Candidate’s Victor Ponta rhetoric of campaign re-launched the national unity theme. It is suggested to us that after a century of national unitary state, the Romanians are more disunited than ever. It’s not a new remark, some have suggested it over time that Romanians obsession for unity – in the sense of ethnic homogeneity – denotes the vulnerability of a too artificial state, too primarily due to sharp cultural differences between regions. Even the press these days reinforces the impression of significant divergences detailing regionally the vote of the successive post-communist elections, the resulting image being one of more Romanians, each of them with other desired president .
Rhetoric of the current premier team does not refer to a geo-cultural unification. In fact, Romanians social-democrats were among the most efficient gravediggers of regionalism – understood as a stream to stimulate development resources from political and regional cultural identities.
The latest proof is really inefficient legacy of one of the favorites to prime minister office (in the case of the current PM electoral victory), commissioned in recent years just with a regionalist reform delayed by a quarter of a century. The only social-democrat leader concerned with the regionalist politics was former Minister Vasile D‚ncu, which tested at a time, together with Ioan Rus, reactions to a political manifesto of such a bill.
Otherwise, there was no question of a balance between the different regional traditions, but it was invoked the myth of a strong unity itself. Social-democrat regime was, in fact, a special combination of centralism and neo-feudalism system, of policies targeted indiscriminately and with carelessly adaptations, doubled by the reactionary spirit of regional political dynamics, dominated discretionary by so-called ìlocal baronsî. îUnityî has meant from the party’s political perspective, the perpetuation of an arrogant political caste, with mechanisms of selection inevitably corrupting and a complicated specific system of dualities.
But to what kind of division is then the reference made ? Obviously it’s denying the political heritage of Traian Basescu (who, incidentally, will not participate in this election).He would have been the great ‘divisive`, he who has cultivated a widespread conflict, perversely implementing the îdivide et imperaî principle. We must recognize that it’s a well-targeted criticism. President Basescu wanted a big presidential party, a project that ultimately failed, but that put him in conflict with all, conflict originally based on popularity. He attacked the political class in corpore, ridiculed the parliamentary institution, has caused significant splits in all parties. In short, a truly sterile and permanent conflict state. But it’s hilarious to say that Victor Ponta is the athlete of consensus.
He inherited a party quite exhausted, with the former leaders scared of the past and fear of the prison, with new figures more than mediocre, a party that survives more because of its identity of single serious representative of the left than due to innovation or ideological re launch. A party that came to power because of the social traumas accumulated after austerity imposed by the predecessors to decline Basescu’s era.
But the rhetorical call to ìthe greater unityî recalls an older electoral trick, the one with that helped Ion Iliescu to be promoted as a president more protective and paternalistic, at the antipode of those leaders willing to make discriminatory experiments.
In fact, the default message would be: everyone would benefit from such a president. A demagogic message, obviously. With so much as political realism presumes the acceptance of the conflicts condition as inherent. But not all confrontations are equivalent. Some are invented in the laboratory, others occur uncontrollably, but the most can be channeled in one direction or another. In fact, the political talent expresses itself, decisively, also with the ability to capitalize creatively a conflict. Invoking the conflicts resolution is just an ordinary anesthetic used through speculation of undefined fears.
Another rhetorical artifice is also to recall the ìpride of being Romanianî. But social-democrats have not been remarked over time, for example, with very strong positions in the EU, as did other members, still new. Why Romanians are a voice so little heard? Among those put at the corner by Victor Ponta’s current rhetoric are those Romanians not so ìgoodî those who rather preferred to criticize (or just to relativize) the country and the people than to exalt its qualities and importance.
In fact, just contradicting the strong cultural identity, some Romanians have managed to impose themselves in globalized culture today. But Victor Ponta rhetoricians prefer to win rural voters – proof and folk-inspired decorative graphics on some of the posters – and also the votes of the ìproletarianî class who is disappointed by fluctuations in availability of the West to accept them on its labor market. Only they are sensitive to the obsolete paradigm of national pride as effective economic engine.
If we are lucid, we rather observer how the Romanian social-democrats have promoted a brutal discrimination: first they were reactionaries, causing the first post-communist migration big wave (also due to miners’ violence used by the than rulers as popular militias against the opposition); they have cultivated an extreme system of politicization of society, artificially controlling the social dynamics; they promoted a nationalism that made responsible, in turn, the students, the capitalists, the intellectuals, the immigrants, etc.
Victor Ponta is just a trivial ìwolf in a sheep clothesî, an alleged anti-conflict consensualist.