A Dignified President For A European Romania. Open Letter To The Civil Society
Events over the past few months have shown an accelerated degradation of the authority of all institutions and the appearance of a climate of confusion, vulgarity and violence in the entire society. Given that there are increasingly fewer chances for the solution to be provided by the political class, a reaction of the democratic intelligentsia and of the civil society as a whole becomes imperative.
A good opportunity is presented by the presidential elections of 2009, which represent a novum of romanian politics in two ways: first presidential elections since Romania has joined the EU and the dissociated presidential race form the parliamentary elections, with which they had been associated in the previous five electoral cycles.
We would have expected, under the circumstances, for the public debate to focus on determining the profile of the romanian european head of state. His fundamental characteristics – whether he is a constitutional monarch not subjected to popular vote, a president elected by the parliament or a president elected through direct vote – are the capacity to act like an political referee between the institutions or between the state and the society and the capacity to intervene in crisis situations based on a moral prestige preserved by self-imposed discretion in times of normality.
Given the current level of information availability, we know well that, excepting the semi-presidential French Republic which offers the President a different status, the heads of state elsewhere in Europe really do correspond to this profile, which they tacitly respect.
The president’s election through direct vote in states such as Austria, Finland or Portugal, whose history has witnessed periods not dissimilar to our own, has merely spared the President of these countries of the pressure exerted by political machinations in Parliament and has by no means justified his meddling in the Government’s, the Parliament’s or Justice’s activity in virtue of a popular mandate.
Even in Poland, Slovenia of Lithuania, countries which have experienced the communist dictatorship, things are no different. How does one explain, then, the persistence in our country of the myth of the “player-President” and more importantly, the fact that a significant percentage of the population approves the attitude of a president whose behaviour has often resembled that of a populist and demagogue head of state in an authoritarian Third World country?
The fact that in Romania – due to the democratic mechanisms which continue to function in spite of difficulties and to the extraordinary resilience of mass-media – a slide back into totalitarianism does not appear as a credible possibility is not an excuse, but rather an even more forceful accusation of the democratic consciousness deficit one may notice in the mentality of a large segment of the electorate and even of certain opinion leaders.
I believe this difference in the perception of the President’s role and desired profile between the EU and Romania is an issue inviting meditation; we ought to identify the ways to prevent electoral shows from turning into “Who wants to be a millionaire?” entertainment show dotted with poor jokes and impose a serious debate about the constitutional role of the President.
Had the civil society shown, since 2000, when the European path of Romania had become a certainty, the will to present before the public opinion the European model of the Head of State and the strength to convince the electorate, things would have been very different in today’s Romania. Unfortunately, part of the intellectual elite has instead opted for the “saviour leader” model, anachronistic not only in Europe, but also in terms of our own constitutional construction.
Incapable of taking personal political, social and even intellectual responsibility and conceive a national project, these intellectuals have transferred their impotence to the whole nation, because an authoritarian leader in a democracy is nothing but the ratification, through popular vote, of a general humiliation. The current moral misery in the Romanian society has propagated thus on a top-bottom trajectory and has been caused by the fact that a significant segment of the public opinion has accepted years ago the shameless manipulation promoting a compromised personality at the forefront of the political life.
Two decades after the ousting of the Communist dictatorship, after earning freedom by the blood of thousands of Romanians, it took a sustained and tenacious manipulation to reach the current situation, in which: A character who in December 1989 was a second-rank Communist apparatchik and a long-term collaborator of the Securitate may be presented as a fighter against the Communism and the Communist Secret Services which he nevertheless embodies; may obtain political and moral support following a façade condemnation of Communism in a parliamentary show when in fact had the Parliament voted in favour of the lustration law, the President himself would have been the only candidate to suffer the consequences; A character tried before the High Court of Cassation and Justice in the most ample corruption trial in Romania – a trial suspended using lawyerly tricks and pressures in view of his position as President – may be presented as a fighter against corruption; A character produced and financed substantially by certain groups to which he owes various favours, a character who broke the law or tolerated the law being broken in his favour or in favour of his family and his clan may now talk about respecting the legal system in our country; A character with rudimentary education may issue statements, at a time when the world is on the threshold of the information society, about issues of education or research for which he has neither the necessary education, nor the required comprehension; A character who has demonstrated his incompetence in a lengthy ministerial position by destroying the fleet and blocking the building of motorways and in his position of Mayor of Bucharest by failing to initiate any urbanistic programmes may accuse others of incompetence and lack of professionalism; A character who is in a permanent state of conflict and an intrigue monger may be accepted as a valid moderator between the powers of the state;
A grobian fellow, a liar, sporting immoral attitudes and who ceaselessly proffers insults targeting persons and social categories may be presented as a role model for the people. One might perhaps accept the existence within the political landscape of various individuals who might fall into one or more of the incriminating categories enumerated so far. But when a person in whom all of the above disqualifying characteristics meet is elected in the highest position in the State and then is rewarded with the confidence of a certain segment of the intellectual elite and of the people as well as with outspoken electoral support, the situation seems surreal. It seems so to me, at least.
