The good intentions and the enemies of Romanian democracy

An old proverb says that “The path to Hell is paved with good intentions”. Romania’s and many other free nations’ democracy suffer more or less because of some of these good intentions which have become true enemies.
One expression of this situation is represented by the obsession of some people, politicians and civil society’s representatives which are apt to be confused one with another in order to reform the political class.
Moreover, as I’ve noticed in other occasions, the reformist has become an ideology of substitution for all political parties, under the pressure of some „Ñcivil society” representatives. As any other substitution product or more suggestively said, as any other substitute, the reformist can not replace for a long time the original product, the ideologies in this case, without having adverse and perverse consequences.
The citizens’ dissatisfaction caused by the low performance of some politicians is a reality which no one can dispute. What’s really missing form this “scenery” is the serious analysis of the real reasons of this dissatisfaction towards some politicians, as well as the analysis of the way people beliefs are formed and of the ways through which they are manipulated.


A very good example is the one of restarting the polemic on passing the single rated vote. The “civil society” organizations whose members have a weak connection with the realities of Romanian society, different from the one from the five stars hotels reception rooms has been releasing pro single rated vote campaigns since the ‘90s, being fascinated by the American democracy “pattern”. I have used quote marks for this word because what’s happening in the single rated political systems is far away from representing a model for Romania’s problems.
The Americans sustain more and more frequently that the greatest quality of their elected persons (local, national or federal) is the ability or raising funds for the electoral campaigns which mingles with their main concern during their mandate, representing people’s need coming on a secondary place. And the so-called control of the citizens over their elected persons is just an illusion. The only efficient control is the one of the lobby groups and it is made through money, a lot of money!


The theme of the single rated vote has invited itself even in the presidential campaign from France which also as a consequence of some “reformist” enthusiasm has renounced to the list vote in favor of the single rated vote with two polls: 40 % of the citizens are not represented in the Parliament and local councils and as a consequence you can see the rebirth of extremism and the aggravation of politics corruption. And now it is required if not coming back to lists vote, at least electing half of the the Parliament members through proportional vote.
And then, what are we reforming: the political class or the reports between citizens and their elected one? If it is about the political class - although it does not exist as a single unitary social body – the reform is practically a non-sense. The only functional reform in this case is abolishing it, meaning renouncing to democracy. Let’s get it well: as long as the political class is an abstract notion, or better said, a tag for some people who have a mandate in a certain period of time, it can not be a “guild”. Their 4 years fluctuation and the way they are elected do not represent a „Ñreform”.
If we talk about the relations between the citizens and their elected ones the things tend to get a little bit more complicated. There is no ideal way of structuring these relations from which to start an analysis of the eventual „Ñreforms”. The mandate of the elected person is not just time bounded, but it is also limited from the powers’ point of view.


In fact, the citizen’s dissatisfaction comes from the fact that its elected one is producing only symbolic goods (laws, rules, public politics, rigor, constitutional stipulations) when what he needs in fact are the material goods (public services, infrastructures, jobs, salaries, pensions etc.). All these are related to the executive state power. But from this kind of misunderstanding some dissatisfaction related to justice are born also. The justice is a producer of symbolic goods also. A judge’s decision is a symbolic good and can be appreciated only through its consequences, in a subjective way of course.
Is it true that the political class, especially the Parliament and its members have other interests, different from the one of the citizens? Apparently it is not. The fact that Romania has a modern Constitution, which sometimes bothers some totalitarian because it doesn’t allow only one person to hold the power, that it has the laws that made possible the adhesion to NATO and European Union, and that it gives the necessary guarantees of practicing free rights and citizens freedom is the proof of the fact that the elected ones have done their job of producing symbolic goods for the state well, in order to function properly from economics and Romanian society point of view.
Even so, we are the witnesses of a dramatic degradation of the right perception of Parliament’s role and place in the Romanian democratic system, due to a struggle for power and influence between different formal actors: Govern, Presidency, justice and informal actors: groups of economical interests, civil society organizations. The Parliament is the scapegoat for many of the Romanian democracy’s failures, instead of being the last redoubt in front of the authoritative attempts of some actors from the political stage.


The Parliament’s low rate of credibility in front of the citizens has two reasons: the existence of a corrupted way of thinking and the existence of a mass-media campaign for compromising Parliament’s institution. The Parliament and its members are presented as parasitical systems which waste important financial resources, especially in some economical and social domains. They are also presented like doing nothing else but voting privileges for themselves and nothing else more. II