Far from initiating a broad revolution against such fundamen-tals of political theory and activity, this study holds only the modest ambition of proving that a number of other factors, not necessarily linked with the direct and immediate possession or exercise of political power, also are essential for the normal, democratic development of different sections of social life and of society as a whole. This understanding is of vital importance for the present and future prospects of democracy, especially in countries where authoritarian tendencies or Marxist-Leninist traditions in political life and thinking are apparent.

The very notion of Public Confidence-Building Measures as an important mechanism for promoting stability and security obviously presents certain challenges to the extremely widespread view that matters of international politics should constitute a closed, exclusive and privileged domain for the activities only of govern-ments and their agencies.

Of course, the roles and functions of democratic governments and governmental institutions as unique means to express and exercise the sovereignty of their respective peoples must by no means be undermined or neglected. It is equally true that one can hardly negate the self-evident fact that, for all that has been said, written or expected, it has been governments and governmental decisions that have played the most important role in putting an end to the Cold War era and all that has been connected therewith in domestic and international politics.

Still it would be entirely wrong to forget that for a number of decades it has been predominantly non-governmental, or not directly governmental factors, that gradually shaped an atmosphere which finally left no other choice to governments than to act accordingly.

As noted above, a correct understanding of existing inter-relationships and interdependencies between directly governmental and non-governmental or public attitudes and activities is of vital importance. This is required for a true image of current issues of democratic development in countries like Bulgaria and for the present and future course of this development itself.

The notion of Public Confidence-Building Measures as a mechanism for promoting stability and security among different countries derives from the practical approaches aimed at the relaxation of existing disbalances and tensions in the military sphere. Their purpose was to bring about a major improvement in the international relations between two or more competing states, and potentially between their allies as well. The significance of military confidence-building measures (MCBM) has made them an inseparable element in all important negotiations and approaches to shaping the international arena of our times. In the course of these developments the MCBM developed and perfected their own ways of reaching consensus between negotiating partners. No doubt these can be of use for making sound and stable progress in other fields of international relations as well.

Briefly, this more general significance of MCBM can be described in the following terms:

- Fixed numerical expression of the agreements reached;

-Asymmetry of the different provisions of the agreement regarding the specific interests of the partners in such a way as to enable them to reach a further goal equally appreciated by all.

- Previously agreed mutually acceptable means of control;

- Consensus among the partners as an obligatory element of a sound and lasting agreement.

Unlike confidence-building measures in the military field, Public Confidence-Building Measures (PCEM) lack experience of both the precision and the serious negotiation of the MCBM.

Both differ also as far as the active subjects and the scope of their action is concerned. MCBM are worked out, agreed upon and realized by and supposedly well-organized functional government agencies and employ a satisfactorily developed conceptual apparatus and working procedures. These peculiarities are in principle universally accepted and applied by all who wish to reach a serious agreement with their partners in the field of military detente.

PCBM, on the other hand, are initiated and carried out exclusively by non-governmental organizations, individuals and individual groupings, and therefore are not so easily identified as in the previous case. Even more difficult, especially in the case of the Balkans, is the task of defining what kind of activities should be attributed to the realm of non-governmental or public initiative, particularly when it comes to issues of international relations and security.

What must be understood is first of all that government and non-governmental or public initiatives and activities should be regarded neither as necessarily coinciding nor as contradictory and mutually exclusive. Such a differentiated but not counterpoised vision is especially necessary to evade mutual suspicions of either authoritarian ambitions, on the one hand, or premature political temptations, on the other.

Another factor of crucial importance here is that no single political orientation, affiliation or line can exhaust their potential. Certain kinds of policies can no doubt benefit PCBM better than others, but no peculiar politician or political force can claim exclusive priority over them. Public confidence may accompany a political leader or administration for a period of time, and at some moment depart from them, even if they continue to be in office. Obviously, this is a variable that cannot always be measured or expressed in terms of official, surface-level politics—though let us repeat once again that it should not be regarded as something necessarily opposing or confronting it.

The essence of this study is that public confidence is a characteristic of politics that is generated and is active at some levels below the official surface.

Adherents to the still prevailing classical approaches in politics may here ask what is the use then of PCBM and other such concepts since they are not attributed directly to offices and places where things are really being decided—all the more when it comes to matters of international relations and policies.

