Powered by Max Banner Ads
An analysis – even a brief one – proves the fact that the democratic attribute of the present-day society is not reduced to the usual self-defining through the freedom of speech, but it also imperatively demands authentic and durable creation, in both its material and spiritual aspects. Therefore, authentic democracy is defined by what it already produces, not just by what it plans to achieve. This leads to the idea that authentic democracy is the projection of the concrete fact, of authentic and lasting creation which defies the arid speech, the formal dispute, the antagonistic contradiction. In an authentic democracy, power and opposition do not clash in a permanent “civil war” and, instead, make complementary efforts striving for a creative synthesis of national importance. A possible formal agreement between power and opposition, based on petty clan interests, is as counter-productive and dangerous as the relentless disputes totally deprived of substance.
This last variant seems to unfortunately describe the tacit agreement between power and opposition on the draft modification of the Romanian Constitution and on the administrative-territorial reorganisation. Obviously, any amending of the Constitution and organisation is welcome if it acts as an incentive to creation. The evolutions and involutions of the society can be stimulated or blocked precisely through a legal and organisational framework perfectly adapted to the new exigencies. Especially today, when the dynamic of the society is intense, but also extremely contradictory. In order to avoid the negative effects, the new solutions that are adopted must be the result of concentrated efforts on a much wider scale than strictly political. The entire society must be involved in this process, from the level of academic and ministerial analyses to that of large-scale debates by local factors, the first who will pay the price of eventual decision-making errors. Such a wide process of analysis and decision has as end purpose configuring a true national strategy whose value can be defined also in relation with similar experiments made by other countries.
From this perspective, a truly adventurous position is that of today’s politicians – no matter if they are in power or opposition – that acclaim or reclaim, by their own will, their specific version of how a certain article of the Constitution should be phrased or how a certain administrative region should be conceived. Such persons ignore the fact that an eventual modification of the Constitution must serve the interest of Romania, not just that of a faction. This is why the contribution of the Romanian Academy of experts from the research sector, from universities, is strictly necessary precisely from the perspective of obtaining a creative scientific synthesis. Nobody may ignore the fact that the eventual territorial reorganisation must take in consideration how different zones belonging to the same region have differentiated natural and human resources. How can one achieve the necessary balancing in economic, social and cultural terms, of these zones which, included in a region, risk becoming hostile with each other? Could it be possible that precisely such contradictory actions, insufficiently correlated with one another, will stimulate the attacks of irresponsible local factors that sacrifice the imperative of complementary creative efforts to the benefit of the absurd demands of autonomy, also on territorial basis? Isn’t it true that precisely such regionalisation initiatives eroded from within a number economic powers like Spain, Italy, etc. until they reached the present crisis which has been making them suffer for years?
And such interrogations can continue, as it is known that, objectively, the contradictions between the counties of the same region will be amplified. Among others, also because a region seat and the county that will include the respective town will enjoy more benefits in terms of development, of financing from the state budget, thus antagonising the surrounding localities. The fact that only one prefect, one mayor or one council could fuel the peril of a decision that will be oligarchic, non-democratic and essentially anti-Romanian. The present local barons, famous for their arrogance, might “evolve” towards the condition of federal “monarchs.” The present political bargain makes Romanian politicians forget that the arguments currently brought in favour of regionalisation are identical to those present in the Stalinist dictate of 1950, when Romania was fragmented into regions, including the Hungarian Autonomous Region, as a first step in the cominternist intention to federalise Romania. Could it be that the politicianist ignorance of past experiences stimulates today the Hungarian agents from the country and from Hungary to demand, of a dictatorial manner, the autonomy on ethnic criteria of the so-called Szeklerland and its breaking away from Romania?
In 1950, like today, one of the “arguments” of regionalisation was the existence of economic and social disparities between counties. But weren’t these contradictions amplified, later, by turning counties into regions, because the investments acquired an “insular” character, gravitating around the region seats, ignoring the peripheral zones? Didn’t these evolutions generate the anger and revolt of the inhabitants of Braila against the domination of Galati, the opposition of Severin to the domination of Craiova, or Vaslui against Bacau? These contradictions, with damaging effect for the national unity of the country, must be taken into consideration and avoided through thorough and long-lasting scientific analyses. Instead of these prerequisites, today’s hasty politicians pretend that the 6, 10 or 12 administrative regions would reduce the administrative expenses. But is this true? And, especially, at what cost? If, for instance, the number of school inspectorates would be reduced 4-5 times, as counties are included into regions, isn’t it obvious that the number of school units from the respective region would increase 4 or 5 times, corresponding to the cumulated counties? And wouldn’t this supposed reduction of personnel annihilate any possibility of guidance and control, any quality incentive in the educational activity? Then where will we be?
All these interrogations accuse the haste of politicians, because such initiatives like modifying the Constitution imply thorough analytical and anticipative studies, large debates also outside the Parliament and, as a corollary, a national referendum allowing citizens to express their opinion. As a consequence, the initiative launched by politicians now is a process that requires time and concentrated efforts for defining and enforcing only the best measures. This is why the saying about “haste makes waste” should be written as a ‘memento’ on the Palace of the Parliament.