For several days now, the word most frequently used in political discourse has been “reformatting”. What does this term mean? It refers to the process of changing the format or structure of something, usually in the context of data or documents. It is often used in computing, where it describes the process of erasing and restructuring information on a storage device.
Reformatting the parliamentary majority and the government
The parliamentary majority in the National Assembly will survive if Slavi Trifonov decides to “swallow” the insult and allow Delyan Peevski’s DPS–New Beginning to formally join the government. Without the votes of the parliamentary group of There Is Such a People (ITN), the majority will collapse. The options would then be to seek shifting majorities for every bill, or to attempt to buy MPs—a familiar practice in previous parliaments. Alternatively, the country could face a parliamentary crisis and new elections.
A reshuffle in the cabinet is inevitable now that Boyko Borissov has formally invited DPS–New Beginning to join the government and share responsibility for running the country. A reconfiguration will also be necessary if ITN leaves the executive branch—or even if Slavi Trifonov keeps his ministers in the cabinet, a move that would amount to political suicide for him. In that case, the current coalition partners would have to give up ministerial positions to make room for Peevski’s party, leaving the government looking very different from what it is today. A new prime minister cannot be ruled out, although this remains unlikely, because Borissov would replace Rosen Zhelyazkov only with himself.
But he is unlikely to do so, however great his vanity. The reason is not simply that he lacks the courage to take responsibility for a government that is likely to plunge the country into a debt crisis next year. However wounded his ego may be, Borissov would rather leave Zhelyazkov to deal with the difficult decisions while he criticises and humiliates him publicly from the sidelines, constantly demonstrating who is really in charge.
In computing, the essential elements of reformatting are erasing and restructuring the information stored on a device. What would Borissov like to erase by reshuffling the cabinet? First and foremost, the disastrous failure of Daniel Mitov as interior minister, particularly in the wake of the elections in Pazardzhik. According to the GERB leader, Mitov managed to save his skin after the head of the police in the regional city—a stronghold of Delyan Peevski—resigned, “because we do not tolerate compromises”.
Much as he may hold Temenuzhka Petkova dear, Borissov will feel compelled to “erase”—or at least persuade himself that he has erased—her blunders as finance minister, whose 2026 budget condemns the country to a deficit exceeding 3 per cent.
Yet, just as files deleted during the reinstallation of a computer’s operating system can sometimes be recovered, albeit with some loss of content, replacing ministers cannot automatically erase their actions or even their crimes. Complete amnesia in the public consciousness is impossible.
A government including Delyan Peevski
If we accept that DPS–New Beginning’s entry into government is inevitable, then any ministerial changes in the Zhelyazkov cabinet can take place only with Peevski’s approval.
Daniel Mitov, however, is Peevski’s man, something that became particularly apparent after the police’s scandalous conduct during the partial local elections in Pazardzhik. This raises an intriguing question: will Borissov openly raise the white flag before the leader of New Beginning, who has begun to “eat away” at GERB from within?
The evidence goes beyond photographs of mayors posing with Peevski beneath the coat of arms of the Republic of Bulgaria. Such dependence does not always have to be openly displayed. On the contrary, some mayors’ links to the controversial MP are indirect and can be traced only by following the money—for example, through public procurement contracts and the companies that win them.
Boyko Borissov has openly bowed to Peevski. He did so almost ceremonially when he made the following admission during a meeting between GERB’s leadership and party activists: “I have known Delyan Peevski for 20 years and I know what I can rely on. And I know that when I tell him something, he takes it into account. And I know that when he asks me for something, I do it.”
That is the crucial difference: Peevski takes Borissov’s words into account, while Borissov carries out Peevski’s requests.
This admission is the key to understanding the relationship between the two leading figures of the captured state.
Who is controlling whom?
The election results in Pazardzhik were merely the pretext for Peevski to enter power through the front door. This gives us reason to suspect that the outcome was not unexpected but, rather, all but predetermined. Winning in a region that has been his stronghold for years was hardly a challenge for the leader of DPS–New Beginning. GERB received the votes it could genuinely count on from its own party activists and its remaining, dwindling pool of supporters, while the bought and corporate vote went to Peevski. What followed were Borissov’s theatrical performances and verbal outbursts, culminating in what was supposedly an accidental admission that he could refuse Peevski nothing. Why would that be?
For those familiar with the biographies of Borissov and Peevski, there is little surprising about the events of recent days. Questions surrounding Borissov’s alleged criminal past and links to the underworld, the sanctions imposed on the DPS–New Beginning leader under the Magnitsky Act, and both men’s alleged dependencies on the State Security service and the shadow networks it created make the current developments far less unexpected.
The two men have brought the state to its knees.
They have rendered the existence of the National Assembly meaningless and turned the executive branch and its institutions into a caricature. Above all, they have undermined the judicial system, which is on the verge of collapse. That is why an increasing number of observers argue that there is no legitimate way to resolve this chaos. So what is the way out?
Street protests and prolonged sieges in the centre of the capital—or a revolution? Or a submissive acceptance of a hybrid authoritarian regime like the one in Hungary?
Perhaps the crisis will resolve itself, because this dual power arrangement cannot continue for long. One of the two men will have to step aside; if not, he will most likely be removed by force and in disgrace.
The ideal solution—which seems impossible precisely because it is ideal—would be for political and public energy to emerge that could free us from the humiliating position in which we have been placed as a people and as a state.
With God’s help!