Professor Theodore A. Couloumbis of Athens University and General Secretary of the Hellenic Foundation for Defense and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) seems to be one of the few if not the only regional scholars of international relations to touch upon this problem in his recent study on "The European Challenge in the Balkans".

[From our point of view there is no difficulty tracing the similarities between the MBPR technology, suggested by Professor Couloumbis, and the military confidence-building measures (MCBM) procedures, though the latter concern other matters and are supposed to be carried out by other institutions.

In this sense Professor Couloumbis’s MBPR coincides with the more obvious levels of the PCBM as mechanisms for promoting international security and stability.]

What we have to add though is that for all the truth these thoughts possess they reflect more a certain desired state of things or an ultimate goal than ways and means that may possibly bring such favorable developments closer to reality. PCBM have as their main objective to find out and procure the practical approaches necessary for the realization of desired states of affairs and goals which benefit lasting peace, stability and security among nations.

From our point of view there are two main directions along which such approaches are to be sought and developed:

- informational, and

- participatory.

These require that the citizens of any country in the region constantly receive adequate true information about what is going on in the country and outside, and that the outside world in turn receives true and constant information about the course of events in the region or in any of its countries. This is especially true for a country like Bulgaria whose people, for good or ill, have always been traditionally interested in politics and particularly in foreign policy issues.

The many years under the domination of other nations’ authoritarian and totalitarian regimes have inserted into the national character of Bulgarians certain very simple, but working criteria for testing the truthfulness and reliability of the information they are given (or not given) about what is going on in the country or outside it. If an outstanding Bulgarian politician goes abroad and practically nothing about it appears in the media, Bulgarians are automatically inclined to think that this travel has been of no use at all. Similarly, when the Greek Minister of Defence or the Turkish Chief of General Staff visits Bulgaria and people see in the media the very familiar news about "talks in a friendly spirit" and "frank exchange of opinions," no one can make them think otherwise but that "once again things are not going well for us."

In politics, unlike in everyday life, the maxim that "no news is better than bad news" has just the opposite effect. What is to be understood in cases like these is that they affect not only the host country, but also the image of the partner country as well. It may be argued, of course, that both countries have agreed on the nature of the media coverage of the talks between them. In such a case they must be conscious that both of them equally share the negative effects of keeping the public away from matters that cannot but be of concern. Information nowadays seems to be not just the coverage of politics, but part of politics itself. If this is permanently neglected in current political practices then ways and means should be sought to make it fully available.

The informational aspects of PCBM may well turn out to be one of the ways and means for assuring and consolidating the irreversibility of positive changes in Europe and in the Balkans towards wider cooperation and greater stability and security among nations.

These reflect the need for more people being involved in the processes of promoting international security and stability if these are to be permanent and improving factors of international life. Without a clear understanding of this the international community will always risk being engaged in a vicious circle where past phenomena periodically are reproduced in new forms and in new conditions.

A correct and detailed evaluation of the processes that have taken place recently and are going on nowadays in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is needed. For they make possible an understanding of the role which PCBM can play in the general course of events and particularly for democratic development in the Balkans.

In examining these cases one should try always to differentiate the root factors, the immediate performers (on the official political, economic, etc., levels) and the potentially active participants.

The root factors are the whole complex of favorable domestic and international conditions which at a certain time made inevitable the downfall of the communist regimes in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the related changes.

The immediate performers are persons and groups who for a number of reasons have been more effective and quicker than others in organizing and in appearing in the political, social and economic arena. Their personal qualities alone hardly would have been enough to assure their present position if it were not for the support of powerful and influential interest groups and organizations both inside and outside the country.

The potentially active agents and participants in social, economic and political life are in reality very active contributors to the root factors of change, but for one reason or another have remained beyond the perimeter of domestic and foreign attention and help. For the time being this has prevented them from becoming immediate frontline actors in official politics, economics and so on.

This is not a case against the postulates of classical political theory and practice which not without reason maintain that it would be highly improper to expect that all participants in a certain process some day become leaders. But equally unjustifiable from the point of view of democratic change would be a practice in which only those who happened to be to the fore in economics, politics, etc. absorb all the opportunities and benefits of influential domestic and foreign attention.

