[69] While the trigger factor for the demonstrations was the controversial appointment of Delyan Peevski as head of DANS in June 2013, the public discontent stemmed from a variety of causes, to a large extent connected to the general nature of the BSP-MRF governing coalition and perceived legitimacy issues surrounding political processes in Bulgaria.

[117] Public anger was exacerbated by the fact that in the weeks and days leading up to Peevski's election, the parliament had approved major changes in the legal framework of DANS structures, which gave its head unprecedented powers - beyond purely analytical capabilities.

[223] While the protest turnout remained low, the central parts of the city near the main government buildings saw a heavy police presence due to tip-offs suggesting that illegal disruption activities of a radical nature were being planned and the date coinciding with the 17-year anniversary of the 1997 siege and storming of the Parliament.

[226][227] On 15 January 2014, the protests continued during the opening session of the National Parliament for the new year (though the number of participants remained in the hundreds), with the added demand that the MEPs vote for the revocation of Volen Siderov's parliamentary immunity – the Ataka party leader had earlier in the month been involved in a confrontation with the French cultural attaché for Bulgaria, Stéphanie Dumortier, a Bulgarian airplane passenger and Varna-based police officers.

[237] In an interview with journalist and TV host Martin Karbovski, the chairman of the National Liberty movement, Yordan Bonev, claimed to have attended a meeting with Boyko Borisov in mid January 2014 (alongside Biser Milanov), during which the possibility of organizing a massive anti-government demonstration had been discussed.

[247] It has also been suggested that the new student protesters did not shun the politicization of their activities, as they were seeking a "decapsulation" and unlike the other occupiers were open to cooperating with political parties and civil society organizations that are in opposition to the Oresharski government,[248] as well as with football fan clubs.

[75][278] The nationalist Attack also joined the calls for a resignation of the government, stating that it was no longer in a position to support it, criticizing the lack of sufficient social policies implemented by the cabinet and the "bowing down to American pressure" due to Oresharski's decision to put a stop to South Stream.

[284] During the negotiations, anti-government demonstrators, Ataka sympathizers[285] and affiliates of the citizen movement "Today" (Bulgarian: Гражданско движение "ДНЕС") (who set up a symbolic round table with the photos of all the main politicians to emphasize their message of national unity) held various protests simultaneously.

[294] On 10 August, in an open letter to the media, Krasimira Medarova stated that she had requested from the president to step down from her position as minister in charge of the preparation for the early elections in order not to impede the work of the caretaker government after her appointment faced criticism from citizen organizations, protest network and the Reformist Bloc due to a presumed conflict of interest because of her previous affiliations with GERB.

[295] Medarova's case also sparked discussions regarding the viability of a separate ministerial post for the organization of the electoral processes and caused some controversy due to creating the impression that protest network was applying undue pressure on the provisional government.

[306] The amicable hug between Lyutvi Mestan and Sergei Stanishev at Eagle's Bridge came to be widely interpreted as a symbolic gesture of forgiveness on the part of MRF, bearing in mind the BSP predecessor party's role in the orchestration of the Process of Rebirth in the 1980s.

[327] Rapper Mihail Mihaylov, who was described in the media as "one of the faces of the counter-protests",[328] in a similar fashion expressed dismay at the alleged meddling of outside agents in Bulgarian affairs and in addition to that criticized the Borisov Government for its supposed authoritarian tendencies, thus subscribing to the argument that GERB was bound to be the beneficiary of any anti-government protests.

[11] Journalist Petar Volgin, who was noted for his anti-protest philosophy in contrast to other media anchors,[331] even though he participated in the early phase of the demonstrations,[332] echoed some of the sentiments of the conspiracy theorists, maintaining that the spontaneity of the protests only persisted until about their fifth day, after which they were taken over by a collection of interested "political engineers" – right-wing activists, GERB affiliates and "tipping point" circles with close connections to selected oligarchs.

[345] Valeri Zhablyanov, a BSP party deputy, insisted that from the outset the origins of the protest movement lied in an unwillingness to recognize the election results rather than opposition to the Peevski appointment, believing that they could thus set a dangerous precedent with regard to the stability of the democratic mechanisms in the country.

[357][358] However, Alpha Research surveys (administered nationwide between 26 and 31 October as well as covering the period between 30 November and 8 December) indicated that the student protests enjoyed a slightly higher degree of popular support than the original demonstrations involving other societal members.

[379] According to academic Orlin Spasov, the protests saw significantly more intra-societal cleavages (Russophiles vs. Russophobes, communists vs. anti-communists and so on) compared to the winter discontent against Borisov's cabinet that mainly juxtaposed the political elites against the people, which made it much more difficult for the media anchors to cover them.

[382][383] The latter two welcomed Rosen Plevneliev's call for a new morality in politics that was in accordance with European values, also emphasizing that there was a crisis of trust when it comes to the institutions and elites in the country as well as some worrying signs pertaining a concentration of media ownership, which could herald risks for the continued thriving of freedom of speech.