Apparently, though, the society in which we live does not concur. Since we have reached this point and we are discussing about real and surreal aspects, I would like to clearly state that all the facts and the characteristics just enumerated and attributed to the one who currently fulfils the role of Head of State are supported by original documents and by video and audio recordings publicly available. Even my fiercest detractors are fully aware of the fact that over the past twenty years I did not speak in public unless supported by certain, verified data. If, however, somebody doubts my word, I am ready to provide justifications for each and every statement either publicly or in the court of justice. I have deliberately avoided from the beginning pronouncing the name of the character I have described because the most serious and efficient manipulation of the public opinion has resulted in the opinion leaders splitting into two opposing factions, one supporting and the other accusing Basescu. This situation makes it difficult now to discuss facts and arguments in a rational fashion, transforming the Romanian electorate into football team followers of sorts, who hate their adversaries for no greater sin than that they belong to a different club. Whatever our personal or political sympathies may be, one may not avoid a question: how was it possible for a person whose past has been marked by illegal and immoral acts to accede to the highest position in the state and how could this person be supported thereafter in his actions, although these seriously affected the authority of State institutions and the international prestige of our country?
On elucidating this process depends to a good extent the way in which the next Presidential elections will be organised and what the result will be. Far from being an erotic fantasy of the Romanian electorate, the «Băsescu monument» is a collective creation to which many opinion leaders and a good proportion of the press have contributed. This is the reason why I will mention directly the acts of certain persons or groups: because the responsibility for this historical distortion must eventually be assumed.
Everything started in 2000, when, panicked by C.V. Tudor’s unexpected accession into the second round of the Presidential elections, part of the intellectuals known for their anti-communist or anti-FSN views have recommended electiong the «lesser evil» in the person of President Ion Iliescu, when the PSD did not need and had not asked for their help. This has been the first step in a long series of compromises.
The second step has been the taking over of the leadership of National-Liberal Party PNL by Teodor Stolojan, in whom the former Securitate had invested full confidence, thus fulfilling its post-communist dream, namely the taking over of the historical, democratic parties when these, such as Christdemocratic National Peasant Party PNŢCD, could not be eliminated.
Meanwhile, Traian Băsescu, by a direct understanding with Virgil Măgureanu, was absorbing the latter’s party, including all its «reliable comrades». It was the same Traian Băsescu who changed, in a manoeuvre best characterised as « bush-league politics », the ‘ideology’ of his party, transferring in a masquerade congress the Democratic Party PD from the Socialist International to the European Popular Party, a centre-right formation.
The terrain was now clear for the Romanian Academic Society (SAR), led by Alina Mungiu to form, alongside GDS and other civic associations the « Clean Romania » coalition, which would support the D.A. Alliance (of centre-rightist persuasion?) led by the two individuals completely compromised, both politically and morally, Traian Băsescu and Teodor Stolojan, again, in virtue of the slogan « elect the lesser evil ». The removal of the Năstase government, beneficial given the generalised corruption it tolerated and the Prime Minister’s tendency to control the press and the society, is followed by the coagulation of an intellectual group, led by G. Liiceanu, H.R. Patapievici, M.R.Ungureanu, C. Avramescu, M. Mihăieş, to which V. Tismăneanu and other less significant characters would adhere in time.