Bulgarians have little difficulty in understanding why this is so in domestic matters. Still they have not yet found an adequate explanation or passed final judgement on how foreign agencies, who always have been conceived as defenders and promoters of democracy, also act in this way. It would be natural to expect that after the first years and months of the euphoria of change, foreign representatives would return to more normal and routine contacts and practices. But if this means treating as nonsignificant offers and projects from different (evidently not first-line) groups, it will reproduce the earlier state of affairs when "the people will attend the grand feast by means of their representatives" and those who have really sought democracy could only say "why then did we have to wage The Great Battle of Change?" A practical and feasible way out of such an undesirable development would be a correct and positive evaluation of the potential which PCBM presents for real democratic development and for more confidence, security and stability in the Balkans as a whole.

Generally speaking PCBM are various undertakings in the social, economic, personal and educational, etc., spheres of life which are initiated and carried out by individuals and groups not directly represented in official political, administrative, economic or other structures, but which nevertheless have enough potential to contribute to further democratic development in the country and to greater security and stability on the international level. Essential to this definition is that these undertakings meet with understanding and adequate cooperation on the side of similarly interested groups abroad without which their international effect and efficacy can hardly be realized.

Interviews carried out within the framework of this study in a number of towns and regions of Bulgarian show that nowadays there is a prevailing predisposition on the side of the larger part of Bulgarians towards this very kind of social, economic and cultural activity. This corresponds both with the basic positive and pragmatic features of the Bulgarian national character with the predominant feeling that at this time democracy inevitably must advance. That is, provide vivid immediate opportunities for greater human realization and higher degrees of practical participation in determining the pattern, style and values of life.

Interviews have been carried out using the questionnaires found in the appendices to this chapter. Respondents were mainly participants in public rallies and meetings held on different occasions since May 20, 1993 in the towns of Sofia, Blagoevgrad, Gotze Deltchev, Zlatograd, Topolovgrad, Malko Turnovo, Bourgas, Varna, Dobritch, Byala, Rousse, Kozloduy, Svishtov, Vidin, Montana, Pernik, Pazardzhik, Velingrad, Plovdiv, Kazanluk, Gabrovo and Troyan.

Opinions were collected and compared from all types of regions: large and small, central and peripheral, urban and rural, predominantly industrial and predominantly touristic or agricultural, the plains and mountains, interior and border regions. Since in Bulgaria’s demographic tradition inhabitants of a given center usually maintain close surroundings, the answers received may be considered representative of all these types of places.

This study is not yet fully representative according to exhaustive sociological criteria. Still, under the existing conditions and with limited resources the informational and human structures have been developed. This not only will enable a satisfactory response to the objectives of this study, but also will provide the basis for its further development into a full scale, exhaustively representative, comparative international research project by a team of scholars.

The questionnaires used in the interviews have been drawn up to assure reliable information along the following main lines:

1. The overall attitude of those interviewed towards the changes that have taken place in the recent years (mainly questions 1, 2 and 3);

2. Evaluation of the recent course of change and what is needed for its further development, particularly in the field of national security and stability (questions 4 and 5). Attitudes on relations with neighboring countries and other factors of international life and security are specifically interwoven into the components of all questions beyond their main or auxiliary purpose;

3. Questions 6 and 7 and the request to send more exhaustive information are essential for marking the PCBM potential of different places and regions and the specific neighboring countries to which they may be related.

A special supplement to the questionnaire has been offered to those interviewed in order to differentiate attitudes on the quality and volume of the information on international affairs they are receiving and its media sources.

It has been extremely encouraging that practically all people, most of whom have been contacted accidentally, have responded willingly to the questionnaires and that many have sent more detailed information and opinions. It is also noteworthy that an overwhelming majority of those interviewed express general approval of the changes that have taken place in the country, though more than half at the same time express concern for the growing problems they confront: rising prices, increasing crime, economic instability, diminishing security and falling standards of life.

The situation is similar in the evaluation of the present international status and position of the country. Once again the majority of the respondents find that this has improved, though over 60 percent of them attribute this more to "major positive changes in the world" (question 2, a) than to a notable contribution on the part of Bulgaria or her immediate neighbors.

No doubt worthy of notice is the opinion of more than 80 percent of those interviewed that they now "see no immediate military threat for Bulgaria", neither from their neighbors nor from anyone else in the world (Question 3). Yet, more than 60 percent show concern over a possible military threat "in the course of time, somewhere in the future" (Question 3, c) and almost the same percentage links such a probability more with inner than with purely international factors, be they superpowers or neighbors (Question 5, c-2).

