Professor Daniel David, rector of the Babes Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, intervenes in the debate caused by a national survey that puts AUR first among the preferences of young people, and offers a different point of view. In an interview with HotNews.ro, he says that it should be recognized that there may be people, even young people with a school education, who will find themselves in their message, and that “it would be a mistake to demonize them.”

“Let’s look at a poll that shows a majority of young people voting AUR in a different way,” suggests Professor Daniel David. For him, it is more important not that 15% of young people would vote for George Simion’s party, but that the remaining 85% would not support him.

HotNews.ro published on Saturday the first data of a national poll conducted in March, which shows that the party led by George Simion will be the first to be voted for in parliament by young people aged 18 to 35. old, “if the election were held on a Sunday in the future.”

“I’m not too worried,” says Daniel David. But he is concerned about the mistrust young people express in the president, parliament or government, and believes that “disillusionment with democratic institutions” is driving them to AUR. Anti-system voting.

“As long as the AUR is an accepted party in the Romanian democracy, we must also accept the fact that there may be people, even young people, even with a school education, who will find themselves in their messages. Demonizing is a big mistake,” says Daniel David.

“This is a normal democratic struggle”

We present a full interview with UBB Rector Daniel David:

HotNews.ro: A national survey shows that AUR is the favorite party among 18-35 year olds. How does it make you feel?

Daniel David: I don’t feel anything special because I’m not a politician. But looking at the data, I can say I understand what’s going on. And I see that the prototype of a young person in the studied sample is a person with secondary education – 51%. There are very few with higher education, 27%, and the rest have only primary education. That a party with a more sovereignist discourse picks up on this prototype of young people is not surprising.

Well, this is a profile of a young man from Romania. The survey was conducted not only among students, it is relevant for the general youth of Romania, right?

Daniel David: That’s right. And I am convinced that in each category the differences are very large. But in general, young people in Romania are mostly more open to globalization, and only 15% of the total population, or 25% of those who intend to vote, take a pro-sovereignty position. We see such a percentage in other European countries. However, most young people go to parties that are more open to the EU and NATO, so they do not have a very strong sovereignist discourse. Perhaps the percentages of 15 and 25 seem high to us, but we can look at the opposite: 75% or 85% are in the area that does not support the sovereignist approach. This is a normal democratic struggle.

Do you have a division between pro-sovereign and pro-European youth?

Daniel David: Exactly, because the other major parties, probably PSD, PNL, United Right Alliance, cover most of the rest.

I don’t really care about the percentage. I am more concerned about putting democratic institutions last

Let’s get to know the 15%. What does this option tell us about them?

I look carefully at the partial data. And it doesn’t bother me as much as others, maybe because I look at it in an international context. But also because they show that young Romanians have confidence in the university environment, the European Union and NATO. This is good, something we can develop on.

I am saying that for those who want Romania to gain a foothold in the Western space, a more globalized Romania in the EU space is good news. We notice that the boy does not trust democratic institutions: the president, the parliament, the government and, strangely enough, even the press. This tells me that they are more focused on alternative media to traditional media where fake news is much more prevalent. And he has such a critical attitude because he seems to be disillusioned with the way democracy works in Romania. In connection with this mistrust should be placed the anti-systemic attitude that led to the vote for AUR. I don’t really care about the percentage or these options. I am more concerned about putting democratic institutions last. This tells me that the choice of sovereignty does not necessarily come from a rational analysis of the pros and cons, but rather from frustration with current democratic institutions.

“For those who care about democracy, it’s time to go back to the Internet”

Political leaders have also noted that young people will turn to TikTok and said regulation is needed. What is the effect of TikTok and social media in general?

I think it’s a bidirectional relationship, meaning they influence each other. And democracies and democratic institutions must learn to return to the public space through social networks. That we left them. And who then appears there? Other anti-democratic forces that undermine truth, that undermine cooperation and trust. And then we see the democracy index going down. It’s time for those who care about democracy to get back online and understand the reality of social media. He must be there. Banning them is a big mistake. Any ban creates a zone of rebellion that will develop. However, given that TikTok is mostly pre-teens and teens, they still tend to defy the rules. If we find ourselves wanting to block them, don’t be surprised if they find some extremely creative ways to respond.

Regardless of the environment, a party that unites 15% of the youth offers a set of values. Do you think young people identify with these values?

Probably that 15-20 percent has these values ​​and can be found there. But I think the attitude is more against the current establishment. Young people usually rebel against the rules, believe that the country is moving in a bad direction, and are dissatisfied with many things. In the research we are talking about, young people show that they are worried about getting a job. However, the party that showed itself in this spirit – against the establishment, against the institutions – is the party of the Ukrainian SSR. So I think they collected that percentage. We are surprised to see 15-25% for a sovereign party, but this is a normal movement for the whole western space.

