What was 2024 for civil society and education in Bulgaria
At the end of each year it is fashionable to make all kinds of rankings for the most important events. The year 2024 is no exception. Moreover, it was rich in important and not-so-important developments in politics, sports, and the everyday lives of citizens. Moreover, both in national and international aspects. Here in Bulgaria, we have again seen early elections (and twice), the rise and fall of parties, natural disasters and human inaction, successes in sport… and even the long-awaited fall of the Schengen land border. Rich material for rankings and analysis – one wonders which event to place before the other and exercises oneself in making cause and effect relationships (to what extent “then is because of this”).
What the numerous rankings fail to mention is another “peak” in the talk against and pressure on civil society and NGOs in particular. Perhaps this omission is due to the lack of exceptionalism – for years the said pressure has become a routine, not something that is “out of order”. All textbooks on political science and civic education emphasize that the right of citizens to freely associate and together advocate for non-partisan causes is a key part of the democratic order, no less important than holding fair elections. However, for at least a decade now, in an increasing number of European countries (not only outside, but even within the EU), the stigmatisation of certain or even all NGOs has acquired a scale that threatens to make the acceptance of this anti-democratic trend a daily reality. And the everyday is bad news and does not arouse interest – it is not news when a dog bites a man, but when a man bites a dog. Thus, just a few days ago, the Prime Minister who expelled Soros, the Central European University and the Open Society from Hungary was received in this country almost as a national hero. And to defend academic freedom and civil society is now considered ‘de mod’, that is, part of the doomed ‘liberal democracy’.
In Bulgaria, the stigmatization of NGOs has a long history, going back to the beginning of the transition, not to mention the decades before. Long before Orban, the words “Sorosoids” and “human rights activists” in this country became a pejorative term for “grant hunters” who threatened the traditional conservative values in exchange for “dollars and euros” poured in from abroad to destroy prosperous Bulgaria. Many former agitators for “scientific atheism” have become zealous defenders of “traditional Christian values,” maintaining the old anti-Western tone. The entry of ultra-nationalist parties into public life and the National Assembly has further intensified this rhetoric, making it part of the “new normal”. We used to say that the crisis was the fault of “the drought, the quiche and Grisha (refering to Grisha Filippov, prime minister from 1981 to 1986)”, but now it is the fault of the Gypsies, the migrants, the LGBT (a different pejorative word is used), the Sorosoids, the human rights activists and all kinds of “grant hunters”, i.e. NGOs. This trend has especially increased since the attempts to adopt the so-called “Istanbul Convention” (Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence), when the offensive “genders” quickly entered and became the biggest threat hanging over the heads of the unsuspecting and never read the said Convention. The pressure on the few organisations that had been fighting domestic violence for years and had the temerity to include ‘gender’ in their name was so intense, and the silence of ‘moderate politicians’ and statesmen was so deafening, that they were forced to change their names or stop their activities. Thus, four decades later, Bulgarian politicians have once again become the perpetrators/co-perpetrators of a “revival process” (with this name the communist regime called its assimilationist policy and the change of the names of all Muslims in Bulgaria with “Bulgarian (Christian) names”). This time on a small segment of civil society that is working on the much larger issue of domestic violence and gender inequality (forgive me, but in this case “gender” is a more correct word than the other English word “sex”)… Probably many of the defenders of conservative values would deny that there is domestic violence in Bulgaria, but the statistics and daily crimes in this regard are chilling.
The passing of 2024 marked new highs regarding the pressures on civil society. The attempts and even the steps taken are not original or authentically Bulgarian, but copy disturbing practices from countries that are overtly authoritarian/totalitarian or moving in that direction. Without claiming any originality, I can highlight a few important developments:
The changes in the Law on Pre-school and School Education (LPSE): at first glance it seems strange that I include this event in the ranking of pressures on civil society, but “the error is correct”. Although this was not publicised as the leading motive, the change also had as its objective the restriction of NGO interaction with educational institutions.
The changes to the Public Education Act were adopted without the consent of the Ministry of Education and those working in education. In a stroke, in one day, on first and second reading, MPs banned in schools “carrying out propaganda, promotion and incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, of ideas and views related to non-traditional homosexual orientation and/or the determination of gender identity other than biological.” Unexpectedly for the “uninitiated in politics”, this time the bill became law with impressive support from almost all parliamentary groups. It is said that the real reason for this sudden support in some groups had to do with the political struggles to replace the then Speaker of the National Assembly, and in others – with the hope that it would attract media attention and voter support… In any case, the change in the LGBT Law had nothing to do with “LGBT propaganda in schools”: it was clear from both the MES statement and many subsequent discussions that such propaganda does NOT exist in classrooms and there was never any real reason for the changes in the law.
