Just a week-and-a-half ago Prime Minister Boiko Borissov was considering talks with other parties about a possible impeachment procedure against President Georgi Purvanov.
It was the first time in Bulgaria’s history that a Prime Minister adopted such rhetoric about a sitting President.

Traditionally, threats of impeachment have emerged from opposition parties. This is understandable because opposition parties have more room for manoeuvre when it comes to public pronouncements. Borissov, however, reversed this custom by broaching the impeachment issue while in power.

The process did not augur well from the outset. First into the fray was the Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria (DSB) leader Ivan Kostov, an old political rival of Purvanov, who suddenly revived one of his old tunes from several years ago and demanded Purvanov’s impeachment because of his past as a researcher for the communist-era secret services. Kostov should have known perfectly well that this was insufficient to warrant Purvanov’s departure because it was not a constitutional breach.

Kostov also asked for Purvanov to be probed on account of alleged wrongdoings arising from misuse of the UN’s oil for food programme while he was leader of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) during Saddam Hussein’s rule of Iraq.

Both Purvanov’s communist-era background, which he does not deny, and the UN story, have been raised time and again to no avail whatsoever. To many, it looked as if Kostov was just looking for a way to make the news.

Then another party, ultra-nationalist Ataka, joined in by asking Purvanov to be removed from office. Ataka said that Purvanov had failed to inform Parliament on a regular basis about his policy as the constitution required, hence he was eligible for impeachment.

To everyone who scrutinised the constitution - and its section on presidential prerogatives and obligations - it was obvious that Ataka’s reasoning was groundless because the President chose his own way to inform Parliament. This Purvanov had done by addressing it annually.

When both Kostov and Ataka demanded Purvanov’s impeachment most media merely responded by reporting the news matter-of- factly. Nothing more.

It must be said, however, that both Kostov and Ataka chose their timing well, coming the day after Purvanov had criticised Borissov’s administration for its lack of vision and the alleged authoritarian nature of its governance.

Knowing Borissov’s sensitivity to criticism, impeachment talks hit a bull’s-eye and Borissov fell into the trap.

He said he was ready and willing to discuss the issue with the two parties which was seen as a warning to Purvanov for his criticisms of Borissov.

Borissov continued by saying that the only way he could "help" Purvanov avoid impeachment was if Purvanov "apologised personally to Kostov and Ataka". This only made matters worse by rendering them personal.

As an experienced politician it did not take long for Purvanov to say that this was Borissov’s only way of answering criticism, hardly a spin appreciated by Borissov.

The former ruling party, the BSP, which Borissov defeated at the elections, also piped in and accused Borissov of authoritarianism and of trying to pressurise the President.

At that point, after realising that there were no legal grounds for even initiating talks on Purvanov’s impeachment, Borissov backed down by saying that he personally did not want any confrontation with Purvanov. He claimed that he had been forced by Kostov and Ataka to discuss the issue because he needed their support in Parliament.

In a way he admitted that he had been tricked by the two parties into playing their own partisan games against Purvanov.