On Sofia’s streets: How protests are highlighting an Orbanist turn in Bulgaria
Bulgarians have turned out in their thousands to protest against the government. The EU needs to address the country’s democratic backsliding and avoid it becoming part of Viktor Orban’s camp
Problem
On December 1st, Bulgaria saw its largest public mobilisation in decades as over 110,000 people protested in Sofia and across other Bulgarian cities. The immediate trigger was the draft 2026 state budget; protests quickly evolved to become a call for the government’s resignation.
Bulgaria’s current coalition was formed after seven snap elections, amid a period of political volatility and societal fragmentation. Now, with Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) leader Boyko Borissov, and Movement for Rights and Freedoms – New Beginning (DPS-NN) oligarchic leader Delyan Peevski, at the helm, democratic deficiency is thriving. This is primarily through the government’s weakening of democratic institutions, politicisation of Bulgaria’s judiciary and imprisonment of political opponents.
In November, the coalition staged an attack on Bulgarian civil society by launching a commission to investigate philanthropist George Soros. Now Borissov is emulating US president Donald Trump and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban by vocalising his opposition to using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine (“that would empower the warmongers”), endorsing Trump’s 28-point plan and aligning with Orban’s prognosis (“Russia cannot lose the war”).
Solution
Borissov’s views follow the trend of European leaders who see alignment with American foreign policy as a shortcut for political success and for avoiding accountability at home. But the protests in Bulgaria show that there is public support for the EU to more boldly safeguard its democratic processes—particularly among a generation that knows only European integration.
To address the problem of corrupt and opportunistic governments, further encouraged by Trump’s culture war against Europe, the EU should ensure access to its funding is inseparable from good governance. This means withholding the second and third parts of Bulgaria’s national recovery and resilience plan subject to anti-corruption measures.
The EU should also counter how Trump’s culture war is shaping political incentives within member states. It needs to prevent another Orban-style government from appearing in Bulgaria by supporting the actions of the Bulgarian European Public Prosecutor’s Office and pushing for accountability in cases of embezzlement of European funds.
The EU should also invest in civil organisations capable of translating European values in a visible and modern way, while European political families—especially the European People’s Party, home of the GERB—should take decisive measures against members who seek to undermine European unity on strategic matters.
Finally, democratic resilience begins within the bloc. In central and eastern Europe, the EU has caused living standards to rise dramatically—now more people return to their homelands than leave them. But the EU needs to meet the expectations of its young citizens who take its membership for granted while demanding resilient institutions and a functioning democracy.
Context
Public anger in Bulgaria culminated in widespread protests at the beginning of December, with more expected on December 10th. According to polls, over 70% of Bulgarians support the demonstrations.
The draft 2026 budget was a shift from Bulgaria’s traditionally low-tax, fiscally conservative model towards unprecedented increases in public-sector wages which far outpace growth in the private sector. The government injecting significant resources into institutions which are widely seen as inefficient or politicised risks reinforcing the very networks which citizens oppose.
Public anger therefore also reflects the opaqueness and arrogance behind the government’s decision-making. Central to this frustration is the influence of Peevski, who has been sanctioned by both the US and Britain. For many Bulgarians, his role in shaping governmental policy and appointments symbolises the capture of state institutions by oligarchic interests. In this regard, Peevski’s partnership with Borissov is the embodiment of entrenched corruption.
The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of their individual authors.