This group initiated a delirious campaign of eulogies addressed to Traian Băsescu, complemented by an equally vivacious campaign of ferocious attacks against anybody who dared oppose him. The climax of this campaign is reached on the occasion of the referendum for the suspension of the President, depicted in the colours of an anti-communist crusade of the salutary leader. The appearance on TV in a key position by the President’s side of Silvian Ionescu, the former director for Western Europe of the Romanian espionage is a signal for the undercover agents in the old Romanian diaspora, kept hidden for two decades, ad these would do everything in their power to feed the myth of the «anti-communist Băsescu». The support committees for Băsescu within the diaspora that are assiduously prepared in 2009 will doubtlessly make these people come back to surface.
This strange combination between the representatives of the former anticommunist elite, former collaborators of the Securitate exposed as momentary interests required (see for example the Balaceanu Stolnici case, when he refused to follow Teodor Stolojan in PLD), undercover agents in the press, whose existence has been openly admitted by the romanian secret services and the internet one-day-heroes who are part of the so-called digital guerrilla paid by the piece has represented the resistance piece of President Traian Băsescu in all his manoeuvres aimed at building a political system based on pressures, blackmail and diversions. It is to be expected that in the current campaign the methods of 2004 and 2007 would be used again, in amplified form. As the negative audit at the end of Traian Băsescu will be hard to explain, the main thrust of the campaign will be on blackening the image of the opponents, discouragement of the electorate by agitating the idea that certain opponents stand no chance and eventually by revitalising the old tune of «electing the lesser evil».
To those who might allow themselves to be deceived by this predictable tactic, I say that in 2009 we have the possibility to exclude the political and moral blackmail of 2000, 2004 and 2007. In 2009, we have the opportunity to choose the good, to delimitate it both from the «greater evil» and the «lesser evil».
In my opinion, in the political landscape there is now a valid candidate: Crin Antonescu, the leader of National-Liberal Party.
Crin Antonescu may be defined not just by comparing him against Traian Băsescu who is now the «greater evil», but also by comparing him against the model of the European President that Romania needs. Crin Antonescu is not soiled by any of the sins so wide-spread in the political landscape after December 1989: he was not a communist apparatchik or activist and has not compromised his image by speaking or writing in favour of that regime; He did not collaborate with the Securitate and cannot be used or blackmailed as such; Has never been accuses, even in jest, of corruption, although he held for four years the position of Minister; Does not have any unclean business with interest groups and has not become rich by exercising economic activities to the detriment of the time dedicated to the public office; Has demonstrated he possesses the qualities of a politician and a man of state in difficult moments in which some have compromised, some have sold their honour or have abandoned the difficult struggle to preserve their moral convictions, the lawfulness of their actions and their personal honesty; He is an educated, fair person, capable of discussing in civilised manner and listen to the opinions of others. The time has come to discuss about one of the regrettable aspects which have become apparent over the past few years: the promotion of young politicians who are arrogant and incompetent, which has resulted in the general compromising of an entire generation and which is a dangerous fallacy. This also draws our attention to the fact that now, with the Presidential elections drawing near, we can no longer afford hopes, but must rely on certainties. Crin Antonescu appears to be a certainty: he has a mature personality, has demonstrated his qualities as Member of the Parliament, as Minister, as president of a party. Supporting Crin Antonescu is no blindfolded jump into the unknown, it is the recognition of a permanently ascending career. Considering the acts of every presidential candidate, options should swing in their majority in favour of the candidate whose profile is closest to Crin Antonescu’s.
Unfortunately, things are not thus. The forces of Evil have learned the craft of disguise. Occult influences meet declared fanaticism, empathy directed at evil is stronger than the one oriented towards the good. Many of those who could no longer support evil openly will attempt to destroy the reputations of the fair and honest. At any time one may invent the lack of real or imaginary qualities in order to justify the incapacity of the « disappointed by trade » to support anybody but themselves. The force of the local party structures, corruption of the electorate, the dirty money of the interest groups may change the natural order constructed by the personal value of each candidate. This is why the success of Crin Antonescu’s candidacy is not only his or PNL’s problem, it is a test of the “awareness of the civil society”, which has the opportunity to redefine itself. Traian Băsescu has identified within the civil society those inclined by mentality to sycophancy and making a profit by any means. We will have to identify those wo still believe in the moral values and who are willing to fight for them. I launch an appeal to create a support group for Crin Antonescu’s candidacy, made up of important representatives in the field of science, culture, art, technology, economy and finances.
