The Romanian parties system is a deeply unbalanced system, atypical for a functional democracy. Not only that PSD is dominating the Parliament in a authoritarian way, even without the help of a permanent ally, but, the party positioned in the second place with 25 percentage is forever lost for the democratically game which leaves the democratic opposition a percentage of less than 20 percent. It is too little for it to manifest an efficient control over the power and this thing gives the civil society and the mass-media an exaggerate, unnatural responsibility, which they cannot handle many times.
The privileged position of the "state-party", name that is often given for credit to PSD allows it to run an aggressive politics of monopolizing parliamentarians, local councils and mayors. Thus PSD is trying to counteract the electoral erosion, to maintain its position of the 50 percent jury. The ones that are "afraid of a dictatorship are too little realistic; there are no conditions for a dictatorship, either international either a locale one and that is why neither PSD neither even PRM is not interested in such a dictatorship. The biggest evil of them all the one that really exists is that this structure of the parties system maintain Romania in a ambiguous democracy status which involves for the Romanians the lack of a certain and clear future. But if a dictatorship is impossible mainly because the European context this does not mean that we should continue on marinating the comforting illusion that the European Union would determine in Romania the foundation of a functional democracy or of a functional market economy, with no regard of what we ourselves are doing.
The greatest risk is that Romania should keep on being a "cardboard democracy" having institutions apparently democratic but with no stability and excellence, linked to a "state capitalism" in which, due to the lack of democratic excellence (which is due to the lack of control the people should have) a fake political, social and economical choice is rising basing on the reduced standards of existence of the majority.
The fact that PSD faced no real concurrence during the 2000 elections allows it the today's arrogance; it even forces it to the today's arrogance, because PSD has no democratically culture within itself which can censor its excesses and its totalitarian behaviors (though the ones that are reproaching this totalitarian behavior are forgetting too easily that this kind of behavior is to be found in many parties and in many politic leaders of Romania and that on top of that that of not having such a totalitarian behavior is not at all sufficient: for the political practice to reach a satisfying level of democracy it is quite necessary that its values to become a role model of the political parties and of the political leaders, which is happening quite rarely). The lack of control and of equilibrium by a democratically political game allows PSD to defy more and more frankly the accepted procedures of democracy. The last example of o long series is that one of a faking a 2007 possible PSD government, in which were to be found many children of some PSD dignitaries: this, besides the fact that in many PSD branches such successions are already common, this example is clearly showing that PSD has no restrain whatsoever in creating a parallel undemocratically circuit of passing the power to the next generation which reminds us of the "princes" that Ceausescu or Kim Ir Sen were preparing for power. Not even in this punctual aspect the European Union exigencies cannot have an effect: the only mechanisms that can stop such practices are the ones of an internal democracy.
The whole political Romanian class is still a closed circle, even if the ways of whirling inside it are not as always as grotesques and as anacronic as the PSD ones. Quite significant in that after 1990 there was no new party created that would play a significant role in the Romanian politics; the parties that formed the two main groups that were confronting in that period and which replaced each other at power in 1996 and 2000 were, on one side a party that inherited the nomenclature and the semi political technocratic of the communist state apparatus and on the other hand re-vive Romanian historic parties. Besides the separations, alliances and merging the Romanian political class is now one oriented to the past and stuck in the routine, because it comes out of those parties created right after the 1990, influenced by the communism (or by the nationalism communism in the case of PRM) or on the contrary, of too deep frustrations towards these; there is a much too louder political contentious which tends to perpetuate infinitely following the same coordinates.
It is clearly of the record that Romania can not step out of the profound impasse it is unless bringing some new political forces oriented toward the future. It is important that other politicians, young and independent of the doubtful practices of the first Romanian democracy's stage would appear; the fake democracy in which the merry-go-round of the political stage was turning out of inertia without that those who had climbed it to have the time to notice the faces of those present. And what is most important is that these new politicians should appear and work within a new type of political project with no tares of the political projects of the first primitive stage of rediscovering democracy after 1989, which is they should have a clear vision of the future and that they should be basing on the political participation of the citizens and not on their indifference.
We agree that young politicians appear on a constant bases; perhaps this thing happens because people, and even politicians who always think of themselves more than people die at a certain point or are being draw back by oldness (unfortunately we have enough examples of politicians whose senility didn't stand in their way of continuing their "activity"). The automatic selection, the biological selection of generations is not sufficient as long as those that reach their maturity do not form an impact force sufficiently big to change the political structures in which they are bit by bit sucked into. On the contrary, they are forced to mould after those that are running these structures. And if they are initially integrated in the special youngsters organizations of the parties, thing that superficially would prove that they are being taken care of, this is nothing else but a way of asserting oneself within these "nurseries", all that is left to the youngsters is the sad chance of asserting oneself by conformist speeches, following the party "trend". These youngsters organizations (as well as the ones for women, students, workers) are not in reality but an instrument of marginalization, an anacronic and unfortunate one, at least in the special context of the Romanian politics in which one must find a breach to break the closed and vicious circle of the actual political class, formed of "mature" "educated" and "responsible" men.
How closed is the actual Romanian politics circle can only be seen of the political migration phenomenon that has reached aberrant cottas. There are professional migratory that pass of one party to another as the wind blows. With no real problem, one can pass from left to right because the link between the political man and its party is not based on values and principles on neither side, the very least on honor, dignity or the common curiosity necessary for a long lasting project, either political or not. The "professional" politicians jump in the adversary's boat with no guilty conscience because they follow nothing but the personal interest. No matter how mediocre or with no character a political man would be he is considered a "value in itself" if he got to be known in politics and he is gladly accepted in concurrent parties when he had enough of his party; or this can happen only when the political class turns into a closed one in which the privileges are very well understood and the position of each member of the group is secured by life. In the Romanian parties system there is a phony concurrency. Even if the endless fights and the incapacity of working together on concrete projects can leave a different impression. In reality, the political class is in concurrence only with the society that is treating with condescension. It is only a sad monopole because of which billions of citizens are loosing that have to support taxes that are getting bigger and absurd and who do not know whether they would get medical care in change of the money they are forced to pay and who can not make any future plans because of the infinite continuous improvisations of the government.
This monopole has to be broken just like the others monopoles of Romania. No political man should stay for ever to power (that is in the political class, not necessarily in governing) just because at a certain time got well known or reached a certain position or because he knew to develop its business by political relations and to support its political man career by dirty money. To be a political man means to be working for the society, this being a job that can immediate be lost when there is no performance, the more when there is no honesty. The parties should become interested in attracting values, not only well known names, projectionists that can work seriously as well not just hold speeches. This thing would only happen when there would be a true concurrence among them and that is only when among them there would be a new political force, radically different from those that are dominating the Romanian politics.
Do you have an ideea, sugestion, or request
regarding this site? Send it to firstname.lastname@example.org