A man of Ion Iliescu’s stature still believed in 1990 that he needed an ideology to unite people whom freedom of thought had divided into groups and factions. And perhaps this is what he saw (as did Gorbachev) in Perestroika: a kind of Enlightenment socialism that returns to its idealistic origins, both in terms of leaders’ commitment to the good of the people and instilling hope (which translates into determination). to work) of the “broad masses”. And – again, probably – only after some time (how much?) did he understand the basic principle of capitalism: the best ideology is the interest of everyone. It is certain that then and in the following decades our right was (at least at the level of statements) progressive, pro-European, followers of large alliances, while the left was conservative, sovereignist (“we are not selling our country!”), more interested in the past (generations that it was voted for) than the future (promotions that grew with the exposure of the crimes of communism). And as long as this tension existed, the electoral asset of the right was always a bet on acceleration: more, faster, more radical.

Then came various crises and pandemics, which – within the Union – as I perceived, were exacerbated by the problems of the latter. As far as European integration is concerned, the acceleration made sense because it seemed to enable some mass mobilization (if only passionate) for the final sprint (as was seen when that sentiment collapsed, with the blocking of Schengen). But, on the other hand, as soon as you joined NATO and the Union, the passion disappeared and was replaced by a cold, prudent and – as always happens with such rationality – disappointing rationality. Apart from those who make good money from it, no one is fascinated by columns with numbers, “reports” and “indicators”. Although, to be honest, this is what changes our lives. And after 2007, it was changed for us at an accelerated pace.

But the world would prefer for this passionate story to continue: for us to be welcomed into the “common home” with open arms and for our suffering to be acknowledged. And we clearly wanted to find – finally! – the heavenly world that we dreamed of in the 70s and 80s, flipping through fashion magazines that somehow reached us, watching movies on video and listening to Hungarian, Russian or Bulgarian rock music. However, none of this happened: the Westerners read our integration under the sign of increased taxation and, implicitly, conditioned it with various rules that we barely understood, and we found there turbo-capitalism, hyper-consumption, rights of every variety pushed to the limit and dizzying secularization. Eventually we integrated, but – when this was achieved – we realized that in no sense of the word was the West waiting for us. While we were waiting for them, culturally sublimating (in cinema, music, literature) consumerism, which we did not have access to materially. For various reasons, the European passion of the 1990s and 2000s faded, replaced by disillusionment tinged with reactivity. Our nationalism is what it always was ANTI – transferred from Hungarians, Jews and Russians to Europe (to which the first two allegedly belong). This is what “National” in PNL refers to more and more. And, to be honest, this anti-European tendency brings him closer to both the PSD and the Ukrainian SSR.

Another thing is important here: a decade of mass political parody, which washed away – in the name of “pragmatism” – any ideological whims of the parties. We no longer have convinced people, but opportunists for whom “everything will fit” well. In fact, we do not have parties with clear orientations, but rather different wings of an all-encompassing populism. After all, what is the function of trasesism in political life? Perhaps to balance the extremist tendencies of the youth parties.

Boomerang effect of emigration. We have seen emigration for two decades almost exclusively under the sign of benefits. When the big wave of emigration began – after 2002, with the famous “three-month visa” – they allowed to unload the state system, which had reached (after the crisis of 1998) almost to the limit. Let’s not forget that the previous decade had mass layoffs (which are still ongoing) and the government had some debt – less due to inflation – but still debt to those who retired early or needed unemployment benefits. They are the first to go (because “they have nothing to lose but the chains” of poverty) where they can see with their eyes and, to a certain extent, where they can hear with their ears, given that the Latin American series had given them a touch of Spanish, yet it is useful to be able to hire independently and not to go to intermediaries. We never really know how many there are – probably over 6 million now (that’s almost a third of us!) – because when they’re gone, they’re gone. With the exception of pensions (often ridiculously small), there is no question of any state assistance. On the contrary, it was they who helped the state for years in a row, pouring serious funds, especially into construction, changing (that’s right, for used) car fleet and to some extent taking care of their own elderly people, our countless social security institutions left them to fend for themselves. Of course, there was no mention of this departure of the state from social affairs (which, in passing, made it possible to adapt to “European norms”, focusing on minorities), but only half a glass was always served: money to enter the country, there are examples of success, opportunities for everyone , the opportunity to earn – at the same job – 5-10 times more than here. In short, emigrants were seen as the real recipients of capitalism’s vouchers and their investors in the Romanian economy. Until the purge came and they realized, and so did we, that after 20 years spent away from home, it is very difficult to return and return to the landscape of youth. Because it is inevitable that the village from which you left is no longer the same as from your youth. Among other things, because a lot of people left there and it is a bit deserted, that is, there is no longer the critical mass that is needed for joint changes. But the big problem is that the generation of children who grew up in Madrid, Rome or London are perfectly integrated there and no longer have any connection with the local world. Often he does not even know the language of his parents or speaks it poorly. Or, we discover more and more acutely, there are human dramas here that we still don’t know how to name.

First of all, there is a generation gap here: grandparents here feel abandoned by everyone, both parents there have a complex that they left their own parents (here) to fend for themselves and that – raising children in another world – they alienated them and young people , no matter how much they “friend” the locals on their devices, they find — sooner or later — that their identity is in limbo. Nothing else binds; the generous horizon at the beginning (earning abroad to support the goal at home) turned into a nightmare (parental home – with parents with everything – abandoned; children uncontrolled in a foreign world; life imprisonment as Gastarbeiter-i). Added to this is a sense of injustice: we are white, we are Christians, we want to work, we easily integrate into the “common home” and – yet – no one was waiting for us where we went. On the contrary, we were treated like scum: gypsies, criminals, etc. Meanwhile, new migrants – from Asia Minor and Africa – are greeted at train stations with flowers and offers of social assistance. Continue reading the article on Contributors.ro