Just beneath roar of traffic and sound of euro-dance and local chalga music escaping from sidewalk cafes, there is steady buzz across Bulgarian cities and towns. It is sound of conversations, animated discussions, and endless commentary. This culture of long preceded label transitional which Bulgaria received with fall of communist regime in 1989. Under that label, in which talking politics, complaining about fallacies of government, and carping at behavior of public figures have long been national pastimes, does not amount to civil capable of maintaining structures of democracy, at least as we understand these concepts here in West. At heart of this definitional divergence lies an intellectual problem that argumentation scholars are well aware of; it is problem of determining what range of human communicative interactions will be covered by term 'argument' (Gilbert, 1997, p. 28). The semantic figurations of word argument, however, are not primary point of interest emanating from Bulgarian example. Rather, Bulgaria presents an appealing case for inquiring into political character of idea of itself: politics of its recognition, circulation, and globalization. Attention to status of argument, as Asen (2005) suggests, is not a question of occurrence but rather an inquiry into functions of argument (p. 119). In case of Bulgaria, I would argue that deployment of idea of has created conditions for perpetual transition to democracy. To Bulgarians, is foreign in most literal sense. It is not to say that Bulgarians don't argue or haven't done so historically, but it means that notion of as public display of reason, along with idea of argumentation and deliberation as tools of democratic governance, have been imported only recently and so idea of has created communicative space that is inherently dynamic and political. There are efforts under way to introduce instruction in argumentation in public schools' Bulgarian language arts curriculum in order to align Bulgarian public pedagogy with EU educational standards for communicative competence (Padeshka, 2004). Also, attention to argumentation and public deliberation, often hailed as key techniques of democratic governance, is currently actively promoted in Bulgaria by organizations such as Center for Liberal Strategies, Open Society Institute, Ben Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative, and Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford. The impact of these organizations and their programs can be measured in part by attention they have gained from prime-time politicians and key government officials. For instance, in 2007 Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford conducted Deliberative Poll on issue of integration of Roma minority population into Bulgarian society. In his remarks at closing of event, then Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev praised practice of public deliberation for its value as tool of democracy by noting that the National Deliberative Poll is something brand new for Bulgarian and in Bulgarian politics. It is very important ... to implement this method to get public support for other crucial or divisive issues in Bulgarian ... This method allows for deeper knowledge of essence of issues, for possible ways to resolve these issues, and for policies and actions which institutions should undertake with support of society (as cited in Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2007). Such statements by public officials certainly generate discourse about as tool of democratic governance; however, it might be too rash to suggest that performance of public arguments in fact creates democratic culture of argument. As it often happens, travel brings about change of character, and notion of too has been vulnerable to hybridization. …