dystopias
, as is now said —, for if something from their propositions could be turned to reality this will be another catastrophe! But this will never happen because they will never seize the power. They can "bark", this they can, but not "bite". And for this reason the West has left them to "bark". Besides, they are party of, let us call them so, post-teenagers, i.e. somewhere from 18 and to 25 years at most, in Komsomol age, as it was spoken before, and these "youngster" just need their "actions", doesn't they? They are immoderate simply because they are young, and as far as there is no morality any more there is nobody to tell them that they behave bad (but it, to remind you, even when there was morality, in one highly moral country like Germany, and when some have said to such youngsters that they do not right things, then they, again, have behaved how they wanted, so that now this is beyond hope!). This is the next "childhood disease" of our democracy.
The proper centrist party, and this for many years, since its emergence as party, is only our ethnical party, the MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms,
DPS
in Bulgarian). And here we again have paradoxes, so that let me explain the things in some extent. For there are not many those who can answer correctly the question:
why (and when) a given ethnical party is centrist
,
because their party
is
ethnical, whatever they alone are not saying (for the obvious reason that nobody will admit officially that he is doing something against the law), and they are centrists (if not for other reasons, then because all Governments have resorted to them when this was necessary, i.e. with them is possible to take compromise decisions, they are not fanatics of whatever idea — to cite, for example, the "great" slogan of UDF: "Compromises with whomever, only not with the communists!"). Well, listen here, they are first of all
not
ethnical
party of the majority
, for to be able to do harm and evil, let be clear on that point. They are party of some minority, and then, why them not to try to become a bit stronger? So, for example, they have wanted to be in position to give themselves names like Assan, instead of our Ass
e
n, and they can do this now. I personally don't see what so good is hidden in the name Assan, but, maybe, they relate it with their
aslan
or
arslan
, what means lion (this has to be some snarling, like by the bears, which animal is called
ursa
in
Latin
), so that it is their right, in the end, to bear whatever name they want (and why should someone be able to call himself, say,
Uy Min
— and in Bulgarian
huy
, often pronounced as
uy
is what you call penis, sorry —, and not Assan, ah?).
But, then, why are they centrists? I don't know whether these people are aware about this, but the answer to that question is obvious for me — this is
exactly
because they are ethnical party, i.e. they do
not divide
in some property, or intellectual, or professional, or other principle! They are performing one
proportional sample
of the population — well, of Turkish origin, but the Turks are like the Bulgarians (or Germans, Russians, Hebrews, etc.), i.e. there are among them all sorts of people, and one party that wants to please everybody
must
be centrist, else there will be needed at least two such parties, how it is with the other layers-parts (for this is the idea of the word "part" — strata, side, layer). But a minority party, which hardly gathers 10% of the voices, has no rights to split in two parts, am I right? More so in more than two parts. That's the point. So that it turns out that an ethnical party, at least for us, is a very good thing (because for me is obvious that the center is always something good, at least for the reason that this is so hard to be reached, as far as everybody aims at extremities). Now, if it arises some time ethnical Gypsy — ah, sorry, Roma's, as they insist to be called — party, then there may arise some frictions, but otherwise there is no danger, except on the part of "
Sider-Jugend
", but we have all once been young (and silly, of course).
There also our King was, inasmuch as this was possible, center, because he is "King" of all Bulgarians, and it is necessary to remind, or cite, for I am not convinced that people by us are aware that the social measures can be equally well proposed by aristocrats and Monarchs, where as typical, though rarely used, example I may mention the fact that the social security was introduced initially in Germany (and understand also in Europe, and in the whole world, I suppose) by some Otto, and in addition
von
and Bismarck, who surely was not left-wing, right? And due to all this has arisen the directly "extraterrestrial" coalition of former communists, the King, and the Turkish party, because it was possible, and there were no other more or less centrist parties.
This, what I still don't like in our movement to the center — because, as I have said, both the right- and the left- wing parties are centering —, is that there,
is no fight and competition in the left political space
,
it is united and monolithic, all efforts to split it are doomed to failure by the simple reason that the left are on the whole not so powerful for to allow themselves to split, or then they are more intelligent. But the right ones split for 20 years now, there the entire UDF has "peeled" exactly like an onion
