President Iohannis has at least one important quality in politics: patience. No wonder gardening is his main hobby. His critics have confused inaction and lack of communication during his reign with laziness (indeed, to speak for a politician is to act).

They made him a “ficus”, although in fact Klaus Iohannis was waiting for the appropriate season. Keeping quiet and waiting turned out to be a successful political strategy, as he would accumulate ten years as Romania’s head of state. The end, however, is delicately announced. Not only because that was the case with his predecessors. But also because waiting doesn’t help when different waves are coming at you. Does the president have a solution for the next election year, for socio-economic problems, for the fate of his party, to leave office with honor?

The main problem of the current political moment, unusual from the point of view of a possible “circular path”, comes from the conjuncture between the approach of an election year and signs of fragility of the economy and public finances. Like the war in this region, this situation prompts President Iohannis not only to wish to continue the current coalition, but also to appoint a new prime minister from PSD from time to time. As in the case of the PNL-PSD political contract, here too the situation will be unprecedented. There are precedents in the appointments of Trajan Basescu (twice in Ponta) and Klaus Iohannis himself (Grindianu, Tudose, Denchile), but each time it was a situation of coexistence. President Iohannis now hopes to maintain illusory control through PNL ministers, but de facto hands over executive power to the PSD.

Economic and financial risks, and therefore the deepening of the social crisis, may explain the desire to hand over the government’s potatoes, which can become very hot. But the political risks are also significant. This explains why the PNL would like to conclude a pact that would ensure the continuation of the coalition beyond 2024. Essentially, the PNL is in a situation where the version it currently pursues of this pact with the PSD, even if it allows it to maintain short-term positions, will ultimately doom it to political irrelevance. Hence, as an ephemeral leader of the zone against the SPD, he becomes its appendage. Neither the electorate nor the SDP will see his role in our political theater again. However, are liberals betting on a future in which this prospect of complete irrelevance is very distant? Or is Johannis the one who has no solutions for PNL and still makes empty promises to buy more time? This time the government coalition will be brought to the end, then a flood?

Emil Constantinescu contributed a lot to the demise of the PNȚCD, without which he would not have become president, Trajan Basescu broke the PDL while he was still in office, today it is very likely that Iohannis will donate to the PNL. But he does it not out of a whim, but because in the current situation the decision to save PNL is not in Kotrochen.

The spectacle of Romanian politics makes it perhaps clearer than ever the extent to which the prospect of elections is causing a form of panic among the main parties. Unlike some knights who go to the election tournament, our politicians, especially those in power, frantically search for various tricks to deprive the election moment of democratic content. Changes to legislation and the election calendar are being prepared, party financing methods are being reviewed, media influence is being redistributed, etc. It’s not so much “to win” as it is to perpetuate a situation where everyone continues their annuities, but without clear accountability. We don’t really know who makes the decisions, why, sometimes we don’t even know what decisions are made. The famous BBC interview of the foreign minister was not a disaster, as it was said, but a moment of truth: Romania is not democratic because there is no one who really takes responsibility for the decisions made, the responsibility of the government. This escape from responsibility is systemic, it can be seen from the frequent silence of the head of state to the rhetorical inability of the prime minister, passing through many ministers without qualifications, therefore without reputation or other political ambitions, except to stay in office. in the next executive. The same logic can be deduced from the surrealist saraband about assigning (wrong) people to (wrong) places. They talk about the politicization of various positions, in fact these positions by law entail political responsibility, but if the parties send the most incompetent people who still do not have a clear policy in the relevant areas, we actually have depoliticization. due to incompetence.

They will say that this is not a new phenomenon, but it is a cumulative reality that impairs the institutional capacity to respond, especially when an economic crisis appears on the horizon. In addition, the sociology of parties has changed, and “territory” is taking an increasingly larger place in these appointments, because its role in election campaigns has increased along with the decrease in participation in elections. The center remained dominant in various fields, but then not so much party people as people from the former “party-state” technocracy, which today is formally or unofficially assigned to various “intelligence” services (secret information, of course). Competence thus originates outside the political sphere, thus the head of state becomes dependent on decisions, political or governmental, that come from a sphere that will have no reason to serve him until the end of the two mandates.