This support group may then engage in a dialogue, in its own name and through direct contact, the local opinion leaders: physicians, teachers, engineers, small entrepreneurs, workers and farmers respected in their communities. The last parliamentary elections, the local and the Euro-parliamentary elections have made patent the moral filth of this society. We can now bring back to the surface the profound Romania which works, thinks and lives by the rules of the common sense. To those who believe the civil society is convicted to the position of simple spectator before the dirty games of Romanian politics, I answer things are by no means so.
If between 1990 and 1996 the strength of the civil society has managed to stop Romania from turning into an oligarchy and has succeeded in imposing even to the supporters of a “perestroika” variant an authentically European project, it will succeed now also. Not by nostalgically repeating old slogans, but by an approach synchronised with the new European status of Romania.
It is necessary to raise the level of responsibility of the entire civic sector, of the foundations and the professional or humanitarian associations, of the associations of economists and finance specialists, of the honest journalists in order to overcome the political and moral crisis in Romania. Among the actions that the civil society ought to enact immediately are the following: Liberating itself from the influence of false opinion leaders and of false intellectual role models who propose false debate themes; Building a direct communication network on the internet between different think tanks, which hold a vast amount of information and expertise not used at the moment for the public good; Breaking the blockage imposed by the media (more preoccupied for commercial reasons with promoting aggressive impostors or pseudo-values in science and culture) which affects this capital of intelligence and knowledge; Creating a direct connection between the promoters of technological or humanistic intelligence in the diaspora, people whose value has been demonstrated home and abroad; Sensitising the blogger community, which holds great potential of intelligence to clean up the virtual space of the vulgarity, obscenity and the intolerance which attack behind the shield of anonymity; Replacing the current «dialogue of the deaf» between politicians and their agitator groups with a real dialogue between intellectuals who are part of the support committees of various candidates, formed on ideological grounds, which would concentrate mainly on the themes which pertain to the constitutional role of the President; Putting pressure on the National Council of the Audio-Visual to severely penalise the broadcasting of nicknames and insulting expressions which compromise the debate; Constant academic monitoring of pollsters to compel these to act in a more professional and transparent manner, doubled by a campaign to eliminate from the market those pollsters whose reputation has been compromised in 2000 and 2004 by presenting to the public gross and deliberate deceptions; A check of the signature lists in favour of various candidates by NGOs of unblemished reputation.
Coming back to the candidate in whose favour I speak, I would like to remind you that upon launching his presidential platform in July 2009, Crin Antonescu has declared the time had come to discard the political clienteles of all parties, stating he includes here the political clientele of the liberals, and that in their stead the intellectual elites ought to be gathered in order to contribute to the progress of our country. He has declared he does not wish to be a player president, nor a president who would only represent the PNL, but rather all the honest people in all parties and particularly from the civil society.
We now have the opportunity to answer positively to this offer. Now we can separate good from bad and the time has come for us to do so. This is no longer just about our academic careers, our businesses or our personal projects, it is about the world in which we live or in which we would like to live. And the world will not change by itself. We all need a President who would have the capacity to consolidate the creative energies of the nation around a major project.
Such a President will be elected and, more importantly, will be convincing and affective in his future mission if he will not represent one party alone, but all the healthy forces of the nation. By giving a chance to Crin Antonescu, we give a chance to Romania to have a President worthy of its European status, earned with such great efforts.
Emil Constantinescu
President of the Romanian Foundation for Democracy
August 31, 2009
–
http://pnl.ro/ (Party)
http://www.crinantonescu.ro/ (Blog)
http://www.facebook.com/CrinAntonescuPresedinte (Facebook)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crinantonescu (Flickr)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/crinantonescu (LinkedIn)
http://twitter.com/crinantonescu09 (Twitter)
http://www.crinantonescu.ro/Manifest.html (Election platform)
http://www.crinantonescu.ro/contribuie.html (Fundraising)
http://www.SprijinPentruCrin.ro (PoliticalActionComittee)
http://www.tnl.ro/ (Youth Organisation)
http://www.csl.ro/ (Liberal Students)
http://www.onfl.ro/ (Liberal Woman’s Council)
http://www.PNTCD-Cluj.ro/ (PoliticalAllianceComittee)
