Many Messages, Little Debate: How the Election Campaign Unfolded, According to Communication Experts

Interview on Euronews Bulgaria

The campaign for the latest round of elections proved to be diverse and dynamic but also lacking the most anticipated element in a genuine clash of ideas. According to communication experts, participants relied more on personal image, social media, and informal appearances than on substantive debate. In the context of repeated elections and similar promises, the campaign resembled a series of parallel monologues rather than a dialogue about the country’s future.

Host: We continue with our guests, as you are communication specialists. How did the participants in these elections perform those competing for voters’ trust in the eighth election in five years?

Prof. Mavrodieva: It is impossible to give a single, clear-cut evaluation, even with some kind of numerical measure, for all of them. Some performed reasonably well by building a personal brand or presenting themselves as leaders. Others, I would use the term “nostalgic populism,” tried to revitalize themselves. In simpler terms, by referring to their past successes, they aimed to motivate voters by showing how good they had been in their respective professions be it show business, science, politics, business, or other fields.

Another aspect is that social media were actively used to present themselves, attract voters, and engage micro-target audiences. There was humor, self-irony, even communication in cafés or virtual environments. A certain kind of irony, a touch of artistic self-confidence artificial intelligence was sometimes used as an argument against личности, but overall, it felt slippery. There was neither a real debate nor even a structured monologue to present ideas, concepts, or visions. It was very fluid and elusive.

Host: How do you assess it?

Maxim: I respect traditions very much. You’ve been asking me this question for the eighth time in the last five years, not even five. And for the eighth time I will say: this was not the kind of campaign we all expected. On the one hand, it was very majoritarian everyone stood up and said, “I will do this, I will do that.” And that’s how people will vote today. It will be largely majoritarian because about 90% of the promises overlap. There are a few exceptions, but generally the promises, to the extent that they were specific, were almost identical across political forces. The word “oligarchs” dominated the media space without a single name being mentioned. You could meet someone on the street and call them an “oligarch,” and they probably couldn’t refute it since, in theory, it refers to the merging of business and politics. What struck me, however, is that there were no smear campaigns. In previous years, we’ve seen much stronger negative campaigning. Now there seems to be distance between candidates, perhaps even respect, as there are new players.

But what was missing, for the eighth time, was direct debate. We all want to see one candidate face another. Because elections are about ideas, not people.

Host: But this year, silence seems to have become very fashionable. What kind of debate can we even talk about?

Prof. Mavrodieva: Silence is a communication technique, but it depends on the degree. It wasn’t exactly silence; it was more like running along the touchline if we use a football metaphor. There was strong personal PR, even some reverse PR trying to present oneself in a more favorable light, to reposition oneself: “I am now in a different role, a different status.”

There were also attempts to engage voters through direct meetings, though not dominantly, as well as specially organized PR events. Dr. Behar is an expert in this field, everything from unity and leadership to dress code and message delivery.

Host: What about the dress code?

Maxim: As in all campaigns, there wasn’t much difference. I don’t want to single out individuals.

Host: It seemed a bit more informal this time.

Prof. Mavrodieva: Informal, but not entirely casual just without the obligatory tie. It might be in the pocket of the jacket, if needed. Or no jacket at all. This kind of look suggests activity and readiness to work. There were also displays of sports activities, a kind of populism, attempts to connect with voters sometimes even playful, but not always well executed. Authenticity is key here. People immediately sense falseness or overacting.

Maxim: You know, dress code doesn’t matter at all. You could walk down the street naked or dress extravagantly the important thing is what you actually do and whether you deliver for voters. Over all these elections not just the last eight, but even earlier the gap between promises and reality has always been huge.

We need people who keep their word if they say they’ll be somewhere at 2:00, they arrive at 2:00. If they promise higher pensions, salaries, economic reforms, support for young people, education changes, or startup investments, those things should happen.

If I imagine an ideal government, it will announce a competition for 10,000 new ideas or business plans and give each one €100,000. Half would fail; some wouldn’t be implemented but a quarter would succeed, creating jobs and bringing recognition to Bulgaria. This is hypothetical, of course. But the key is concrete promises with real results.

And I return to my idea a round table. Enough of constant elections. Sit down and agree. We have priorities. There are conflicts near our borders.

Prof. Mavrodieva: When I watched the candidates’ appearances on TV, in lifestyle formats, and podcasts it was clear they were trying to position themselves. Did it work? Not always. It remained a “pluralism of monologues” everyone repeating similar points.

However, there is some value. If we revisit these discussions, we’ll see many ideas. Even if subjective or adapted, they represent a kind of social capital. These people, voters and leaders alike could be brought together, perhaps in a round table format, to turn ideas into practical governance. That would be a positive outcome. Perhaps it sounds idealistic, but it’s also pragmatic.

Host: Do you see grounds for a common path to governance after these elections? Will there be a stable majority?

Maxim: There are plenty of reasons for agreement. In this complex economic and political situation, there are shared priorities. Everyone talks about fighting oligarchs, ensuring peace, stability, economic growth, and higher wages. So, sit down and agree. Leave everything else aside.

One notable feature of this campaign was the rise of podcasts. I’ve never seen so many politicians appear on so many podcasts. They used to ignore them and focus on TV but now they were eager to participate.

Host: Will you vote?

Maxim: Yes, we’re going now. I urge everyone to vote for whoever they choose. High turnout matters.

Prof. Mavrodieva: We are citizens and voters, not just an electorate. Awareness that your vote matters make you active, not passive.

Host: Prof. Ivanka Mavrodieva, Dr. Maxim Behar thank you.

 Watch the whole interview here: https://www.maximbehar.com/bg/video/436/mnogo-poslaniya-malko-debat-kak-premina-predizbornata-kampaniya-mnenieto-na-specialistite