He sees the political elites as a reflection of society and emphasizes that in cases when fair elections bring unsympathetic "old [communist] apparatus" members to power, this needs to be accepted, as "democracy should apply to all, not only to those who are intelligent and have perfectly sound moral qualities".

[418][419] The demonstrations are also believed to have orchestrated a paradigm shift in the attitudes of Bulgarians, with the "exit" narrative pushed to the backstage by the one emphasizing "voice" and empowerment - while in previous years emigration from the country was viewed as the principal way to express opposition to pernicious practices on the government level such as corruption, in 2013 a new determination to stay in Bulgaria and "transform the state" emerged.

[426] Analyst Petar Klisarov has voiced his disapproval of the demonstrators (especially the emigrant students who participated in protests on 26 December 2013 and 3 January 2014) for flaunting Bulgarian legal regulations, for example by behaving disrespectfully towards police officers and blocking the city traffic on a whim, suggesting that they would have been much more disciplined and law-abiding if the activities were taking place abroad.

[451] In November 2013, culturologist Ivaylo Ditchev, in a contribution for Deutsche Welle, analyzed some possible scenarios that could bring about a resignation of the government – his preferred one was a "moral catharsis of Bulgarian society", with students inspiring the support of wide segments of the intelligentsia, who in turn could convince a majority of ordinary citizens to join the anti-government wave.

However, he regarded this scenario as rather utopian and drew attention to the more realistic (if increasingly less appealing – from his standpoint – possibilities) – corporate and social issues like those related to health care causing a mass discontent and unions going on strike, triggering a paralysis of the country; "behind the curtain events" within the political echelons themselves, with GERB succeeding in using procedural tools (also with the tacit support of Western allies) to alter the balance of power in the National Assembly; the Attack party withdrawing its support for the government and emerging as the political face of popular protests inspired by nationalist causes (possibly attributable issues like the Syrian refugee crisis and illegal African migrants or concerns pertaining to the selling of Bulgarian land to foreigners).

The latter scenario was considered to be especially problematic and as being incompatible with the underlying goals of the protest movement, because the new Parliament formed after such events would almost inevitably include fascist-leaning parties and would need to contend with significant polarization due to the presence of pro- and anti-European voices.

[460] A number of commentators have criticized GERB for piling on the pressure on the government by behaving in a fashion that was contrary to the underlying tenets of Parliamentarism due to on occasions refusing to register or participate in Parliamentary sessions and thus impeding the work of the National Assembly.

[474] Despite being generally disciplined and non-violent with a high degree of success in reining in disruptive and subversive participants compared to previous anti-government movements in Bulgaria, the protests were not spared the involvement of agent provocateurs, some of them supposedly linked to Biser Milanov's "Liberty" national movement[475][476] and Pavel Chernev (former member of Attack and then leader of the "Freedom" party (Bulgarian: партия "Свобода"), who subsequently distanced himself from Volen Siderov, becoming a major critic of him),[477] though both of them have denied any ulterior motivations, with Chernev explaining that his entourage of young men in sporting attire were falsely labeled a provocateur group, when in actuality they had intended to protect the regular protesters from militant members of the Attack.

[492] In March 2014, Atanas Uzunov, former top Bulgarian football referee and a member of GERB, was released from his duties as administrative director of Lokomotiv Plovdiv by owner Konstantin Dinev due to allegedly making use of his position to encourage the supporters of the club to take part in anti-government demonstrations.

[496] In February 2015, the chairman of the parliamentary commission for public order and security (Bulgarian: парламентарната Комисия за вътрешен ред и сигурност) Atanas Atanasov confirmed previously made claims that protesters had been illegally monitored and wiretapped, revealing that this had occurred as part of a coordinated effort involving the Ministry of Interior, DANS and DATO (National Agency for Technical Operations) during the first 300 days of the anti-Oresharski demonstrations.

Shortly thereafter Euronews removed the image, clarifying that it did not support a particular side between the pro- and anti-government forces in Ukraine, least of all the participants in violent riots, and did not intend to besmirch the memory of Soviet veterans who had fought the Nazi regime invaders during World War II.

[515] While admiring the underlying ideas behind Euromaidan and being touched by the reception that the Bulgarians received, Ivaylo Dinev, one of the most recognizable figures behind the occupation, in retrospect expressed sadness about how the anti-Yanukovych protests turned out due to the human casualties and the Ukrainian people eventually being pitted against each other rather than banding together to confront the national and global elites.

[519] BSP is believed to have suffered both electoral (reduced support among its core sympathizers) and political losses (losing ground to new populist and nationalist parties) due to its supposed role in the entrenchment of the "Who" model (Bulgarian: моделът "КОЙ"), which is assumed to have been exemplified by the Oresharski government.