Happily enough, these not very optimistic views are to a very great extent dispelled by the really great practical enthusiasm for concrete pragmatic activities in favor of better local and international development. This is clearly manifest both in the number and in the quality of the answers to questions 6 and 7. Inhabitants of both larger and smaller cities and villages all seem to have detailed ideas about how local potential may contribute more efficiently to international cooperation and with which countries in particular such prospects practically may be envisaged.

One axis of differentiation within these many similar opinions was between those who consider the overall recovery of the economy, its industry, agriculture, etc. (Question 6, a, c) essential for more stability and security and those who give preference to ideas and projects in which different local, cultural, natural, geoecono-mical and other traditional or newly-emergent peculiar factors play a more significant and decisive role.

It is worth mentioning that the larger part of the first group live in larger cities and centers like Sofia, Plovdiv, Bourgas and Varna, while the second consists mainly of residents of smaller towns or the regions around them.

Still another difference within the latter group is in the quality of the ideas and projects launched. The part concerned with broader plans and hopes for wider and more far-reaching Balkan and European cooperation have better formulated views backed with arguments. Others who share concern for improving international relations, but on an immediate and practical level, lack evidence to back their views.

Very impressive in this respect is the difference in the attitudes of inhabitants of the Gotze Deltchev and the Zlatograd regions in the furthermost southern parts of Bulgaria. Both are equally enthusiastic about the prospects of opening and restoring the far more active relations which had obtained during many decades prior to the Cold War era.

Respondents from the Gotze Deltchev region usually speak and write about the prospect of going to Greece by a quicker and more direct route, and of people from Greece visiting them accordingly. Evidently, their hopes and expectations are related mostly to improving tourism, given the climatic differences between the plains of Greece and the high mountainous character of the part of Bulgaria in which they live.

On the other hand, people from Zlatograd and its surroundings link the prospects for better development and improved relations with neighboring Greece with projects connecting the railways and highways of the two countries. This would create a new South-North transport corridor for Europe, bringing the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean closer not only to the Danube, but also to the Ukraine and the Baltic. Their plans are also related to the joint use of the rich lead and zinc deposits of the Rhodope mountains and of other branches of the local economy and industries which in many ways are mutually supplementary in the two immediately bordering regions.

At the same time respondents both there and elsewhere in the country are very conscious of the fact that a possible realization of their hopes and expectations, ideas and plans, is inevitably related to broader issues of politics and international security, not only between Bulgaria and Greece but between each of these and other Balkan countries. This explains why so many connect their hopes for a better future primarily with the prospects of mutual understanding, security, stability and cooperation in the Balkan region (Question 7a). It is significant that the figure of these respondents exceeds only by a small margin the number of those who maintain that superpower influence and relations will still be of primary importance for settling problems in the Balkans (Question 7, b). This shows that a real change is taking place in the mentality of the Balkan nations where great power-dominance and presence traditionally have been considered decisive.

A qualitatively new phenomena of thought and attitudes on foreign policy is reflected also in that only a slightly smaller percentage of respondents than in the case of the superpowers shows a preference for better relations with countries which are more or less of the same size as most Balkan countries but have shown good progress in different aspects of nation-building and economy. It is interesting to note that not only traditionally neighboring countries like Austria, but also such typically Western European states as Belgium and Sweden—and even far away countries like the Republic of Korea and Venezuela—have been singled out in this regard (Question 7, c, d). Still the prevailing hopes, expectations and projects are related to improving relations with neighbors in the Balkan peninsula.

The notion of Public Confidence Building Measures developed in this project is substantially different from other ideas and offers of a similar kind aiming at more or less the same sort of ends. Their function is not just to give more advice either to governments or to responsible international bodies, but to suggest a niche or field in which work can immediately be initiated or stimulated.

Most Bulgarians seem to be developing a balanced attitude on the inner (revitalization of the economy, enhanced social justice, efficient police) and the outer (inviolability of existing borders, strong army, good relations with neighboring countries) aspects of national security and stability (Question 4), where inhabitants of smaller population centers as a rule have been much more enthusiastic in answering Question 6 of the main questionnaire dealing with thus far unused economic, cultural, natural, touristic and other facilities of their respective localities as potentials for more intensive international cooperation. They also constitute the larger part of those who have made use of the footnote to the main questionnaire and even sent a number of detailed and thorough offers in this respect with their names, addresses, etc. This same category of people is usually more definite in giving positive answers to point a of question 7 on the main questionnaire, expressing views that closer relations with neighboring countries may well turn out to be the way to make better use of their unused potentials and facilities.