“15 years ago it was not good to be a sovereignist”

Is it fashionable to be a sovereignist? The Washington Post wonders too.

I don’t think it’s fashionable. We’ve always had that segment, only now they have the courage to be more vocal and present. But we also have a very strong left wing – neo-Marxists are just as active and strong, only they are not represented by any specific party, so they are distributed among other parties. Now these movements are more visible also because they are encouraged by movements on the territory of the European Union. 15 years ago we just entered the EU, we started to develop there, and it was bad to be a sovereign when you benefited from the fact that you, for example, did not have to stand in the queue for visas. Now, however, sovereigntists are becoming more vocal and encouraged by similar demonstrations in the Western countries that founded the European Union. But, I repeat, only 15-25%. Therefore, 75-85% have another option. We remain at this percentage of 15-25, but I understand this as a natural movement similar to international trends.

So, while most of the youth prefer GOLD, you would say that they are in the minority…

They are minorities. If we collect the globalist parties, we will notice that they have a stable majority compared to the sovereignist parties.

What social effect can the division between the “minority” who vote for the Ukrainian SSR and the “majority” of those who support other parties have? Is it possible to put into this context the reaction of people who describe young AUR as “illiterate”, “stupid”, etc.?

I think this is a big mistake! While the AUR is an accepted party in the Romanian democracy – of course, a party with different options than the majority – we must also accept the fact that there may be people in the population, even young people, even with a school education, who consider themselves in their messages Demonizing is a big mistake. Why not expect from those who are supporters of AUR, the demonization of others, that they want to sell the country to the European Union and thereby start polarization, which will not lead to anything good.

“It is a shame and grist to the mill of those who say that democracy has collapsed”

Are we not already seeing the beginnings of such polarization?

of course That’s why I say that it is not the fact that someone votes for the UPR that should be punished, but the extremist tendencies on the border of the law or outside the law in all parties. And let’s recognize that there are different points of view in society, some more globalist, others more sovereign, and people will vote. Apart from the fact that the press has interpreted this result in a certain way – I believe wrongly or not enough considered – young Romanians in the vast majority do not have a sovereign perspective. There are some who have this point of view. Well, that’s their choice. But they are not the majority.

However, polarizations already exist. Where can it be reached?

There is polarization and the elections are approaching. The result can lead to social conflicts and harm democracy. So if we consider ourselves democrats, I think we should stop abolishing others. I have not seen, in all the history that I have lived, and from what I have read – that I have read enough to understand society – such a desire of political leaders to put each other in prison. Not only in Romania, but in almost all democratic countries. Or it is a disgrace and only fuels those who say that democracy has failed. We have to accept the fact that if someone has a different opinion than us and wants either a country with dominance of sovereignty or wants a strong country in NATO and the EU, he is not an enemy, an enemy that I have to destroy. It is simply an opponent of ideas. And, if he can convince the populace more than I can, after all, the populace is sovereign. This should be the message, and the authorities should quickly punish any deviations from the letter and spirit of the law in the extremist direction. I am surprised when I see so many disputes in the parliament, so many attacks that ended in physical! Can we not regulate the behavior in the parliament and the work of this institution?

How would you describe this picture in the “Psychology of the Romanian People” section?

Our individualism has increased. Attention, in Romanian this term has the connotation of selfishness. However, individualism means that autonomous individuals build groups based on shared values. Collectivism is what creates groups based on predetermined relationships within the logic of the extended family. In the structure of autonomous individuals, the group serves the individual. In the structure of collectivist individuals, the individual sacrifices himself for the sake of the group. And the indicator of Romania’s autonomy according to the psychocultural component has increased in recent years.

We are approaching the threshold of transition from a collectivist society to a society of autonomous individuals. Now our problem is different: we are in the phase of transition, emancipation. The autonomous individual is not yet benevolent and sensitive, but is in a transitional phase where he is more selfish, prone to the temptation to disobey the rules, who wants his voice to be heard, to participate in all processes that concern him, which of many or confuses his opinion with the truth. This is a very difficult period, especially since it falls on a rather low level of education. We do not have a highly educated population, we are poor in this respect compared to the average Europe. Of course, we have to go through this phase, but here the risks of the breakdown of institutions appear, when a quasi-emancipated person stops respecting rules, institutions and considers himself a reference point. I hope that we can quickly pass through this phase of emancipation and reach a phase where we are already emancipated, when we care about society and institutions, we are more tolerant, we seek cooperation and we are more benevolent.