter of national security. Back in the 1990s, when the Open Society Foundation was one of the most powerful in Bulgaria and actively supported not only the formation of civil society, but also provided scholarships to thousands of Bulgarian students, some politicians (especially those associated with the party that ruled for 45 years) viewed this as an activity of “world Jewry” and “brainwashing”. It was clear to almost all members of parliament today that the reasons for DRF-Peevski to insist on the creation of such a committee were primarily related to “settling scores” with the media and organizations not gravitating around Peevski’s media group. In view of the announced “sanitary control” around the latter (practically all other parties in one way or another declared that they would not work with Movement for Rights and Freedoms – New Beginning), the expectation was that the proposed committee would be easily rejected. But it did not work out exactly like that. The committee was rejected, but only 74 out of 179 voters voted categorically against it. Another 43 abstained, which in this case was against the creation of a committee but was still an important political signal. The committee was supported by 62 members of parliament, of which only 29 were the submitters from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms – New Beginning. The others who unanimously supported it were from the co-ruling There Is Such People, the opposition MECH, as well as 5 members of parliament from the co-ruling Socialists. Also significant was the absence of the MPs from Revival, who left the hall after the rejection of FARA. It is obvious that the distrust of independent media and civil society organizations among some parties was stronger than the announced “sanitary control”.
The creation of such a committee could be proposed again, and the submitters have already done so. It is quite possible that in a new vote the results will be different, especially with the participation of Revival.
(I ask the reader not to perceive me as an apologist for Soros and Open Society. While trying to objectively assess the indisputable contribution they have made to Roma integration, I cannot deny the mistakes they have made in the last few years which question some of their previous achievements. However, democracy, civil society, and Roma integration policies would certainly not be the same without the support of the Open Society Foundations!)
AFTER THE VOTE OF 05/02/2025 – WHAT CAN BE EXPECTED
The vote of 05/02/2025 was an important victory for the defenders of Bulgaria’s pro-European and pro-democratic orientation. The National Assembly and the newly formed coalition managed to defend important democratic achievements, with part of the opposition also speaking in support.
But, as I pointed out above, it is too early for civil society organizations, independent media, and supporters of democratic values in Bulgaria to believe that the danger to them has passed. The Foreign Agents Registration Act or parts of it can be discussed again in plenary and the results of a new vote are not unambiguously clear. Restrictive and non-democratic provisions can also be included in other legislative initiatives, including the Lobbying Act and other necessary acts. It is quite possible that very soon the Bulgarian parliament will create an “anti-Soros committee” or a similar structure that has very little to do with the legislative power.
What do civil society organizations need to do to minimize the dangers ahead? Among many other things, it is necessary for them to communicate understandably and to further strengthen their ties with the groups and people they work for. I am far from thinking that there are no NGOs that exist only to implement projects and “absorb funds”. But I am convinced that this is not the case for all organizations, and that many exist to support groups that are in need and for whom the state is not doing enough. Unfortunately, organizations often fail to communicate the things they do in an understandable way. Many times, they speak a language that is understandable only to other organizations, possibly to donors, but not to ordinary people. It is crucial to change this and further strengthen contacts with the groups to which their activities are directed. I am convinced that the more discussions, deliberations, and even simple conversations they have with teachers, parents, mediators, and others, the more understandable and acceptable their activities will be. At the Amalipe Center (the organization I lead), we have been relying on this type of open conversation for a long time, and I confidently claim that it is extremely beneficial for everyone.
Really working civil society organizations have no reason to fear a frank and unbiased discussion about their activities, as:
– there are hardly any other legal entities that are so transparent and accountable: every citizen can get acquainted with the work of a specific organization over the past year on the special register maintained by the Registry Agency. In addition, the organizations themselves are interested in promoting their activities through their social networks, web pages, and other publications. This is part of the organizations’ efforts to promote their activities and thus attract donors.
– the financial reporting of civil society organizations is serious: NGOs undergo an annual audit (which is mandatory for organizations with a turnover of more than BGN 1 million, but others, who have the financial ability, do so in order to increase transparency and trust on the part of potential donors and the public), and also report each project to the donor that funds them. Should irregularities be found, “financial corrections” are imposed on organizations (i.e. they must return funds), and should there be any doubt about such, donors refuse new funding. In comparison, the main political parties that receive funding from the state budget do not do much of the mentioned above.
– Civil society organizations do not receive funding from the state budget (or the latter is negligible), and the donors who support them require this to be widely publicized – on a website, on social networks, etc.
– NGOs exist to support certain groups, communities, citizens. They often do what the state and its systems do not or cannot do. Each organization has its own main goals and objectives, and the funding it receives from various donors is used precisely to support the well-being of such citizens and society as a whole.
– Although a difficult task to do, some organizations manage to change certain policies and actions of politicians so that they work better for citizens. This is called “advocacy” (not to be confused with “lobbying”, which is done in other ways), and advocacy by civic organizations is one of the main ways for citizens to influence government without the need to hold new elections. Therefore, the existence of civil society is equally necessary for democracy.
All this does not mean that there are no organizations with unclear accountability and quite dubious activities. But one should not assume that the entire civil sector shares such problems. On the contrary, there are enough mechanisms for organizations that abuse trust and funds to be sanctioned or at least to stop receiving support. The organizations that really work themselves have an objective interest in fighting such a type of “fake NGOs”. But just as there are poorly performing teachers, because of whom the work of thousands of others and the entire pedagogical guild should not be devalued, it is not justified to stigmatize civil society and all NGOs because of fake organizations. There are enough organizations that help large groups of citizens about whom the state often forgets or from whom it has completely abdicated.
One of the basic principles in political science says that for democracy to function successfully, only holding elections is not enough. There are elections in countries that few call “democratic”. What is also necessary is that citizens are able to constantly influence those in power, change policies, and support groups that the state and the authorities do not reach or from which they have abdicated. Therefore, the existence of civil society and non-governmental organizations is of key importance, and threats against them are threats to democracy as such.
Beyond civil society organizations: the increase in hate speech against NGOs, and the passage (thank God, at this stage we are talking more about attempts to pass) of restrictive and undemocratic legislation in Bulgaria, are reminiscent of similar processes in Hungary and Slovakia. The experience of these countries shows that this goes hand in hand with authoritarian tendencies, increased anti-European discourse, and an effort to weaken the European orientation. It is very likely that in the coming months and years we will have to reaffirm our belonging to the European Union and democratic countries. It would be a big mistake to think that the benefits of these identities are self-evident and accepted almost unambiguously and with “unquestionable clarity”. Increasingly broad groups of citizens (including young people) and more and more political parties are loudly expressing their doubts, skepticism, misunderstanding, and even non-acceptance of the key steps that Bulgaria took at the end of the previous century and in the first decade of this one. Therefore, it is necessary that all those who are aware of the importance of the strategic choices made work actively for their reconfirmation.
Author: Deyan Kolev, Amalipe Center