Author: Alexander Vezenkov
Published by Institute for Studies of the Recent Past, Open Society Institute and Ciela Publishers
Sofia 2008
ISBN-978-954-28-0198-6
This book is result of the extensive research of Alexander Vezenkov conducted as part of the Communism Research Project.
(Abstract)
The present book consists of four different studies dealing with the institutional history of the communist regime in Bulgaria. Based on archival documents, they present the organizational structure and the functioning of the Communist Party and its leadership, as well as how the party controlled the state institutions and the mass organizations.
The first study (“The Nomenklatura of Cadres”) presents the nomenklatura as a key element of the political system of communist regimes. The term nomenklatura is widely and somewhat imprecisely used to designate the elite during the communist period. The fact that there was a privileged elite is beyond question, but the popular view of the nomenklatura as elite is in need of revision. The word nomenklatura literally means a list of names, in the administrative sphere, it usually refers to a totality of positions whose holders are appointed, controlled, transferred or dismissed by a specific body. Appointments to and dismissals from all leading positions in the state, as well the so-called mass organizations, were under the ultimate control of the Communist Party. In the framework of the party itself, the leadership closely controlled the lower levels. Through the right to appoint and dismiss leading cadres, control over the whole of society was concentrated in the hands of those who were leading the Communist Party.
There is already a large range of existing studies dealing with the nomenklatura system. Studies based on archival evidence were published on nomenklatura in the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the USSR, many of which include the original lists. This study goes further in that direction by looking at an unresearched case. It is based on archival material from the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party. The lists of nomenklatura cadres for the party bodies that have the right to manage cadres (nearly all the lists concerning the nomenklatura of the Central Committee and many other lists for the lower levels) were consulted. The lists of the cadres’ nomenklatura of the Central Committee of the BCP from June 1945, January 1947, 1950 and December 1974 are in the appendix. In order to examine how the rules were implemented into practice, a large number of decisions on appointments and dismissals were also examined. These include decisions taken by the leading party bodies and other institutions which serve only torepeat a previous decision by a party body. For comparative purposes, nomenklatura lists as well as other relevant documents from the archives of the central committees of the ruling parties in Romania, Hungary and the former GDR were used.
The second study (“The Top of the Pyramid: the Leadership of the Bulgarian Communist Party”) goes further and presents the top of the party hierarchy, i.e. the Politburo and the Secretariat of the Central Committee. It is neither by omission nor by mistake that the members of these two highest bodies of the Communist Party leadership are not listed among nomenklatura cadres – they were above the nomenklatura.
After presenting the changing composition of the Politburo and the Secretariat of the Central Committee as collective leading bodies, this chapter focuses also on the specific functions of their individual members. Some of the Politburo members hold key positions in the state administration, most often as government members. The Secretaries (including those who were also members of the Politburo) used to lead the party apparatus, usually controlling several departments of the Central Committee apparatus. They were responsible for examining the proposals in the respective domains before submitting them to the Politburo or the Secretariat. Thus secretaries played a decisive role for the policy in the spheres they were responsible for, even in the cases when the decisions were made by the Politburo. Insightful in this regard are the decisions defining the domains of competence of the Central Committee secretaries (and in some cases also of the members of the Politburo). The texts of the respective decisions from November 1945, December 1947, September 1949, January 1950, November 1950, January 1952, March 1954, April 1956, July 1957, June 1958, December 1959, November 1966, December 1968, April 1971, October 1979 and Mai 1984 are included in the appendix.
Finally, this study focuses on the power mechanisms used by the undisputed leader of the regime – the secretary general (or the first secretary) of the Communist Party. For long periods the party leader assumed also leading functions in the state institutions as prime minister and after 1971 as head of the Council of State. But what is far more important is the fact that he used to lead the Central Committee apparatus and therefore he could control the elaboration of all proposals for decisions by the Politburo and the Secretariat. Special attention is paid to the deputy of the party leader – a member of the Politburo and the Secretariat of the Central Committee, assigned to coordinate the work of the Secretariat.
The third study (“The Head of State Institution in Communist Bulgaria”) describes how after the Soviet model, the functions of the Head of State were exercised by collective bodies: the Presidium of the National Assembly (in accordance with the Constitution of 1947) and the Council of State (in accordance with the one of 1971).
Therefore, it would be incorrect the chairman of those bodies to be indicated as a Head of State as often has happened. Constitutionally, this collective body had the prerogatives of the Head of State, but also most of the prerogatives of the assembly between its sessions. At the same time, it was not a collective Head of State stricto sensu (or “collective president” as it is often called), but a body fully dependent on the assembly dejure and on the party leadership de facto.
The comparison with the other socialist countries shows that the changes in the Head of State institution in Bulgaria both in the constitutional and personal aspect were a result of some tendencies common to all these states. At the same time a few differences can be outlined. The rapid imposition of a collective body replacing the Head of State in Bulgaria was a sign of the speed with which the Soviet political model in general was imposed on the country. Accordingly, the preservation of the collective character of the institution throughout the whole socialist period was indicative for the steady adherence to that model in contrast to states like Yugoslavia and Romania that had taken the road of national communism. Still, with the adoption of the constitution from 1971 some changes were made in Bulgaria, too, that led to extending the authority and prestige of that body and hence, of its new chairman. That was the moment when the leader of the regime, Todor Zhivkov, assumed that post. Although according to the constitution he was only the first among equals in a collective body, the propaganda presented him as Head of the State.
The forth study (“The Network of ‘Mass and Social Organizations’ of the BCP”) presents the role of the mass organizations in the communist political system. The topic is usually disregarded, because these organizations were not independent bodies and in fact only executed the orders coming from the Communist Party leadership. Taking a different perspective, this study examines how the party controlled these organizations and used them to promote its own policy. Even before coming into power, the Communist Party created its own mass organizations (youth unions, syndicates, etc), infiltrated its members in some of the existing ones, and after the takeover in 1944 it gradually put under control all other existing mass and social organizations. The mechanisms of party control over these organizations during the communist period are briefly examined. The study also presents the specific functions of the different mass and social organizations, underlining the importance of the Communist Youth Union in the self-reproduction of the regime. It played key role not only in the indoctrination of young people but also in the formation of new generations of party apparatchiks.
The last concluding text (“For a New History of the Bulgarian Communist Party”) is a critical survey of the publications on political and institutional history on the communist regime in Bulgaria. These studies usually deal with the state institutions and mostly with the government, which is inadequate for the communist model, where the decision-making center is the party leadership. On the contrary, the history of the Communist Party is not considered a legitimate object of research. Still the studies in this book, and especially the one on the nomenklatura system, clearly show that contrary to many other cliches, “the leading role of the party” in communist countries was not an empty phrase. Everything was under the ultimate control of the ruling party ant therefore it is misleading to focus studies on state institutions, even when talking about the State Security. What is needed in the first place is a detailed analysis of the history of the Communist Party itself.