This is true not only of such smaller borderline towns as Gotze Deltchev, Zlatograd, Topolovgrad, Malko Turnovo, but also of a number of larger cities situated more in the interior of the country. The big construction project of a tunnel under the Shipka branch of the central part of the Stara Planina Main Balkan Range, on which bidding has attracted over 20 mostly foreign companies, is a real issue in the life not only of the large industrial centers of Gabrovo and Kazanluk which it is will immediately connect, but of a number of other towns and areas as well. The project will modernize the existing highway and railroad systems on both sides of the Balkan range and construct another bridge and other transportation facilities across the Danube. Companies from as far away as Japan have showed interest in this.

Such a development seems indispensable both in an immediate and in a longer term perspective. On the one hand, increased traffic over the territory of Bulgaria even now gives enough evidence of the limitations of the transportation capacity of certain sectors of its highway and railroad network. Their modernization will mean progress not only for Bulgaria, but for the region.

The longer-range implications of these issues are of decisive importance for the economic and political evolution of this part of the world and such immediately adjoining regions as the Aegean-Baltic and the Adriatic-Black Sea. Both from a historic and a geoeconomic perspective these are the shortest and most efficient routes between Northern and Central Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean and from Western Europe to Russia and further to the East.

Experts and politicians from various countries now constantly refer to these projects which give hopes that their realization ultimately will prove to be something more than a mere dream or well intended promise.

Yet even in the more or less latent form in which they now stand these ideas seem to exert an extremely powerful constructive influence over vast sections of public opinion, at least in Bulgaria. In the course of our study it has been repeatedly shown that people in the towns and areas around the axis of the possible realization of the large infrastructure projects mentioned above manifest a higher degree of optimism and a more active attitude towards issues of international cooperation and security compared with other places and population centers.

This obviously repeats the situation in smaller towns analyzed in the course of this study where people directly connect the prospects of improving international development with expectations that the enterprises in their respective localities will be set in motion once again or that their natural resources and other potentials will be better employed under the new circumstances, etc.

The direct linkage between improving expectations and attitudes in international relations is not to be interpreted as a kind of oversimplication of existing realities. While, as mentioned before, Bulgarians at the moment almost equally weigh the importance of the inner and the outer aspects of their nation’s present condition and security, most (over 68 percent of those interviewed—Questions 4, 7 of the main questionnaire) considered that a notable improvement of the situation cannot be expected without a major international accord embracing the military, economic, cultural, geopolitical, psychological, etc., aspects of the problem.

Neither Bulgaria, nor any of her neighbors alone disposes of sufficient resources and capacities to cope with the imperatives of such modern development. At the same time all possess certain potentials and skills that reasonably can be made to serve not only their own, but also joint interests and needs.

Enough evidence has been collected in the course of this study to confirm that at the moment a majority of Bulgarian citizens share values and a mentality which promise to be the most reliable basis for developing public confidence-building measures and attitudes in this country, the Balkans and other adjoining or potentially interested nations in improving relations with regions, states and organizations throughout the world.

This has been more clearly manifested, as already noted, in the case of smaller population centers and the localities around them, which constitute the majority of the municipalities in Bulgaria. Usually such places tend to be locked in upon themselves and represent centers of local conservatism. Hence, it is especially noteworthy that they now show themselves open and predisposed to international communication and cooperation.

Obviously the situation is more complicated in larger cities where people usually tend to answer questions on international relations, stability and security in more general and sophisticated terms. This naturally corresponds to the more complex and multi-varied realities in which they now live, where direct relationships and explanations sometimes are not so easily seen or expressed. Hence, in answering Questions 2, 4 and 7 of the main questionnaire those in large cities as a rule give more preference than others to such options as "overall improvement of the situation in the world" (2a), "more resolute superpower orientation" (2c, 7b), "affiliation with an international alliance or organization like NATO, EC and others" (af), as factors of improving the international status, stability and security of the country. At the same time they are less prone than others to make detailed offers regarding ways for further activity toward improved international cooperation (Question 6 and footnote, main questionnaire). From a PCBM perspective this makes their position strange and difficult to define.