In
itially, the “anti-LGBT” change in education law was met with understanding and even approval by the general public, which is particularly sensitive to any kind of threats (real or not) against children and schools. But very soon it became clear that the “collective madness” unleashed quickly led to frightening consequences. It is not only about the restriction of academic freedom and the possibility for teachers to talk to pupils about all topics of concern to the latter, rather than remaining silent and replying “The law does not allow me to discuss this, go on the internet”. It is also worrying that in this respect Bulgaria and Romania remain alarmingly far away from the European Union average. The 2023 Eurobarometer survey on ‘Discrimination in the EU’ shows that, on average, 71% of the EU agree that pupils should have lessons about sexual orientation in school. In Bulgaria, 34% agreed in 2023 against 68% disagreed. Compared to 2019, the proportion agreeing has decreased by 4% and the proportion disagreeing has increased by 8%. It is likely that all the hysteria surrounding the so-called “Istanbul Convention” has led to this deterioration in approval. Only Romania is even more conservative than us – there, those who agree with the idea of discussing sexual orientation in school are 31%, down a full 16% compared to 2019. Those who disagree are 63%, an increase of 16%. It is hardly surprising that similar differences between Bulgaria and Romania on the one hand and the rest of the EU are also present in terms of willingness to learn/teach lessons about the Holocaust, Roma history and culture, and a number of others. The adopted changes to the UPEA are likely to further deepen the differences between our two countries and the other EU Member States.
itially, the “anti-LGBT” change in education law was met with understanding and even approval by the general public, which is particularly sensitive to any kind of threats (real or not) against children and schools. But very soon it became clear that the “collective madness” unleashed quickly led to frightening consequences. It is not only about the restriction of academic freedom and the possibility for teachers to talk to pupils about all topics of concern to the latter, rather than remaining silent and replying “The law does not allow me to discuss this, go on the internet”. It is also worrying that in this respect Bulgaria and Romania remain alarmingly far away from the European Union average. The 2023 Eurobarometer survey on ‘Discrimination in the EU’ shows that, on average, 71% of the EU agree that pupils should have lessons about sexual orientation in school. In Bulgaria, 34% agreed in 2023 against 68% disagreed. Compared to 2019, the proportion agreeing has decreased by 4% and the proportion disagreeing has increased by 8%. It is likely that all the hysteria surrounding the so-called “Istanbul Convention” has led to this deterioration in approval. Only Romania is even more conservative than us – there, those who agree with the idea of discussing sexual orientation in school are 31%, down a full 16% compared to 2019. Those who disagree are 63%, an increase of 16%. It is hardly surprising that similar differences between Bulgaria and Romania on the one hand and the rest of the EU are also present in terms of willingness to learn/teach lessons about the Holocaust, Roma history and culture, and a number of others. The adopted changes to the UPEA are likely to further deepen the differences between our two countries and the other EU Member States.It is clear to many that the changes in the education law were intended to, or at least have as a consequence, the limitation of the influence of NGOs in educational institutions. These changes were preceded by parliamentary inquiries about the contracts that schools and kindergartens have with NGOs, a survey by an NGO was pointed to as the formal reason for the initiated change (it subsequently turned out that it was online and not distributed through schools) and a number of others. The worrying thing is that Bulgaria is one of the countries where the real role of NGOs in education is extremely underestimated, the state budget does not delegate resources for this, and what will happen after another hysteria about bad NGOs threatening education? The truth is that the influence of NGOs in pre-school and school education is mostly the result of the efforts of the organizations themselves and the willingness of schools and kindergartens to implement innovations in partnership with the organizations. The autonomy of schools and kindergartens to partner with civic associations and community centers is a key opportunity that “opens” the system to the introduction of innovative content and, above all, innovative approaches to working with students and parents, as well as additional teacher training. It is no coincidence that it is these schools and kindergartens that achieve success and tend to innovate.
From the work of the organization I lead – Amalipe Center with over 300 schools across the country, I can point out that the interaction with them is comprehensive and leads to inspiring results. Almost 2/3 of these schools had no dropouts in the previous year, and over 97% of their primary school graduates went on to secondary school. The schools themselves appreciate this interaction and participate fully voluntarily in the joint initiatives. Schools and kindergartens that partner with many other organisations and community centres can also boast success stories.
