nEUrosis

When fighting fire with fire can backfire

April 24th, 2007 by enghis

The recent political events in Romania might sound like an incredible tale to someone not used to Romanian politics. The feud between the prime-minister and the president reached its climax last week when the Parliament overwhelmingly voted for the latter’s suspension. In the powers-that-be, many were disturbed by the anti-corruption discourse that Traian Basescu embarkedReuters on since taking office in late 2004, and by the increasingly independent judicial system, which started to investigate the fraudulent ways by which Reuterspoliticians gained incredible wealth. This is why, the so-called anti-presidential coalition, made up of representatives of the social-democrat party (PSD), the conservatives (PC), the far-right extremists (PRM), with the support of the liberals (PNL) and of the Hungarian representatives (UDMR), decided with a large majorit to suspend the Romanian president.

The vote of April 19 is a landmark for Romanian post-1989 politics, considering the particular circumstances in which it took place. A parliamentary committee accused the president of breaching the constitution; the highest constitutional court ruled that he committed no offence. His only mistake, it seems, was that unlike his predecessors, he was an active president, eager to observe how the state’s institutions were drafting and implementing policies and did not shy away from criticising them when they were reforms were sluggush.

A democracy is based on a clear separation of powers, all of whom bear the same degree of independence. When any of these over-rules the decision taken by another, the premises of democracy are severely affected. When a Parliament dominated by anti-presidential forces decides to over-rule a constitutional advice provided by the highest constitutional authority in the country and assumes constitutional powers the most immediate question is: in which sort of democracy are we living?

This is precisely the question many Romanians are asking themselves these days, privately as well as publicly. In the first hours after the decision to suspend the President, the websites of all major newspapers, the blogs, and web messengers programs were flooded with messages supporting him and saying that with its decision, the Parliament had also suspended a majority of the electorate. The Romanian diasporae abroad were also angered by the incredible decision taken by the Parliament; in Belgium for example many people have sent open letters to support the suspended President.

What was the outcome? After his suspension, Basescu did not resign, but was provisionally replaced by the President of the Senate, Nicolae Vacaroiu, a former social-democrat prime-minister who ruled the country for thirty days several years ago. In mid-May, Romanians will be asked in a referendum whether they agree with the suspension of their president. As current polls reveal, support for Basescu is high, and the citizens will overrule the decision of the parliament. But in this way, Romanians would cast an indirect negative vote against the Parliament which will lose all of its remaining credibility. This would open the door for early parliamentary elections.

However, for a Parliament whose credibility stands at its lowest in the post-1989 history, early elections are the worst imaginable scenario. Recent surveys reveal that while the support for the Democratic Party (PD) remains high, the popularity of all other parties represented sits on single digits. Early elections would show the door out of parliament to the Conservative Party, chaired by the controversial politician and businessman Dan Voiculescu, and would weaken the control of the governing coalition of social-democrats and liberals. The obscure alliance between these two parties, once the biggest political rivals, functions perfectly, all the incommode persons being replaced by obedient political puppets. In order to maintain its grip of Romania’s political and economic life, the two parties have to act concerted to block the return of Basescu to Cotroceni.

But apparently they are going different ways toward this desideratum. There were rumours that once the President would have resigned, as he implied in ani interview before his suspension, the strategists of the two parties would have sought to amend the electoral law in such a way that a president who resigned once would not be able to stand for elections. It might have been the grossest infringement of the Romanian constitutional law which provides the right to vote for every Romanian citizen who is enjoying his/her full civic rights.

The entire political scene might not settle after the referendum in May, but at least one issue could become clearer: president Basescu and the strong reforms advocated by him and his supporters show the right way for Romania, not the economic interests or behind-the-scene political games of those for whom the reform of the Romanian institutions and society exists in theory, but not in practice.

Bookmark to: