Our politics is depoliticized. “Politics” refers to the people and institutions involved in the administration of a state, and both are visible to the public. “Depoliticization” is about the purpose and how the system created by the first should work, and it’s getting harder and harder for the public because they just aren’t there anymore. The fundamental role of parties is to promote and obtain the votes of the electorate for a range of public policies and public officials, with the aim of implementing them and holding them accountable for their consequences. In Romania, this role is almost completely neglected. Two decades of involution, and the situation seems to be getting worse.

Of course, the form is preserved, the ritual is preserved: we have an election campaign, lists of candidates, programs and promises, voting, parliament, government program and government – the last two in the plural. It’s just that the election became a turning point in this sequence: you can know in detail what happened until then, you don’t yet know what will happen afterwards. At the political level, causality is almost non-existent. Following the party, you don’t know what it will do in the government if it gets there, you don’t know with whom it will form a majority, you don’t know on what terms, on what terms and for what term. You don’t even know who exactly he would support in ministerial positions. And I don’t think that the party itself knows, let alone the electorate.

Think if our politics had worked properly, given the last election, we should now have a government of PNL, USR-PLUS, UDMR led by Ludovic Orbán.

* * *

The consequence of this situation is that our parties cannot hope for an electoral result, counting on a positive vote. Except for existing members and customers, it’s hard to succeed when voters say “vote this team, vote this program” as they watch teams and programs disappear into the post-election fog. Even inertia does not help, that is, asking them to vote for the government they participated in, for the people they participated with. Voters have experience with one-time ministers, leaders who are replaced by their own parties and/or subsequently radically change all important issues for society.

In this case, voters are left with a negative vote. “Vote for us [nu pentru ce o să facem, dar] so that others do not win, because this is a disaster, a disaster, etc. Vote for us to punish our opponents.” Relatively easy for opposition parties, of course. Especially anti-systemic ones, who are perceived as anti-systemic, who collect negative votes without doing anything for them, just by virtue of perception. As for the main ruling party, it also has a way of using the negative vote to some extent. There is a tradition of “pomeno”, gifts to voters in election years, which encourage not only the clientele, but also part of the electorate to believe that the opposition alternative would be worse. What is really difficult is the preponderance of negative votes for secondary/satellite parties in the ruling coalition and/or government. What is left for them to do? Well, to torpedo the government. That you can’t start an election campaign to get votes by attacking a party led by a prime minister you support in office.

* * *

Paradoxically, this situation in which the PNL finds itself may also be a chance for the party. This is because, I assume, Mr. Cholaku wants to change the palace next year and move from Victoria to Kotrochen. V. Pont’s predecessor was close to this nine years ago, if he had not beaten himself in the elections. But for this, the prime minister needs a stable government. Especially since a difficult period is coming, for purely objective reasons, shortages, etc. And I’m sure he also knows that if he is going to be his competitor in next year’s elections, the PNL will somehow be forced by circumstances to stop political cooperation and become his opponent in speeches and votes. Including a vote of disbelief. Suboptimal. Risky. Hence this recent proposal to continue, perhaps even deepen, cooperation between the two parties beyond next year’s election cycle. It has recently become public, I’m guessing that in fact, in response to an easily predictable situation, the plan is actually somewhat old and preliminary.

Speaking of the deficit, bracket: we have heard and it is very possible that we will hear the reaction of some PNL leaders who oppose the increase in taxes and fees, that we have “sources” who give information to the press, that they have caused great controversy within the party. At first glance, the situation that contradicts the thesis about the unpredictability and changeability of the parties’ public policy is one that is constantly… No. The first look is deceiving. why Because the situation that forced this government to take responsibility (and) for a set of tax increases did not arise as a result of external and unforeseen events. On the contrary, it looked fixed from the budget, and it was predictable – in fact it was directly predicted by the Fiscal Council: too much spending, too little budget income, an understated deficit, all analyzed and published since last autumn. However, I don’t recall any reaction from NLP at the time, not even in words, let alone action. Because they were responsible for the coalition government, and the budget has the signature of former Prime Minister Chuke, the current president of the NLP. Under these conditions, I can assume that the public protests against the government of which I am a part are more related to what I write above: before the party or its faction enters the election cycle next year from the position of opposition. – Read the entire article and comment on Contributors.ro