On the one hand, larger cities always have been considered more susceptible to new ideas, which was remarkably proven during the initial stages of the liberalization processes. On the other hand, the history of these processes has shown repeatedly that as a rule new ideas break through and settle down in huge population centers mostly as a function of a massive party propaganda machine or as an expression of disillusionment with its previous postulates. In both cases citizens living there seem to have considerable difficulty in making their way through the intricacies of social life, politics and economy in order to shape their lives in accord with their vital interests and the claims from the national and international level.

All this leads inevitably to the need for an integrated view of the aspects and peculiarities of the transition period in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe as a whole. This will help to clarify and understand from one more perspective the importance of PCBM as well.

1. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, David L. Sills (New York: Macmillan Co.: Free Press, c1968, 1972 printing), XII, 265, 235, etc. Practically the same basic points about politics and the political process are to be found in vol. XX, p. 217 and elsewhere in the Bolshaya Sovyetskaya Encyclopedia, though somewhat more substantially based upon classical quotations and in Marx-Leninist rhetoric.

2. Theodore A. Couloumbis, "Greece and the European Challenge in the Balkans" in The Southeastern European Yearbook, 1991 (Athens: The Hellenic Foundation for Defence and Foreign Policy-ELIAMEP), p. 87.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., p. 88.

5. Rod Pascal, Special Operations and Unconventional Warfare in the Next Century (Future Warfare Series; New York: Pergamon-Brassey, 1990).

6. Couloumbis, op. cit.

7. Ibid., p. 87.

8. "Bulgaria in the Present World", the questionnaire used in the course of the research project.

9. Supplementary questionnaire.

10. G. Keynes, The Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London, 1960).

11. It is noteworthy that perhaps for the first time in Bulgaria’s history these factors are considered to have more influence on the security status of the country than even such traditionally decisive items as military threat on the part of a great or neighboring power. The correlation has been almost 70 percent: 30 percent (9.5 of the main questionnaire).

(Main questionnaire for an international research project devoted to confidence and security in the Balkan region.)

The conclusions and the proposals to be made as a result of this research will contribute to further clarifying and identifying this country’s national priorities and its current and future policy.

1. Do you consider that the international position of Bulgaria has improved during recent years?

 

- yes; - no; - cannot say; - other.

2. What factors influence most the current international status and position of the country? (Number your preferences 1, 2, 3, etc.)

 

a) general improvement of the situation in the world

b) improving relations with the neighboring countries

c) reorientation towards other superpowers

d) it is difficult to say

e) other opinions

3. Is there any military threat for Bulgaria at the moment?

- yes; - no; - do not know; - potentially later; - other opinions.

4. What in your view is most essential for the security of the country at the moment? (Number your preference):

 

a) guarantees and inviolability of the national borders

b) strong army and police

c) revival of the national production and economy

d) more social justice

e) better understanding with the neighboring countries

f) membership in a group or alliance such as NATO, EU, etc.

G) membership in some other kind of alliance

h) other opinions

i) cannot say.

5. What may be considered the biggest threat for Bulgaria in the near future? (Underline what coincides with your opinion):

 

a) a military threat from a neighbor country (which one?)

b) a military threat on the part of a great power (which one?)

c) inner social and class contradictions

d) further aggravation of the economic situation

e) crime

f) conflicts on an ethnic or religious minority basis

g) others

h) have no opinion.

6. What unused resources for mutually beneficial international contacts and cooperation do you see in your region? (Proposals can be made separately if you wish.)

 

a) industry (branches, enterprises)

b) agriculture (what kind of products)

c) well-trained and experienced specialists (which fields)

d) cultural traditions, folk-art groups, buildings, etc.

e) sport, tourism (nature, rivers, lakes, sea, buildings, etc.)

f) geographical position favoring construction of new

roads, more intensive contacts across the borders, etc.

g) natural resources (mineral waters, ores, etc.)

h) other opportunities

i) we have none.

7. With which countries are these opportunities most likely to be developed:

a) some of the Balkan countries (Albania, Greece, Romania,

Turkey, which of the countries of former Yugoslavia)

b) a great power (Great Britain, China, France, Russia, U.S.)

c) some smaller countries (Austria, Sweden, Venezuela, South

Korea)

d) some other country (write which one).

