The unification of local and European elections, which President Iohannis considers “legitimate” and has probably already been approved by PNL-PSD leaders, requires a number of legislative changes, may have constitutional problems and contradicts electoral custom. But is this a real blow to democracy in our country?

After the integration into the EU, Romania no longer developed upward on the scale of democratization, in fact, in recent years it went downward, if we take into account the state of the mass media, the transparency of decision-making, the representativeness of the parties, etc. Let’s add to this the absence of a civilian director of the Research Institute, which was infuriated by the head of state on February 1, which is incredible in the context of the discussion about the militarization of institutions:

“The SRI is headed by First Deputy General Ionescu, and I think he leads very well. All military leadership This is SRI does not have a civilian director. But my assessment is – and I have made several assessmentsri is că SRI works flawlessly. Therefore, from this point of view, no one shouldI agreeAhem problems“

Perhaps President Iohannis is under the illusion that he can make such assessments, perhaps he is the true civilian leader of the SRI, and that is enough. However, his lordship’s statement is important to the nature of the political culture he represents: a kazon in which you barricade yourself in Kotrochen, like a military unit, in which you put a general who speaks even more stupidly than you to lead the presidential party.

Despondency in society, sublimated fear of war, extremist temptations paint a collective reality in which the need for political pedagogy is greater than ever, and the head of state had a constitutional duty to respond to this need. His hermeticism may protect him psychologically from social troubles, but his attitude only fuels the tension in society.

This tension may be partially relieved in an election year. This is the privilege of political elites in democratic countries over dictatorships: they have an almost perfect lightning rod, elections play the role of transforming negative energy into elements of the democratic game. But it is associated with risk. Elections are not truly democratic if they do not include the possibility of political change. In this sense, the elections of May 20, 1990 may have been free, but not democratic. Many political systems use elections, but not all of them are democratic, the case of Putin’s Russia will soon give us the spectacle of elections without the risk of producing a result different from that desired by those who organize them.

Is this also the ideal of our political elite?

Unfortunately, this is what it looks like if we look at the maneuvers of this power triangle in Romania today: Iohannis-Colaku-Cuke. If society does not respond, it will also be a Bermuda Triangle, in which what remains democratic in our political regime will be lost: elections.

No, it is not about their falsification, but about maneuvers with which they want to deprive a number of election moments of their democratic content.

The combination of elections, even local ones, with European ones, although deserving of criticism and announced too late, is not undemocratic if the decision is taken after wide consultation. In this case, it is dictated solely by the logic of the long-term PNL-PSD coalition after the election year. Since elections are held at a certain time, when the result of the first can decisively affect the results of the next, the merger disrupts the natural competition between parties. In addition, it is a precedent for the logic by which other, truly decisive elections will be prepared: parliamentary and presidential. We are now faced with an intention which, if carried out, would be a clear abuse of power.

If we trusted the Constitutional Court, we would say that it will definitely not support the legislative changes that should make this unification possible. Political leaders act as if they don’t have this problem. Or they have other solutions. The logic of the moment is not dominated by strategy, but by improvisation: in exceptional moments, exceptional solutions.

There are two key arguments that have been and will be used to justify any exceptional “solution”: the need for stability and the danger of extremism.

Governing in times of war and in the face of serious threats is difficult for any political class, ours has been caught off guard and the coming of age seems very slow. The temptation to end the political game in the face of great threats is normal, but succumbing to this temptation in the current context may be a historical mistake. And this is because stability cannot be ensured by the anti-democratic therapy we are witnessing. The necessary institutional stability is even threatened by the lack of legitimacy that can arise from such maneuvers. Therefore, the stability argument is flawed.

The second argument is the fight against extremism, especially extremism, which is the result of Russia’s influence on Romanian politics. This was the first argument used by NLP President Chuke in support of the need to combine local and European elections, which would lead to a weakening of the AUR.

As written earlier, but today it became obvious that GOLD was invented and used as an excuse for mistakes. As if you can fight something that you think is a threat to democracy by reducing the degree of democracy yourself.

It can be said that the seriousness of the present moment lies not in the implementation or non-implementation of the election merger project, but especially in the resources that make it possible, resources that are revealed including the arguments used, which may leave us with other big surprises in the near future.

The argument for stability and the fight against extremism is directly related to the confusion present in the 1990s speech of Ion Iliescu, which returns today in the speech of the current head of state and his allies: the confusion between the widely declared “stability” and the status quo. Institutional stability is a value in itself, but in a democracy it is what makes political change possible. The status quo does not change. In fact, when we talk about stability, we are not talking about a person or a party in power, we are only talking about respect for the constitution and laws. “Stability” in yesterday’s Ilyestian discourse and that in today’s Yohannist discourse, at least since the establishment of the PSD-PNL government, is synonymous with no change, is an argument for the preservation of certain political arrangements, since any other alternative would jeopardize even institutional stability . Thus, the change becomes illegitimate.

From this point, we can assume that the AUR today, like the PRM at the beginning of the transition, was created precisely so that the movement against it would be a move both for stability and for a status quo that deliberately maintains a confusion between the two. In addition, one or more parties, today both the PNL and the PSD, can legitimize themselves as democratic by fighting against the extremism of the AUR, precisely when they make decisions that are at least democratically questionable. With this, in fact, he fuels the populist discourse, perhaps AUR can come out of this game strengthened, also because the goal is not to belittle it.

It is almost laughable that former SRI Director Eduard Helwig is now fighting for GOLD, even though he knows how it was born and developed under divine protection. If he wants to return to a political career, it is time to speak in this sense, and not as a mere spectator and implicitly justifying the mistakes of those who rule Romania today.

In addition, it should be noted that in the unsuccessful hypothesis of the implementation of the project of combining local and European elections, the consequences not only concern the Ukrainian SSR, but also risk being felt primarily against the SDR. He represents himself in the United Right Alliance (UDU) together with the PMP and the FD, an alliance that is a direct competitor of the AUR at the opposition level, but which is clearly ahead of it in the polls. If the European elections are held without unification, the ADU has a good chance to overtake the liberals, the probable third place is honorable, it becomes a hard-to-reach goal under the conditions of unification. However, the result of the Europeans will be diluted by local results, which is a disadvantage for AUR. But it also makes things difficult for ADU because not all of USR’s home wins from four years ago can be replicated, while AUR is starting from scratch. If the ADU is at risk of public perception failing compared to the USR in 2020, the AUR will be able to present every small area won as a big victory.

The consequence for both opposition parties should be a rethinking of the leaders of the list: Dan Barna and Christian Terhes. If for the AUR this is not obvious, since its identity as a national populist party is more important than the list leader, for the USR and its allies the list leader also becomes important for local races. They have a new logo, identity, rights that are unclear about what is doctrinally specific to PNL. If they had the inspiration to call themselves, for example, the Alliance for Democracy, their approach would have a clearer meaning against both the PSD-PNL binomial and the AUR.

However, there is double good news for ADUs. The first is that Nikushor Dan seems to have been abandoned by the PNL, which will lead to a confrontation in Bucharest with the ADU-PSD, the liberals will show their presence at most. Even if Nikushor Dan loses, his symbolic return to USR is a sign that can be used in the continuation of the election year. Then, if the current mayor-general wins, it will not only be a complete victory for the new United Right Alliance, but it will also automatically lead to the presidency of Nikusor Dan, which could reset a lot of political calculations. -Read the entire article and comment on contributors.ro