[ggerganov]

Indeed, people are very excited here. The majority strongly believes that the previous politicians somehow stole so much of their money that their lives became miserable. The new government promises to fix this and eliminate 100% of the corruption - we are yet to see exactly how this will be achieved.

[lollina]

> Indeed, people are very excited here

Alas.

The funny thing (for some definition of funny) is that the rise to stardom of the new PM -- the one to "eliminate 100% of the corruption" -- started on a document crime and a blatant transgression of Bulgarian constitution.

The way this happened: he was appointed as an 'Economy Minister' in the caretaker cabinet preceding the current one and so he had to sign a declaration that his only citizenship is Bulgarian. (Bulgarian Constitution forbids foreign citizens from holding minster office). Yet, later it turned out he also had Canadian citizenship at the time.

He tried to justify that falsification of an official document, saying, quite politician-ly, that the truth/facts didn't matter as he had "always held Bulgaria first in his heart".

In the end, though, almost no one seemed to care about that and people voted for him. So, yeah, people are excited but perhaps, at least for some of them, that's for a different reason.

[phoronixrly]

You're skipping key details.

Whether a person is a Canadian citizen does not depend solely on the person. Before he was appointed as a minister, he had requested his Canadian citizenship be terminated. The Canadian authorities took months to process his request, thereby creating a situation in which another country is to decide whether a person can be part of the government of Bulgaria. If this seems absurd to you, you're not alone. The idea behind the clause in question is exactly the opposite -- to not allow other countries to interfere with the government of Bulgaria.

This was a hot discussion before the elections and his main opponents (much like you) made sure everybody knew without context that he. blatantly. broke. the. constitution. And yes, considering that he won the election, apparently people did not care. And considering that the broken clause has been pointed out as especially outdated, out of touch with the real world, and even possibly discriminatory, I don't care either. To me he did whatever was in his powers to stop being a Canadian citizen and I'm pretty sure Canada is not trying to take control of Bulgaria via him, so in my eyes, the spirit of the clause was not broken. Not only that, but if he had not been appointed because Canada had not yet revoked his citizenship, then the spirit of the clause would have been broken as the bureaucracy of another country is interfering with Bulgaria's government having a qualified and impactful person be part of it. Much like the entire country, Bulgaria's constitution is in dire need of reforms and modernisation.

[necovek]

If they are promising to eliminate 100% of the corruption, they've already started with lies, because that's practically impossible.

Eg. you are not going to stop that nurse at the hospital from letting her sister in law into the doctor's office early even if it was not her turn.

[phoronixrly]

> Eg. you are not going to stop that nurse at the hospital from letting her sister in law into the doctor's office early even if it was not her turn.

Boy, what an example of a lie. I'd be more than happy even if they dare to limit themselves to stopping all corruption with public funds and government contracts.

Somehow I think I'll live if my doctor prioritizes a family member before me. There's a chance I won't even accuse them of a crime because of it, let alone blame the government for it...

[necovek]

I agree with you that we should be happy with the most blatant corruption eliminated, and living in a neighbouring country (Serbia), I've long advocated for an even more realistic goal of limiting corruption to a single digit percentage of all the government contracts. That's definitely not a good platform to run for office though, I agree.

FWIW, this is a mathematical tool called a contradiction to disprove a claim: you seem to be agreeing that they won't achieve 100%, so you are fine with the lie. That does not make it not a lie.

They are similarly not going to completely eliminate most of the corruption no matter what, even the corruption you are concerned with. The same case as above will play out in granting a large government contract when a clerk at the office discloses competing offers to his best friend who runs a company in the same space, or they add in particular requirements and clauses to exclude some competitors.

They are either "lying" of planning to achieve 100%-corruption-free society (sorry, they are being "diplomatic" to win the office first), or they are utterly unrealistic and unfamiliar with human patterns of behaviour. Lying is likely better if their motives are truly pure, but I'd have a hard time trusting someone who lies their way into office.

Your mileage may vary.