Review
[1] The report of Georgi Karasimeonov on the development of the political science in Bulgaria is relevant and rather exhaustive. The author gives the most essential ideas in order to explain the features and the general trends in this filed of theoretical research as well as of university teaching. The main conclusions in the report are objective and well founded. The report provides knowledge about the history of the political science as a university discipline and as a field of research work especially after 1989, but with general suggestions about some important authors before this period. The report also deals with the institutionalization of the political science at the universities and at several research bodies, the funding of the research, and with the main theoretical approaches in the Bulgarian political science recently, as well as the principal fields of the research (institutions, democracy, political parties, electoral studies, political philosophy and political theory, transition and civil society building, international relations, especially on the Balkans). The author points out one of the most important challenges for the political science in Bulgaria in his opinion - the establishment of a Bulgarian school in political science. Even though it seems that this assumption is quite optimistic and nation allegiant, the problem is evident - is there a Bulgarian specific in the political science or not.
[2] The following remarks are intended to give additional elements for understanding the problems and the characteristics of the political science in Bulgaria. I try to emphasize some supplementary remarks, ideas and details in order to improve his description and the analysis of the Bulgarian political science after 1989. Meanwhile after the completion of the report at least one important book in the field was published - “Limits of Politics. A Sociological Treatise”, by Georgi Fotev, LIK Publishing house, 2001. This means that no one can assess definitely the situation in the Bulgarian political science, which progresses infinitely.
[3] Speaking about the intellectual roots of the current Bulgarian political science, it seems important to mention the development during the Perestroyka period. This short lap of time (the second part of 1980’s) was marked by intensive discussions, concerning also political science and sociology as separate and autonomous fields of the social sciences.
[4] The debate was influenced by several texts of researchers from the former Soviet Union, during the Perestroyka period, dealing with political sociology, political systems, and political behavior. Some Western texts in political science became accessible for the large academic public in Bulgaria during this period through their Russian translations.
[5] Here it seems important to mention also the role of the research institutions, which were close to the governing elite during Communism like the Academy of social sciences, the Institute for contemporary social theories, the Institute for history of the Bulgarian CP, the Institute for Social Management. These research bodies are discussed in the report of Georgi Karasimeonov. But they influenced the development of the political science also by one very specific activity by that time - the publication of texts and translations of texts on political science, with restricted distribution among a limited number of politicians, civil servants, Party officials and some academics. This practice was called “official samizdat”, because within these publications different points of view as well as different theories in the field of the political science were broadcast somehow in the public sphere.
[6] When discussing the development of the political science during Communism it seems important to notice that many researchers by that time tried to escape from the rigid ideological prescriptions for the social sciences by developing studies on Western societies and Western political system. This allowed them to use many Western classical texts in political science, which enriched the methodological knowledge in Bulgaria.
[7] All these particular developments in Bulgarian political science during the Perestroyka period were enhanced after 1989 with the appearance of many new opportunities, especially for young scholars, to get fellowships for visits and research in Western universities (especially in US, France, Germany, Austria, and UK). This had as a result the interference of different methodologies, coming from a lot of countries: United States, UK, France, and Germany. One can argue that the scientific exchanges with many Western states after 1989 contributed to the diversification of the methodological store of the Bulgarian political science making it very heterogeneous and eclectical.
[8] Teaching political science became one of the main challenges for the scholars in this field. For evident reasons, well explained by Karasimeonov, the most professors of all grades came into the discipline from other sides: philosophy, sociology, “scientific communism”, political economy, and even from anthropology and cultural studies, international relations, history. The newly established chairs of political science in most cases, except the University of Sofia and the New Bulgarian University, were the transformed chairs of “scientific communism” or of history of the Communist party. They were a part of the Faculties of Philosophy, so that most of the new coming professors were from related disciplines as pointed out below. The newly established discipline did not have special relations with the faculties of law, as it was the case in many European or American universities, where political science grew within these faculties.
