Fact check: What is the current political status in Bulgaria?

1. How the President Frames a Crisis — “Paralyzed” Institutions and a Sanctions Link

President Rumen Radev has publicly described Bulgaria’s government and parliament as “paralyzed,” accusing the political leadership of excessive dependence on a politician who is under Magnitsky sanctions; this framing positions the presidency as a watchdog highlighting a legitimacy problem at the center of the crisis narrative ^[1]. The allegation elevates concerns about ethical governance and external influence into headline political debate, and the boldness of the claim intensifies pressure on the coalition to rebut or reform, turning institutional functionality into a litmus test for political survival as reported in October 2025 ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Coalition Defenders Push Back — Stability as Their Central Argument

Leaders within the ruling coalition, including DPS-New Beginning’s Delyan Peevski, have publicly reaffirmed support for the Zhelyazkov cabinet, framing continuity and stability as paramount amid rising tensions; they present political responsibility and social stability as counterarguments to the president’s accusations ^[3]. This defense signals an attempt to shore up parliamentary and public confidence by emphasizing policy continuity and security, suggesting the coalition calculates that governance legitimacy can be maintained through demonstrated delivery rather than through immediate institutional change ^[3].

3. Foreign Policy Moves Feed the Domestic Narrative — Offering an Air Corridor

Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister has indicated readiness to provide an air corridor for a Russian presidential flight related to diplomatic meetings in the region, a move that complicates domestic perceptions of foreign alignment and raises questions about Bulgaria’s geopolitical positioning ^[4]. This posture feeds into the larger political debate about influence and foreign policy posture, and it may be used by both government allies and critics to either defend pragmatic diplomacy or to underscore concerns about opaque external ties, depending on which narrative gains traction ^[4].

4. Media Freedom and Asylum Practices Spark Governance Concerns

Separate reports point to contested practices on asylum for dissident Russians and a draft privacy law criticized as threatening journalists’ ability to hold politicians accountable, framing a freedom-of-information and rule-of-law dimension to the political conflict ^[5]. These developments amplify civil-society alarms about transparency and press independence, and they provide tangible policy strands for opposition and watchdog groups to tie to the president’s broader claim of institutional paralysis and reliance on problematic actors ^[5].

5. Constitutional Form and Institutional Roles Remain the Background Fact

Observers note that Bulgaria remains a parliamentary representative democratic republic with a prime minister as head of government and a president as head of state, a constitutional arrangement that structures how these conflicts play out procedurally and politically ^[6]. This basic institutional framework constrains immediate remedies to political stalemate, as parliamentary arithmetic and coalition dynamics dictate government survival, underscoring why public accusations by the president or parliamentary reaffirmations by coalition leaders matter within established institutional bounds ^[6].

6. Economic Context Tightens the Political Stakes — Euro Adoption and Deficit Worries

Economic milestones and pressures — including an imminent adoption of the euro and a reported 3% budget deficit in 2024 — give urgency to political stability debates because fiscal credibility and EU-related transitions require coherent governance and policy continuity ^[2]. The economic backdrop elevates the costs of prolonged political discord: market and EU stakeholders closely monitor Bulgaria’s governance capacity during sensitive policy windows, and economic vulnerabilities can sharpen incentives for both coalition defenders and critics to either shore up or unsettle the governing arrangement ^[2].

7. What the Competing Narratives Mean for Bulgaria’s Near-Term Outlook

The available reporting presents two competing, evidence-based narratives: one of institutional paralysis and problematic external influence as posited by the president, and another of deliberate coalition stability and pragmatic diplomacy advanced by government allies and officials ^{[1] [3] [4]}. These narratives will shape parliamentary maneuvering, media scrutiny, and public opinion in the near term; the outcome depends on whether coalition actors can demonstrate effective governance during key economic and foreign-policy moments, or whether opposition and civil-society actors can translate allegations into concrete institutional change ^{[5] [2]}.