As many times in Romanian society, moments of euphoria and hope intervene to mark the occasion when a new beginning must be welcomed. And the adoption by the Chamber of Deputies, as the decision-making chamber, of two draft laws aimed at banning the right to nominate candidates and be elected to persons finally convicted of committing a crime with intent is seen as such a tool designed to provide Romania once and for all with a transparent and effective political elite .

Undoubtedly, the two draft regulations voted so far clarify a number of legal aspects and eliminate the possibility of electing those who were convicted and did not undergo procedures aimed at removing the legal ban from them (rehabilitation or amnesty).

And it is equally clear that the principle on which this legislative approach is based is salutary from a moral point of view. Preventing such candidates is part of a natural effort to improve the ethics of our society.

But these two regulations are not the miracle solutions that politicians and commentators rave about. They cannot automatically and spectacularly ensure the mutation of mentality by their simple application, in case of passing a possible constitutionality test.

And this is because it is not only the intentional crimes referred to in these projects that indicate behavior incompatible with such elected positions. Are certain crimes less dangerous from the point of view of society? Here’s a question that doesn’t have as clear an answer as we’d like to think. An indirect consequence of the currently adopted regulatory acts may be the classification of some acts as guilty in order to avoid the application of new provisions: a type of vicious adaptation, not alien to the reflexes of our society.

From a constitutional point of view, the very definition of the phrase “deprivation of liberty” will be problematic. Does the same regime apply to suspended sentences? The potential discrimination between the two situations can be the starting point for an appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Apart from all these legal issues, the main debate is related to political behavior and civic maturity. Prohibitions such as the present are not a panacea and cannot in themselves be surgical methods of removing the moral evil that afflicts the community. Clientelistic and scandalous procedures for appointment to the apparatuses of state bodies and regulatory institutions do not violate such a normative act, but they sharply undermine the meritocratic dimension of constitutional democracy. Complicity of this nature is a consequence of voting, which gives the ruling parliamentary parties the right to parasitize the state. And such a privilege is given to them by the electoral body itself.

Neither bans nor criminal convictions can replace a transparent and effective selection process for those who manage public affairs. After all, such a process is born due to the pressure on the elections and due to the pressure on the political parties themselves. Only political parties can prevent a type of recruitment that, while not illegal, is profoundly immoral: equality before the law is undermined by the constitution of quasi-hereditary caste privileges based on the manipulation of the popular vote.

Despite the fact that Popescu-Piedone has been finally convicted and is in custody, Popescu-Piedone will most likely be succeeded as mayor of Sector 5 by his own son. A choice that does not violate any valid legal norm, but which would indicate a degree of clientelistic complicity beyond any moral doubt. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro