0.1 C
January 27, 2023

Pleading for dialogue

It would have been both natural and necessary at the inflamed meaningless political quarrels were ended after the election. Regardless of the success or failure in the recent election, each member of any political party and even more the leaders ought to devote themselves to an inter-party dialogue and mainly to the dialogue between the ruling coalition and the Opposition. Whilst during the election campaign the ‘combatants’ tend to see only themselves and reject anything that comes from outside their own formation, the post-electoral stage is one where enounced ideas could take shape irrespective of their origin. An even richer life as the one who succeeded in election now has both the time and the responsibility to analyze the Opposition’s concrete proposals in an objective manner. Or, better said, of the former Opposition. Because it would be both natural and necessary that every post-electoral stage should be dominated by a spirit of organic cooperation and synthesis. Something of the core of the Romanian ensemble is found in the philosophy of every political formation and this is exactly why the first responsibility of the winners in an election is to transfer positive proposals into an organic synthesis, favorable to the entire country and not just to those who came to power.

It would be both natural and necessary that the social dialogue should not need today a plea in its favour. Knowing that dialogue is a fundamental feature of the civilized, active and responsible person. This is why dialogue, as an organic need for communication and knowledge, grows and increases in importance commensurately with the complexity of human society. This is why dialogue is the main way of living together and surviving in the 21st century. A century already attested to as being as complex as it is contradictory, with extreme outbursts of all kinds, which only dialogue can avoid or at least attenuate. Democratically, the freedom of speech manifests itself and justifies itself first by dialogue. In the absence of dialogue, any community, any social structure risks cultivating characteristics that are contrary to the objectives it identifies with at least theoretically. It therefore risks transforming into its opposite.

It is exactly this risk that lurks down on Romanian society nowadays, a society where political dialogue no longer meets the organic communication, knowledge needs, the need to poll efforts towards strategic objectives of national importance. The political dialogue today is facing an ab initio declination, a rejection of a possible interlocutor even before knowing him/her.

The current state of political discord could at least be mitigated, if not excluded, by the decisions frequently requested of the Constitutional Court. But such decisions do not always meet unanimity or at least the majority of two thirds of the members of the body. Which only amplifies an older dispute over the structure and specific vocation for the fundamental institutions of the state. A dispute which indeed also exists in Western countries in the EU, whose public opinion gravitate around the idea that such institutions should not have a political nature. However, in Western countries, such a dispute is not accompanies by the seriousness and scorn that is often seen in Romania, because in those countries the long-standing democratic tradition has leveled down many of the asperities of the political fight.

In Romania, on the other hand, where political crises cascade down, they sometimes end up blocking parliamentary activity, the alternative that is currently gaining ground is different – that the composition of the legislative structure should not include people ‘agreed to’ by political parties, as it often is the case today, but the most competent and prestigious exponents of Romania’s judicial practice. In the absence of such a meritocratic selection, one member of the Constitutional Court, for example, could hold the ‘golden vote’ in the decisions adopted with a score of 5 to 4 member 9 members. It is this ‘golden vote’ that fuels the suspicions about the independence and objectiveness of that constitutional body.

Such suspicions, with their unfortunate consequences, come from all political parties, but only when they are in the Opposition. Once they come to power, they make a U-turn and become defenders of everything that they previously denounced. We remember how members of the Boc Government, starting with the ex-PM, accused years on end the habit of pushing bills through Parliament by taking responsibility over them, eluding regular parliamentary debating. The same Boc Government, immediately after acquiring a majority in Parliament, took responsibility for most draft laws, including a much challenged Education bill. Why this government rush to push an organic law, that was still under parliamentary debate? Because of the absence of a political dialogue of substance seeking to pull efforts together rather than dissociate them.

This is where our major issue comes from – the absence of solidarity, of joint effort through absence of dialogue. We are Christian, we are merciful, we give our own shirt away to help ‘other’, but when it comes to ‘our own’ people, people with whom we share a language and a faith, we are divided by discord and we fail in the slightest attempt of solidarity. The only exceptions to this rule are tragic events. But we should we only be brought closer together by grief? Why can’t we show solidarity in order to prevent grief?

It is from the content of these interrogations that the necessary plea for dialogue is sourced!



Related posts

Automotive chips crisis likely to continue next year


Ukraine : A global test

Financial wellbeing: That’s what Romanians really feel about money and saving behaviour, Revolut study reveals