Parliamentary Assembly

I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Leni Fischer, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, for the invitation and the opportunity to address you today. For me, this is an honour and a challenge. It is a challenge to try to convince you, the representatives of the whole of Europe, that my country is no longer the same after the events of the past few months. This is the reason why I have come here as a proud European for whom Strasbourg is a symbol of a new united Europe and the historic reconciliation of our continent.

The idea of a unified Europe is not new. The wonderful thing about ideas is that, even if they fail to come to fruition, they live on in the aspirations of the next generations. It is the idea of European unity that inspired the foundation of the Council of Europe after the second world war. Conceived as an organisation of all European countries, the Council began to play its true role only after the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall when the prospect of a genuinely united Europe was resurrected. The Council of Europe became one of the first institutional bridges linking the two freshly reunited parts of our continent.

As President of the Republic of Bulgaria, I feel proud that my country, which has embarked upon the path of democracy, has been a full member of the Council of Europe for several years now. I am also proud that, on joining the big European family, Bulgaria became actively involved in the life of the Council of Europe.

It is worth mentioning some of the Bulgarian initiatives which set new trends for co-operation among member states, such as the project for improving the built environment – a text to this effect was incorporated in the Vienna 1993 Declaration – and the project for promoting co-operation among the Danubean countries. As is well known, the latter has prompted the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to work on the European Charter for the Danube Basin.

I am happy to inform you that only three days after parliamentary elections, Bulgaria has made an irrevocable choice in favour of reform, democracy and Europe. The past three months have been crucial for Bulgaria and the democratic transition following the changes of 1989. At long last an end was put to the tactics of imitation reforms. At first glance, we had all the players in the market, yet the rules within which they were to act stifled the free market by extra-economic coercion.

Corruption reached unprecedented levels. In foreign policy, the proclaimed European and Atlantic integration remained mere phraseology. Effectively, we lagged behind some other post-communist countries with which we had started the process. With the exception of the short-lived government of the democratic forces in 1991-92, these tendencies have regrettably persisted until January 1997.

The will for change in all public domains including the economy, politics and morals as well as bringing about a peaceful shift of power through direct, free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections, has led to the emergence of a new social contract between people and government. The rigorous and unpopular reforms can only be implemented through an ongoing, articulate and honest dialogue between the new political class and the people of Bulgaria.

My optimism that, this time around, the reform will succeed is founded in the agreement signed on 4 February by all parliamentary political forces, including the Bulgarian Socialist Party, which ceded its mandate to form a new socialist cabinet on that same day. This agreement, unique in the new political life of Bulgaria, represents a minimum consensus on the principles of pulling out of the crisis, thus giving the go-ahead to the reform that has already started and the steps it entails – notably, faster and transparent privatisation, attracting foreign investment, financial stabilisation, a clampdown on corruption and the shady economy, and prompt reprivatisation of land.

As never before, public sentiments in Bulgaria are in favour of democratic reforms and European integration. Never again should people’s expectations be deceived and their hopes dashed. It is wise to learn from one’s failures. Our categorical lesson from several squandered years is that the rigorous and painful structural reforms have no alternative. Now, we are firmly determined to break with the previous practice of vacillations and make up for lost time. Our present situation calls to mind the punch line from Aesop’s fable, “Hie Rhodus, his salta!” “This is Rhodes, jump here!”

I want once again to declare clearly from this rostrum that Bulgaria has opted irrevocably for full integration in the organisations of the Euro-Atlantic community of nations. The Bulgarian society of today is rallied around that idea. Bulgaria is trying to be a respectable partner to all European states. It links its European future with a full membership of the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union.

Europe should become a single security space in all its aspects – military, strategic, political, social, economic, environmental and cultural. I am firmly convinced that Bulgaria, as a traditional partner of the countries in the south-east of our continent, will make its worthy European contribution. However, Europe’s open door should not remain a fine metaphor. The destroyed Berlin Wall should not be replaced by other divisions, whatever we may call them. There could be nothing more discouraging than mistrust and a lack of prospects. The Bulgarians are not among the kidnappers of the mythological Europa, the daughter of Agenor, King of Phoenicia. Culturally and geographically, we have always belonged to Europe. Now, we are poised to take the next step and join Europe in its living standards.

