If Simeon II had a good government, could he had restored the Tsardom?

220px-Simeon_II_of_Bulgaria.jpg

The former Tsar Simeon II, that was the last absolute monarch to reign in Europe (albeit with a regent, since he was only a small child when he took power in 1943). Simeon II was removed from power when the soviets occupied Bulgaria and installed a puppet state, but with the fall of the Berlin Wall he returned on the late 90s, with his political rights and proprierty restored, and thus used the nostalgia of the Tsardom to be elected Prime Minister from 2001 until 2005, however this was considered a major fiasco, as his government was stagnant and apart from joining EU he did not made anything else relevant, in the eyes of many ruining the monarchy.

Let's say that he had a good government, could he use the prestige to make a plebiscite and be crowned again?
 
Well, many think Simeon II ruined his monarchist chances when, becoming Prime Minister, solemnly swore loyalty to Bulgarian Republic, as the Constitution required. When his not brilliant performance caused him to lost first position in 2005 election, he formed a coalition with left parties that of course destroyed any monarchist revival. If you want Simeon II retained his Crown, he could avoid a direct political role, appointing someone other as Prime Minister (possibly a competent person) and obtaining a referendum.
 
Entering to politics was already big mistake for any hopes to restore any kind of monarchy. Him would had much better chances if he would had remained outside of politics and just supported restoration of monarchy. In Europe royalties never should participate to politics but them should be above of that.
 
Very unlikely. Changing the constitution requires a two thirds majority and he was never going to get that popular. The Socialists certainly did not want a restoration of the monarchy and after he threw them out of power, the right-wing UDF didn't want it either.

Of course it's another question how he could do better. As this article points out, he was defeated despite four years of sustained economic growth and securing EU membership. But the massive corruption and slow improvement in living standards destroyed his popularity, and the decision to ally with the extremely unpopular ethnic Turkish MRF didn't help much either. Perhaps more importantly, he made an extravagant promise that his government would cause noticeable improvement in living standards in 800 days and this failure seriously damaged his credibility. Avoiding it might be a good idea. Other problems are more difficult to fix. Due to tight requirements to enter the EU and a restrictive currency board, there was little that could be done by the state to improve living conditions. Reducing corruption would require both a better selection and control of the people in his party (difficult, since most joined in hopes of profiting from corruption) and of his coalition partner (even more difficult). Perhaps winning a majority would help there, since at least there would be fewer positions that would need to be filled with supporters of the government (not to mention avoiding the hated MRF). And of course, not stealing properties that didn't belong to him would definitely help his popularity (but then again, that was probably the whole point of his return to Bulgaria).

Well, many think Simeon II ruined his monarchist chances when, becoming Prime Minister, solemnly swore loyalty to Bulgarian Republic, as the Constitution required. When his not brilliant performance caused him to lost first position in 2005 election, he formed a coalition with left parties that of course destroyed any monarchist revival. If you want Simeon II retained his Crown, he could avoid a direct political role, appointing someone other as Prime Minister (possibly a competent person) and obtaining a referendum.
Such a government would be a joke. A puppet prime minister who is not independent, yet is still responsible for the actual government, while there is no accountability for the actual ruler. Saxkoburgotski tried to do this in OTL and was quickly persuaded that this position was not tenable.
Also a referendum is not a constitutionally mandated way to change the constitution.

Entering to politics was already big mistake for any hopes to restore any kind of monarchy. Him would had much better chances if he would had remained outside of politics and just supported restoration of monarchy. In Europe royalties never should participate to politics but them should be above of that.
Or alternatively, he could have run for President, which is a less political office and would allow him to become an unifying figure for the nation. But the Constitutional court ruled (narrowly, 7-5) that he didn't meet the eligibility requirements. So there you have a possible POD.
 
Why a joke? The world is full of countries where the Prime Minister and the head of governing party are not the same person. You can see in nations as Germany, Italy, Romania, Georgia and Poland. Of course, a such Goverment sometimes is saw as weaker then one led by majority party's head, but nevertheless it's not unusual find them around the world.
 
Why a joke? The world is full of countries where the Prime Minister and the head of governing party are not the same person. You can see in nations as Germany, Italy, Romania, Georgia and Poland. Of course, a such Goverment sometimes is saw as weaker then one led by majority party's head, but nevertheless it's not unusual find them around the world.
Well, Bulgaria is not any of these countries. Most Bulgarian governments since 1991 were led by Prime Ministers who led their parties, which had a majority in parliament. Those who weren't were always unstable, with serious doubts who was really accountable for the government. We had a recent example during the supposedly non-partisan Oresharski government, which was fatally weakened by the Prime Minister being blamed for policies he obviously was not responsible for. As I mentioned, in OTL Saxkoburgotski certainly did not want to be a Prime Minister but had to acquiesce in the end. Now I believe that the MRF insisted on him being the Prime Minister, so if he has a majority, he might avoid this. But I doubt that this would help much. Especially since most of his MP being unprincipled opportunists, it would likely lost its majority quickly (even with a coalition partner, the government lost its majority by early 2005 in OTL).
 
Last edited:
Top