Proposals for new changes to the Public Education Act, the Child Protection Act, and other laws and regulations: immediately after the unexpected success of the changes to the Public Education Act, MPs from the populist parties proposed further restrictions. These included the dismissal of teachers accused of carrying out “LGBT propaganda” in schools, and a ban on the distribution of information materials with this focus in any kind of public places where young people gather (parks, gardens…), including online. In fact, we are talking about various bills that were adopted at first reading in the relevant committees, accompanied by increased hate speech against NGOs that had the audacity and courage to attend these meetings. Another tendency, widely used afterwards, also emerged at these meetings: ‘proxy organisations’, i.e. organisations that have no real activity, but only registrations and gravitate strongly around one or some of the parties, were also invited and actively participated in the meetings.
These bills were almost applauded at the parliamentary committee meetings and then rejected in plenary, including by the MPs who applauded them before. They did not lead to changes in the existing legislation, but increased the hate speech (called ‘hate’ by the youth) against NGOs and showed what could very easily be adopted by the next parliaments.
Foreign Agents Registration Bill: if the reader thinks we are talking about Georgia or Russia, let us clarify – we are talking about Bulgaria and yet another proposal by an ultra-nationalist and pro-Kremlin party. After the changes to the PEA, which came about unexpectedly and without any real immediate cause, this bill began to be taken seriously by many. Moreover, two EU member states already have similar laws in place, Hungary and Slovakia.
The draft law proposes that an extremely wide range of persons – both legal entities and natural persons – who have directly or indirectly received more than BGN 1 000 (i.e. 500 euro) from abroad for the period of 5 years should be registered as foreign agents. Even a cursory glance clearly shows that hundreds of thousands/millions of Bulgarian citizens will have to register as foreign agents as they receive funds from their children, relatives and friends living in Western Europe, the USA, Canada and other countries. In fact, it is a well-known fact that the funds that Bulgarians abroad send to Bulgaria are the largest foreign investment. Those receiving it will have to bear the stigma of ‘foreign agent’. It sounds absurd, but can anyone today guarantee that absurdity is far from the legislature?
There can hardly be any doubt that the said Bill is aimed primarily at legal persons, especially NGOs. If it is adopted, almost all NGOs will have to register as foreign agents or leave the country – something that is happening in Hungary and Slovakia. With hardly any funding from the state budget for the civil sector (for years, the 1 million BGN subsidy provided in the state budget for CSO projects has not been used due to the inability to start the real activity of the Council for Civil Society Development), NGOs can rely primarily on foreign donors. The draft law does not treat as scope the funds received from the EU, but leaves as an option to do so for those partnership projects where the lead beneficiary is a foreign organisation and the Bulgarian partner receives its funding from it.
The adoption of this bill would force almost all organisations to register as foreign agents. The latter would prohibit their participation in any activities related to pre-school, school and university education, their participation in public procurement, require them to state that they are a “foreign agent” in any material they publish (including brochures, flyers, leaflets, online materials), etc. In practice, these organisations will have to renounce all activity and repeat that they are foreign agents at every step within 5 years. The draft law does not stipulate that they wear a special sign on their clothes, nor “decorate” their homes with one, the gathering of foreign agents in islands such as Belene (on this island the communist regime built the most famous concentration camp for political prisoners) is not explicitly spelled out, but the latter could be added to if approved. In any case, the passage of such legislation would completely destroy civil society, however weak it may be at present.
The Foreign Agents Registration Bill was rejected at the “parliamentary committee” level in the 50th National Assembly and was reintroduced on the first day of the 51st National Assembly. At this stage it looks like it has been rejected by the main parties, but hardly anyone would bother to predict its future.
This ranking could be supplemented with many more examples of pressure and stigmatisation of civil society. The signals in this direction are many and increasingly worrying. They are both direct and indirect, and concern an increasing number of elements of public and political life. For example, at the very end of 2024, just before the holidays (coincidentally), popular media were plotting that members of an ultranationalist and pro-Kremlin party would take over the parliamentary committees on education and culture. Perhaps this was a specific test of the readiness of the professional guild and the public to accept the next step in the well-established strategy for the “Orbanisation” of Bulgaria. This would not have been possible without the support of the main parties defining themselves as “pro-European” and this was probably also part of the test.
I suppose that for many it seems quite impossible to reach extremes similar to those in Russia, Georgia and other countries that are not a model for a well-functioning democracy. However, the examples of Hungary and Slovakia show that the European Union is not vaccinated against this serious disease, and in Bulgaria the anti-vaxxers are strong enough. The example of neighbouring and similar Romania, and what happened in the cancelled presidential elections there, clearly shows where ignoring threats to civil society can lead us.
Deyan Kolev
Foreign agent
See also:
Images: pixabay.com