[9] The New Bulgarian University took different academic structure, like in United States and UK. In 1992 the Department of Political Science was established, bringing together researchers from former institutes of political studies and of international relations of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, some professors in sociology and political science from the Sofia university (in a part-time job) as well as researchers from the former Academy of Social Sciences of the Bulgarian CP, the Institute for Social Theories and the Institute of History, which were dismantled by that time. This gave more opportunities to establish curriculum in political science on the bases of interdisciplinary approach (the Department united different scholars: political scientists, sociologists, lawyers, economists. philosophers, and historians).
[10] The first curricula in political science were initiated following some US and Western European university curricula. The core curriculum included more or less the same disciplines as the core curriculum in many Western universities. This was true for the University of Sofia and was accepted in other universities too. In New Bulgarian University the curriculum in political science was influenced by the experience in the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, France. Somehow we cannot say that there is a local traditional or specific way to teach political science. Many traditions and experiences had an impact on the way in which political science exists as a discipline in Bulgarian universities.
[11] During these 12 years of transition many new handbooks and university manuals in political science appeared, as an addition to the main texts on general political theory as it is shown in the report of Karasimeonov. In principle every chair of political science in every university made an attempt to publish its own manual. Now there are at least 10 handbooks on political science, most of them by colleagues from the Higher Military Schools (of Land forces, Air forces and Artillery). But among the most frequently used handbooks with more than one edition, are the books of Mincho Semov (University of Sofia) and of G. Yankov (University of National and World Economy). 1 (Note1: Mincho Semov: Politologia, Sofia, Sofia University Press, 1993; Mincho Semov: Shto e politilogia, Sofia, Sofia University Press, 1991; ed. by Georgi Yankov, Politologia, Sofia, University press Stopanstvo, 1992, 1993, 1997.)
[12] When discussing how political science is taught in Bulgaria, it is important to mention the existence of the so-called “state requirements” or state standards in the university curricula. These standards are introduced with a special decision of the Government after having consulted the professional community. These requirements are obligatory for the university curricula and impose a number of compulsory courses.
[13] The list of the compulsory courses with the minimum of hours: Government’s directive of the state requirements in political science from 13th November 1997, Official journal, No.109, 1997:
| Minimum hours | |
| History of Bulgarian political life | 90 |
| History of political ideas | 240 |
| Theory of politics | 90 |
| Methodology of the political analysis | 90 |
| Political organisations and institutions | 90 |
| Comparative political systems and regimes | 90 |
| Theory of international relations | 90 |
| Political culture | 90 |
| Local government | 60 |
| Social policy | 60 |
| History of international relations | 60 |
| TOTAL | 1050 of 3000 for the hole curriculum |
[14] It is difficult to say whether the existence of these standards has a good impact on the quality of the teaching, much more uncertain is if these requirements are comparable with the standards in foreign universities in US, Canada or Western Europe. However, universities have some autonomy to choose different non compulsory courses and to make their curricula more individual and specific. There is now a big discussion if the state requirements shall exist or not in their detailed structure as it is the case.
[15] In principle we cannot say that there is much difference between university curricula in political science. Nevertheless at least two main strategies: (1) to follow in a close way the state requirements, what means to have curriculum close to that of the University of Sofia, or (2) trying to establish a different curriculum in political science, by following the standards in one or more Western universities in this field (as is the practice at the New Bulgarian University).
[16] One other aspect of the university organization of the political science in Bulgaria is the difficult distinction between the content of the BA and MA degrees in political science. The state requirements in this purpose are quite ambiguous: they say that Universities are free to build the curriculum at the master degree, but on the other side call for achieving the core curriculum of the bachelor degree before. This obviously makes the master degree in political science inconsistent and non-autonomous.
[17] Political science is taught also in other curricula (law, economics, philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, and public administration). Many colleagues try to adapt the discipline for the students in other programs, so that many courses in political science for jurists or for economists appeared.
[18] What is studied and taught in political science? The structure of the curricula in political science is relevant for the conception of what is the field of the discipline. History of the political thought, comparative political systems, political analysis, political theory or political philosophy, government and public policy are the main disciplines and this gives an idea about the field of the political science. This does not differ from many Western universities, but with some particularities, connected with the state requirements. In most cases these compulsory requirements are the result of the power position of one or another professor, teaching one of the core courses.