I assure you that I will use my constitutional powers to be a guarantor of the human rights of all Bulgarian citizens and a champion against any forms of racial intolerance, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Incidentally, all Bulgarian political forces today share that creed. It is a projection of the tolerance of the Bulgarian people fostered throughout the centuries. It is not surprising, therefore, that Bulgaria rescued its Jews during the second world war.

The forced name-changing campaign launched by Zhivkov’s regime against the Turks represents one of the most shameful pages in Bulgaria’s recent history. The Bulgarian people never approved of that outrage. That is why the Bulgarian opposition became a champion of ethnic tolerance from the moment it was organised. Today that wound is healing and most instrumental in the healing process has been the Turks’ involvement in the government of the country.

On a more personal note, I want to point out that I grew up in the ancient Bulgarian city of Plovdiv, where Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews, Turks and Gypsies have lived together in peace for centuries. It would be no overstatement if we called that Bulgarian Babel a city of tolerance.

I wish to assure you of my very high esteem for the Parliamentary Assembly and its role in the Council of Europe. The Assembly is a unique forum for the exchange of views, discussions and joint actions of parliamentarians from all European countries; it is a unique laboratory for new ideas. Importantly for the people’s deputies from countries in transition, the Parliamentary Assembly has become a true school for parliamentarianism – a school for democracy. As a school for democracy, the Council of Europe occupies a place of honour in the Bulgarian foreign policy doctrine. We would like to join in the general effort towards building a single European legal space where democracy and the rule of law are the underlying principles and the main rights and freedoms of all citizens have been guaranteed, including the right to be different and the right to cultural diversity.

The Vienna Summit defined the Council’s role in the changed conditions of uniting Europe on the eve of the twenty-first century by the notion of democratic security. That includes the building of stable democratic forms of government in all European states, guaranteeing the human rights and fundamental freedoms and protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens, regardless of their ethnic and religious identity. It is a key element of the set of guarantees for security and stability of our common European home.

The Council of Europe has been fulfilling the mandate of the Vienna Summit. Yet today, on the threshold of the third millennium, the time is ripe to go even further ahead. For the Council of Europe, the process of enlargement is about to be completed. However, that process will reach its stage of maturity only when an active culture of democracy becomes firmly established across Europe. That will entail not only effective democratic institutions, but profound and irreversible changes in people’s mentality – in other words, when democracy becomes a state of mind and a mode of conduct for all citizens.

Democracy cannot be achieved once and forever. It needs to be rediscovered and mastered by every coming generation; it needs to be fought for, built up and improved further. To quote President Havel, “Democracy is a never accomplished human task; it is man’s never ending road.” Only then can we talk of a European democratic culture, an inherent consequence of which will be the democratic security of all nations and states in Europe.

I want to define the Council’s contribution to building up and asserting the European democratic culture as one of the noblest objectives of our Organisation on the eve of the twenty-first century. The Council of Europe, which will be fifty years old in 1999, can act as the architect of the pan-European democratic culture. The forthcoming second summit could formulate that task explicitly and translate it into a specific mandate for the Council. As a first step in that direction, the Council of Europe should broaden its activities in the area of culture and ethics, focusing on the problems of education in a spirit of respect for the main values of democracy.

I should like to dwell briefly on democratic culture as a component of the European cultural identity. Each living culture strives for harmonisation rather than homogenisation. A cultural identity can be developed and protected only in the free space of a legal community. That applies even more to the democratic culture and the democratic cultural identity.

Today, in the age of globalisation and interpenetration and the interlocking and interfacing of communication networks, we may feel more than ever a need to preserve our European identity as well as our personal and national identity. A pluralist identity is emerging, which we must protect. If we abandon philosophical speculation and face reality we will realise that an identity that is too literal and essentially undemocratic could degenerate into fundamentalism. It is inadmissible to defend such an identity by any means – including violence, which is outside the space of a legal community.

Acknowledgement of other, different people, is a condition for the survival of any culture. That is why the fostering of a general European democratic culture should become our main goal. If we fail to achieve it, a united democratic Europe could remain a mere political Utopia.

In conclusion, I should like to return to the idea of a united Europe. It is at long last about to become reality. May the wind of change be our fair wind! I wish the Parliamentary Assembly a fruitful and successful working future in fulfilling its responsible tasks on the threshold of the third millennium.