1. Who are you? (Underline one of the following):

a) male/female/young man/girl

b) pupil/student/worker/state employer/intellectual

c) businessman/agricultural producer/learned profession/private

tradesman/temporarily unemployed/pensioner

d) other.

2. Education and vocational training:

a)primary/secondary/general academic

b) specialized vocational

c) higher technological

d) higher humanitarian

e) other

3. Where do you live and work?

a) Sofia

b) large town in the inner regions of the country

c) smaller settlement

d) settlement in a border area.

4. Would you vote at the moment for: (underline or number 1, 2, 3. UDF; BSP; FRM; CAR; NUD; BSCP; BAPU; others; would not vote.

5. Do you now receive more information on international relations and foreign policy issues? (Please underline):

 

a) yes

b) no

c) cannot say with certainty

d) nothing substantial is being said

e) the really important things are missing.

6. Where do you learn most on foreign policy and international relations? (Underline one of the following or number your preferences):

 

a) DEMOKRATZIA

b) DUMA

c) Otechestven Vestnik (The Fatherland Paper); Trud (Labour);

Svoboden Narod (Free people); Prava i Svobodi (Rights and

Freedoms)

d) another paper (which one?)

e) a specialized scientific magazine

f) radio/TV

g) talks with friends; personal sources of information

h) I am not interested in these issues.

7. Are you personally acquainted with NATO’s Partnership-for-Peace Program?

 

a) yes, in detail

b) partially

c) I know only the title

d) I have not heard of it

e) I am not interested in these matters.

A significant theme here is that of decentralization.

The pattern in Eastern Europe since World War II has been to locate research in large Academies of Science and for the universities to concentrate on teaching what was developed largely in the academies. This highly centralized understanding and insight is placed under easy political control. Further, for if those teaching in the university were not themselves generally engaged in research their teaching could not be expected to stimulate a critically questioning and exploratory attitude on the part of their students. Intellectual passivity, however, deprives the country of the creativity needed in order to progress and provide for the needs of the people. Some consider this to be one basis of the collapse from within of the regions of Eastern Europe in ‘89.

In this light an important present step is to engage the people on all levels from the locality to the regional high school or college, to university students and professors in a process of coordinated inquiry. This shifts the movement from top-down to bottom-up. This process of participation by the populace is a matter not only of garnering personal preferences, but of enlivening the public.

Historically, it was noted that there seemed to be more space for developing citizen participation and collaboration from below in the years before the 60s, when till the early 80s such activity was limited from the center. In the 80s it began to develop once again and great hopes were placed in it after 89 especially through the United Front. The results, however, were disappointing and the earlier management of national affairs was returned to office.

This may suggest the importance of a tripartite pattern as noted elsewhere, namely, distinct political, economic and civil society spheres. In exceptional circumstances civil society can be called upon to supplement or even substitute for the political order, but it is not adept at doing so, for its concerns are too deeply focused on the general welfare and its competencies are too focused on specific areas of human activity. Similarly, the political order which focused upon power is poorly adapted to managing a country’s economy which is focused upon profit. Hence, it is important to envisage three sectors and to enable them to interact for the public good.

To allow room for civil society, however, it is necessary that the proper character and dignity of the person be recognized. This can be appreciated from the culture of a people, but it is unfortunate that in the modern rationalist search for clarity of thought, and thereby for control, the freedom and creativity of persons have been slighted. Indeed, it is not impossible to read the history of this loss of appreciation of the dignity of the person as the history of the loss of space for civil society in the various nations and in wars hot and cold. In the present circumstances it is necessary to regain an appreciation of the character and dignity of persons and people, and to rediscover the ways of acting together in society. This is the making of civil society.

This may explain as well why civil society seems to be more easily understood and realized outside the city where interpersonal relations are closer and more vivid than in the cities whose size renders them less than personal in character. However, city life is more complex and hence specialized, allowing thereby for more groupings of people with shared concerns and competencies. A matter such as health, which in a village might be the concern of one person, in a larger community is the special concern of many. This lays the foundation of a particular grouping along with many others relating to other concerns and competencies.

Patterns of solidarity and subsidiarity need to be developed from the circumstances and experiences of the grass roots in order for the people to come ever more fully alive in the free exercise of their interests, competencies and creativity. This is the emergence of civil society.