[19] The structure of the manuals and handbooks in political science is also relevant. Power and politics, democracy, political elite, political system, constitution, parliamentary system, government, political parties and party systems, main political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, neo-fascism, lobbies, elections, political culture, political change and theories of transition, European institutions - these are more or less the main themes in the handbooks of political science in Bulgaria. The overview of the handbooks in political science shows, that there are a lot of themes, not always subordinated to a general approach. Sometimes it is connected to the composition of the What is missing among these themes is assumed to belong to other disciplines: like political socialization (sociology), political behavior (sociology, psychology), international relations, foreign policy, public policy (public administration), theory of the state (law).
[20] On the other hand, there is an obvious competition now between political science and other related disciplines, most of them newly established - public administration, European studies, international relations and diplomacy. There are a lot of difficulties for differentiating the specific field of the political science from the field of these disciplines. So that some influential handbooks avoid treating controversial fields and topics. And this is despite the fact, that all mentioned topics are the part of the political science if taking as a standard the New Handbook of Political Science, published recently.
[21] At least two books reveal the dominant perception of the field of the political science in Bulgaria - those of Mincho Semov and of G. Fotev, recently published and quoted below. For Mincho Semov in Theory of Politics, the most important topics are the European antique roots of the modern political systems, politics as a mechanism of transformation of the private interests into public ones, the State as a core of the political organization. This book explores also the relations between politics and other social spheres. G. Fotev in Limits of Politics explores the political field as a system of state activity, power organization and freedom. He investigates the political regimes, especially the modern democracy with its main elements: political equality, common will, civil society, political parties, and public opinion. None of these books treats international relations or foreign policy as a topic of the political science sensu stricto.
[22] First of all this is connected to the documentary and textual bases of the political science - the corpus of texts, existing in Bulgarian, which legitimates the research field itself. The translation into Bulgarian of the most quoted classical texts has not been systematic at all. And this situation continues now. In general new translations are sporadically made, depending on financial opportunities for publication, provided mostly by foreign sponsors (embassies, foundations). To the list of Karasimeonov, which is more or less exhaustive, few translated books could be added: some texts of Aristotle(1998), Tocqueville (1992, 1996), de Maistre (1996), Burke (1999), as well as the anthology of G. Yankov (Political Thought from Antiquity to the Present Times, 1996).
[23] On the other hand this methodological chaos in some sense can be quite productive and rich of findings. Studies on Bulgarian political life and tradition, especially when they are carried out in a comparative prospect, are quite interesting for the international scientific community. In most cases the problem is that there are few translations of Bulgarian authors in world languages. Many political scientists have published their essential works directly in foreign languages, so that they are not sufficiently known by their colleagues.
[24] In fact there is no sufficient interaction between political scientists in Bulgaria, even though there are many institutions for professional exchange. Karasimeonov pointed out the role of the Bulgarian Political Science Association (BPSA), but it might be a little bit exaggerated. There are not enough events for professional exchange, except those financed by foreign sponsors or with foreign participation. From this prospect the disappearance of the revue “Political Studies” makes this problem much more complicated.
[25] Generally speaking, the research activities are entirely dependent on foreign funding, so that the research agenda also results from the research needs of the foreign partners. It is not bad in itself, but this situation makes the research on topics which are usually quite specific and particular very difficult. For instance it is much easier to find funding for the study of ethnic conflicts and ethnic relations, for the research on corruption and transition, than for historical sociology of the Bulgarian society in 19th century or for studies on the memory of the Communist regime in Bulgaria. It is may be exaggerated, but in general sense it is true.
[26] It is not possible to produce an exhaustive report on the now-a-day situation in the Bulgarian political science. The text of Georgi Karasimeonov is very satisfactory and gives an objective overview of the field. These comments are intended only to give more details for the best understanding of the situation.
Sofia, 2002
