Major Division in the Elections: Maxim Behar and Mihail Mihaylov on Political Campaigns, Social Media and Trust in Politicians

November, 2026

Host 1: We continue with the interesting discussions we have prepared for you. What is the role of social media and the PR team behind a presidential candidate pair in shaping their messages to voters and the language they use?

Host 2: We will discuss all this with PR expert Maxim Behar and psychologist Mihail Mihaylov. Hello to both of you! Happy holiday!

Have you managed to vote yet? Let's start with this question, Mr. Behar.

Maxim Behar: Not yet. I am in Spain. A little later, in three, four or five hours.

However, today we are choosing two awakeners with whom we will have to communicate over the next five years. And there is great symbolism in doing this on this particular day.

I hope we choose the true awakeners.

Host 1: Mr. Mihaylov, have you managed to vote yet?

Mihail Mihaylov: That is my first task after the programme.

Host 1: If we look at what Mr. Behar said from a psychological perspective, are we really choosing an awakener, the person who will lead us? Today, one of the two candidates who reached the runoff will be elected. What is the psychology of the choice itself?

Mihail Mihaylov: I cannot say that we are choosing an awakener right now, because in my opinion, the campaigns made considerable efforts to divide society.

I will explain why I think so. Through this division, they were trying to consolidate their core supporters, encourage those who were undecided to go and vote, and so on.

This is based on a classic experiment from 1969, in which political attitudes were used to demonstrate certain phenomena in social psychology.

A total of 140 French students with moderately positive attitudes towards Charles de Gaulle and negative attitudes towards the United States were involved in group discussions. After the experiment, it turned out that their attitudes had become much stronger.

They were extremely enthusiastic about Charles de Gaulle and felt an extremely strong dislike towards the United States.

This effect is called group polarisation of attitudes.

I think both teams used it through different communication techniques, and this is how the two sides became divided.

But where do I see the problem with this polarisation and division?

It begins to destroy critical thinking. We no longer think in terms of "good and bad" but in terms of "ours and theirs".

Accordingly, to return to your question, in these elections we are choosing our own people, not the awakeners.

For me, this is a problem because, in this way, our critical thinking distances us from reality, and our own people always become the good ones.

Their wrongdoings become sacrifices that we consider necessary to make, while the wrongdoings of the enemy are mortal sins that immediately place them in a position where they must go to the scaffold and be beheaded.

Host 2: Mr. Behar, what did you see in the candidates' PR strategies? Where did they manage to demonstrate their strengths?

Maxim Behar: I feel a little uncomfortable that I cannot mention names or give specific examples.

Host 2: After all, we have to comply with the law.

Maxim Behar: However, I want to tell you that one of the greatest absurdities in 2026 is this law, according to which yesterday, on the so-called day of reflection, and today, we are not allowed to mention names or express our opinions.

That was 30 years ago. Perhaps there was some logic to it back then. There was no social media, only newspapers. A newspaper was not allowed to publish something. There was television, too. Fine, there was some logic to it.

But nowadays, social media carry perhaps 80% of the campaign. Even television channels reproduce what happens on their programmes through social media.

And we are not allowed to express our opinions?

Considering that it is now around half past ten, and by around noon hundreds of websites will start flooding us with all kinds of forecasts and exit polls, bombarding us with information and telling us who is ahead and who is behind.

And we are not allowed to express our opinions on election day!

This seems to me an absolute anachronism. I would strongly lobby for the law to be changed so that everyone can freely express their opinions, especially in the media and on television.

Yes, we saw division. I cannot remember presidential elections with such a great division for a very long time.

During this entire period, I was not in Europe at all for two weeks and followed what was happening remotely.

I had the feeling that we were electing a Minister of Foreign Affairs rather than a president, because the entire focus was placed on foreign policy.

Host 2: Was that a mistake, Mr. Behar?

Maxim Behar: The campaign?

Host 2: The focus on foreign policy.

Maxim Behar: That is logical because we have several wars that are almost on our borders. After all, we need to know the point of view of someone who holds a very high position in the country, even though their powers are quite limited, restricted and, in some areas, insignificant.

