For several weeks, organisations representing pensioners have been holding public protests as part of a campaign for a better deal.
Media reports have it that different groups are behind the respective protests. It appears that one of the groups is being supported or manipulated, however you want to look at it, by a political party.
The protests have got media coverage regularly, and this past weekend, the party with the largest share of the governing coalition moved to respond. At a meeting in a mountain resort, the chiefs of the Bulgarian Socialist Party said that they would propose that pensions be increased by 10 per cent, rather than the initially planned 8.5 per cent, with effect from July 1.
Any increase would be off a low base. Pensions in Bulgaria range from a monthly 85 leva to 455 leva, meaning that the average payment, and we do not know how many pensioners are in each category, clings on a rung just above the poverty line. Add to this the fact that the years of communism meant that there was no modern private pension saving system, and on top of that, the economic crisis of 1996/97 severely dented the savings of many. It is true that Bulgaria has a level far higher than the average when it comes to outright ownership of homes. But all this means is that many pensioners may sit in the homes that they own, desperate in the face of the rising costs of, among other things, heating and food. To survive, many must rely on the goodwill and support of their children and any other better-off family members.
One might think that, given that about 2.3 million of Bulgaria’s population of about 7.7 million are pensioners, a proposal to improve their lot would be universally welcomed. Instead, the matter quickly became a political football.
The National Movement Simeon II (NMSII), one of the two other parties in the governing coalition, said that the socialist party was making itself guilty of populism. Perhaps they are correct, given that no one in political circles is unmindful of the fact that this year will see elections for the European Parliament and for municipal councils, and given that traditionally pensioners represent a substantial voting bloc, and given that the socialist party has implemented no more than a meagre shade of its promises made in the 2005 parliamentary elections. But to deride a proposal in this area as nothing more than a political stunt is a failure to acknowledge that the problem is real. The other points made by the NMSII were that the BSP proposal should first have been the subject of consultation among all three parties in the coalition before being aired publicly, and that in any case no proposal of this kind could be considered before it is clear how much will be earned from privatisation proceeds, and until it is known what this year’s Budget surplus will be. Of course, these latter points are valid, but should not be used to stave off making an in-principle agreement to make a priority of helping pensioners as much as possible.
The third party in the coalition, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, is divided on the question, according to media reports.
Where does this leave the pensioners? Not really any further than they were on the Thursday of protests preceding this past weekend’s BSP meeting.
Some steps forward would seem to suggest themselves. First, if the BSP made the proposal in such a public fashion as a means of election campaigning, it should desist from doing so. Raising expectations in this way is unfair and cruel, and it will not help if the other coalition partners officially reject the proposal and this is used by the BSP to finger-point. A way forward would be for there to be agreement on increasing pensions, without an attempt to use this for political gain. Further, the Government is well placed to save where others have scant savings. The elimination of wastes of money in administration and a substantial cutting back on expenditure by public office-bearers could help. A pensioner living on pickles need not have to admire, bitterly and with irony, that at least Cabinet ministers, MPs and other state officials boast the latest mobile phones, snappiest suits, and late-model luxury cars. Some saving here would help. A concerted campaign to eliminate inefficiencies in public spending could help even more.