In this context, the deterioration of economic prospects, which was observed in the IMF report and not only, has returned to the public space a number of expressions (austerity, budget hole, spending cuts, freezing of public employees) that equate to so many black clouds that can change calculations political players. The main point is that these expressions also appeared in the speeches of Klaus Johannis and Nicolae Chuke, they seem to have had to come out of their stupor, but their lack of public speaking practice led to interventions that should have increased public concern.

The Prime Minister’s speech at the beginning of the government meeting on April 20 indicates that things seem to be getting worse, “we are not talking about austerity measures”, but the use of this word is already significant, especially for the PNL Prime Minister-President :
” About moderation, I think it can be discussed. I would like to say right away that these measures will not affect salaries, investments and no new taxes will be introduced (…) We have decided that at the level of the Government we will define those fiscal measures through which we can better take into account costs (…) All these measures occurred from the moment we noticed at the end of the first quarter that there was a shortfall in collection. The deficit mainly belongs to large taxpayers. I publicly call for the payment of the debts owed to the state and at the same time instruct the state institutions to fulfill their duties and ensure the collection of these revenues. “.

Isn’t this about helplessness before a serious situation? It is unlikely that anyone will rely on the promises or threats of the prime minister, whose resignation has already been announced. Also, anything he says about what he “won’t do” only applies to the kind of decisions the Government has at its disposal. We don’t know what his successor will do. But in these conditions, PSD still rushes to the side of the government?

The seriousness of the situation is also demonstrated by the fact that Nicolae Chuke wanted to find the culprits, in fact, to escape responsibility, we saw that the culprits would be “big taxpayers” and “the tax office”, moreover, Iohannis also stated on April 13: “Treasury should move a little better, but it also needs to be corrected on the cost side. This means that money should be used more wisely in certain sections.”

The statements of the couple Johannis-Chuke are far from reassuring anyone that the situation is under control, another example is the president’s statement that:

“My idea of ​​the Coalition is not to introduce Romania into any austerity scenario. When we had the banking crisis of 2008, 2009, 2010, it was proven that austerity is not the answer, and I hope it helps all politicians and quasi-politicians. Austerity is not an option.”

Returning to the specter of the 2008-2009 crisis, socially felt in Romania especially since 2010, is not a sign of wisdom, especially when you say which decisions are bad, but do not say which decisions are good:

” And just to be very clear, so that everyone understands, as long as I have a voice and I think I will have a say, there will be no pay cuts. Therefore, I repeat, there will be no salary reduction. I am absolutely against the reduction of alandala (…) This is what I want, and I have conveyed this to those in the Coalition, I want a sensible plan, put together. That is, we cut from where it is possible to cut without creating any difficulties “.

In fact, salary (and pension) cuts are happening every day, and inflation has cut into purchasing power significantly. And inflation will remain at the level of ten percent for some time.

Economic growth, which the head of state has repeatedly talked about, is a forecast that may turn out to be wrong, and social problems are a reality that will have political consequences.

The lack of decisions at the level of the government does not correspond to the rhetoric that proves the adequacy at the level of the opposition, the Ukrainian SSR remains in classic populist rhetoric, but even the UDR gets lost in easy formulas, one of which was used even by the president of this party: “The reality is that we have the most expensive Easter over the past 20 years. Maybe if the president got off the luxury planes and went to the market, he would understand what Romanians are going through.” The UDR will not be able to offer a credible alternative to the current government if it uses formulas such as “the most expensive Easter in the last 20 years”, which not only do not make economic sense, but also indicate the need to hide behind some slogans the refusal to accept, at least rhetorically, formulated solution. Read the rest of the article on Contributors.ro