It is good to know.

However, personally, I expected to hear a little more about the economy.

Yes, of course, the president, whoever that may be, does not have much direct influence on the economy, but that does not mean they cannot have an opinion.

I expected to hear a little more conceptual thinking about how Bulgaria should develop.

Put politics aside, put wars aside. We are now in 2026. How do we see Bulgaria in 2031 or 2036, for example?

Host 1: At least those five years during which the president will govern.

Maxim Behar: At the very least, yes. But there must be some vision.

We need to know where we stand in Europe and how we, as a society, would like to develop our market relations.

Because the market, regardless of who the president is, is actually the most important thing.

Especially when we all sigh and complain as we enter shops, pay our restaurant bills or pay our household utility bills.

In this sense, I was not particularly happy with what I saw in the election campaign and in the exchange of positions.

I had the feeling that they were mostly arguing with one another.

On social media, which really carried a large part of the campaign, there was more negative content. It was used more for so-called black PR.

I believe that in my business, Public Relations, there is no black, white or grey PR. There is truth and there are lies.

But social media were used precisely to create impressions that were mostly negative. In other words, pointing fingers:

"This person is bad, do not vote for him. This person will drag us into a war. This one does this, that one does that."

These are elections in which we should see some vision from the candidates about how they want to govern Bulgaria.

Everyone wants to unite all the people in Bulgaria.

You know, by Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, we will have forgotten this entire controversy.

The newly elected president will feel comfortable, will speak only about beautiful things, only positive things, and after a month, all the filth that was poured out over the past two or three months on social media will have been forgotten.

Host 1: Could this behaviour, Mr. Mihaylov, also be one of the reasons for the record-low voter turnout we saw last Sunday?

And could something change now, this Sunday?

Mihail Mihaylov: Such division, especially when it is carried out effectively through the social channels used to spread information, can discourage some undecided voters.

But its main purpose is to mobilise its own supporters.

It may discourage some people to a certain extent, but in fact, before the elections, there was a sociological survey showing that voting intentions had been like this from the very beginning: very few people intended to vote.

In reality, even fewer people voted.

The reason they do not vote is not so much the campaigns themselves, but their disappointment with the politicians.

Host 1: But why? After all, these are majoritarian elections, and we clearly state whom we are voting for. Not for a political formation, but for the person, for their charisma.

Mihail Mihaylov: Because voters simply do not trust political parties and are disappointed with them. That is why they do not vote.

And because some of them, quite a large percentage in fact, do not see themselves represented in political parties or, more precisely, in government.

It turns out that only a very small proportion are apathetic – people who are generally not interested in these particular elections.

The majority are disappointed and feel unrepresented.

Maxim Behar: On the plane, I was reading a survey about trust in different professions, and I took a screenshot somewhere on my phone.

It concerned the European Union.

The highest levels of trust, of course, are enjoyed by doctors, teachers and another five or six professions.

Politicians are in last place.

Host 1: And it is a profession.

Maxim Behar: It is a profession. Of course it is a profession, and a serious one at that, because you have many responsibilities, you manage public resources, you are entrusted with people's trust and so many other things.

And this is one of the reasons why there is not so much enthusiasm or excitement about whom we should go and elect.

By the way, I do not expect any drastic change today, because each of the two candidates has already received the maximum number of votes they could get.

Host: Did you see any opportunity for change between the first and second rounds?

What was done, what the candidates did with their messages to the people?

Maxim Behar: Once again, I was quite disappointed because everyone was playing in their own half, on their own territory.

Host 1: "Ours and theirs", as Mr. Mihaylov said.

Maxim Behar: Once again, I am very tempted to mention specific examples. Of course, I will not do so.

I hope that in four years I will be able to do so.

Host 2: That the law will have been changed and we will be able to speak freely.

Maxim Behar: Well, let us hope so.

But what disappointed me was that everyone was targeting their own audience.

In other words, Levski supporters campaign for Levski, while CSKA supporters campaign for CSKA, speaking metaphorically.

I would not do it that way.

I do not work in political marketing, as you know very well, but if I had to advise any of them, I would not actually advise them to address their own voters.

Their supporters are already theirs. They will vote for them anyway.

You have to try, through promises or specific messages, to attract those who did not vote – at least some of them – or some of those who voted for the remaining twenty-something candidates. How many were there?

Host 1: Twenty-five out of a total of twenty-seven.

Maxim Behar: As I understand it, seven or nine of them did not even receive 2,500 votes each.

In other words, they gathered people in some pub or shop, persuaded someone to sign, and even those people did not vote for them.

Incidentally, this should also be subject to some assessment after the elections.

Why?

Fine, democracy, everyone has the right.

However, 2,500 votes seems to me an extremely low, insulting threshold for these people, who will then receive considerable public funds and invest them in what I would call an illegal, anonymous television channel that nobody has ever heard of, so that they can obtain some money.

Host 1: That was the criticism – how these media packages were used to promote the candidates.

Maxim Behar: And that needs to be reconsidered. Absolutely.

Host 1: Mr. Mihaylov, which voters are the most difficult to motivate psychologically?

Now, on social media, we seem to be targeting Gen Z, the younger generation.

And what about older people, who have their traditions and say: "We have to go. This is our constitutional right"?

Is there an electorate that is more difficult to mobilise?

Mihail Mihaylov: I look at it from the perspective of the state they are currently in.

The most difficult, of course, will be the apathetic and the angry, who, as a form of protest vote, will not go to the polling stations at all or will cast invalid ballots.

So I look at them more in terms of their emotional state.

And it was precisely this emotional state that was constantly being played upon during the campaign in order to intensify it in a particular direction.

But now I want to return briefly to the previous question and make a comparison to see where we stand in relation to Europe.

In our country, trust in political parties and politicians is twice as low as in Europe.

Host 1: Why? How do you explain that?

Mihail Mihaylov: Perhaps because of the results achieved by the politicians and political parties themselves.

Host 2: Is there any way, Mr. Behar, to change this situation? To restore trust in politicians, political leaders and even political parties?

Maxim Behar: In my opinion, no.

Because over the past 30, 40 or perhaps 50 years, everything has changed.

The entire world has changed. We are different people.

We are no longer Homo sapiens, we are Homo socialicus or something similar.

Host 2: We live in the era of artificial intelligence.

Maxim Behar: Markets have changed, communications have changed, but political systems have remained the same, without any change.

And this is one of the reasons why a large proportion of voters, and all of us, feel distrust not so much towards politicians as towards the system itself.

Even if you elect a brilliant politician with the greatest charisma, some kind of Rambo who could transform Bulgaria and make it almost the most prosperous country in Europe, even if you elect such a person, the system will not allow him to do it.

Because there is a gigantic administration, there are relationships and procedures that perhaps have not changed for 100–150 years.

And if there is a way to change the political system, Bulgaria cannot be a leader in this.

But France, Germany, certainly America, which is currently in a very difficult situation, and the United Kingdom could undoubtedly be leaders in changing the political system.

So that people with charisma, skills, desire, ambition and motivation to change something can truly be elected.

But the system must allow them to do so.

Host 2: In this sense, Mr. Behar, how well prepared were the candidates for the presidential position, for this presidential contest?

Maxim Behar: They were prepared to different degrees.

Excluding the two finalists, who have more or less some experience, perhaps 90% of the others were at zero.

Host: Some of them did not even know what powers the institution they were competing to lead actually has.

Maxim Behar: Oh, please, we were watching comedies on television!

And I would not even call them comedies, but rather operettas, in which certain people appeared who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

That is why I think the Electoral Code should be examined very carefully.

Democracy, democracy...

Host 2: That is insulting to the presidential institution.

Maxim Behar: I have the greatest respect for everyone, with the greatest pleasure.

But to collect 2,500 signatures somewhere here in Mladost, in two or three shops, and then receive 50,000 euros, or however much they received, so that they can run a campaign...

Let us put the money aside. A lot of money is spent on elections.

But what about the attitude towards voters? Why should this be acceptable?

Host 1: Is that what disgusted the voters?

If we go back to last Sunday, there were 27 presidential candidate pairs. We really did see some who did not even know what powers the institution they were competing to lead had.

And perhaps that is why people said to themselves: "Well, why should I go and vote?"

Unfortunately.

Mihail Mihaylov: These comedies, as Mr. Behar called them, or sometimes tragedies, that we observed actually helped create this emotional context that discouraged undecided voters.

As we discussed, a campaign that relies on division attracts undecided voters from within its own ranks.

But some potential voters will be discouraged by such a dirty campaign or by the things they see on television.

So, in a way, all this chaos is somewhat like organised chaos that serves the very context of the campaign.

Host: Is there a direct path to the psychology, to the consciousness of the voter?

If I hypothetically decide to run for office one day and promise everything – "You will live in a wonderful country" – will I be able to increase the number of votes for myself that way?

Mihail Mihaylov: The most direct path is if your opponents do nothing.

The direct approaches are clear. These are communication practices. A list is prepared, a campaign is built around them, a particular audience is targeted, and so on.

If your opponent does nothing, then yes, you will have a much greater influence on the audience.

Maxim Behar: I will be a little more specific.

In what I observed from the outside, I saw zero psychology, a lot of sociology, much of which we all know was at a certain level, and I would say zero communication skills.

It will be very easy from Monday onwards to express my opinion about this person or that person. Then we will be able to be more specific.

But then I will not do it at all.

Host: Mr. Behar, a little earlier you said something very important. Social media carried the campaign.

Was there a difference between what we saw on social media in terms of the content presented to voters and the image of the candidates that we saw during their real, direct meetings with voters?

Were these images different?

Maxim Behar: The campaign on social media was actually a function of the so-called meetings with voters.

The different candidates played different roles in different ways.

Host 1: We will invite you back soon, when we discuss elections, so that we can talk with specific examples.

Maxim Behar: There were also some ridiculous, absurd messages that would more likely discourage voters.

I really think that, in terms of communication strategy and professional skills, the 2026 campaign was the weakest presidential campaign of all those I have seen so far.

Again, I was not in Europe at all during those days, but I watched the much-discussed debate on Thursday from a great distance.

And it took me back to October 1994, when I moderated the first pre-election debates in Bulgaria's history.

We drew lots in the office of Hacho Boyadzhiev, may he rest in peace, and I was selected to moderate the first debates.

At that time, they were watched by three million people on the only television channel of that era, BNT.

The participants in that debate included Zhan Videnov, Ahmed Dogan and Ivan Kostov, may they all be alive and well.

There was also Ginyo Ganev, who is no longer with us, and I cannot remember all the political party leaders now.

I have the feeling that if someone goes back to that debate from October 1994, which is also available on YouTube, they will see that it was more interesting than the current debates.

I am not referring only to Thursday's debate.

And I say to myself: "Wait a minute, now we have more communication tools, now we have much more information..."

Host 2: Teams of people working on the campaigns.

Maxim Behar: Yes, teams, opportunities to influence, to speak specifically, to address very specific groups.

For example, I expected any one of the 27 candidates to tell me what the first ten things they would do if they became president would be.

Ten things.

To take specific responsibility.

"I will do this, this, this, this and this."

Nobody did it.

Why?

Host 1: A question without an answer.

Thank you very much to both of you!

And once again, let us call on all our viewers, however difficult their choice may be, to find the motivation to go to the polling stations and vote.

Every vote matters.

Maxim Behar: It would be fair for all of us to go and vote. It would be very fair.

Because, fine, vote against someone. Say that there was no choice.

But take a walk to that polling station so that we can breathe more easily from Monday onwards and know that at least as many people as possible have expressed their opinions, whatever those opinions may be.

Host 2: Thank you very much for that message. Thank you for joining us!

Цялото интервю можете да гледате тук: https://www.maximbehar.com/en/video/449/major-division-in-the-elections-maxim-behar-and-mihail-mihaylov-on-political-campaigns-social-media-and-trust-in-politicians