EDITORIAL

Electoral political ballet

We have arrived to the moment when, according to our innate tendencies, and I am referring here to the Romanian attitude on how things are supposed to be done in order to work not necessarily fine, a new dispute was created at national level among various levels of power, and more recently, it concerned the topic of changing the electoral law.

Apparently, this dispute was born among Liberals, whose voice, obviously, rose showing discontentment to the present version of the electoral law concerning choosing Mayors in one round.

So far, also apparently, Social-Democrats constantly insisted that the electoral law could not be changed or, more precisely changed again, as less than a year has passed since the last time they did change it.

According to specific laws, the changes operated at that time concerning the law are on deadline, as far as the possibility to change electoral laws is concerned. Because, just as I have said it before, this law cannot be modified in any way later than a year before the start of a new electoral year. We have already started an electoral year; local elections are due in spring and parliamentary elections in autumn

As all of these are very clear, at this point, in January 2016, political parties have reached a point of critical convergence, because Liberals want to change this law. It is an illegal change, although Liberals had held at that time the leading position in the Common Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate for the Electoral Code.

Therefore, the new stipulations of the Electoral Law were introduced under Liberal auspices, in their full awareness and control. Social-Democrats positioned themselves in the maintenance area of the present form that stipulates one voting round for Mayors on the logical claims that it is legally impossible to change this law at this point.

Here, two elements intervene, that are as interesting as they are worrying. One of them is Prime Minister Dacian Ciolos’ position and the second is President Iohannis’ opinion on this matter.
Yesterday, PM Ciolos revealed he was highly discontent and irritated by the iea that someone would push him into issuing an emergency ordinance to change an important law of the state, considering that this gesture of pressure from one party or another is a severely assault on the apolitical and technocrat image of the Government he is leading. A Government that, mind you, was not appointed politically, but by popular will and, therefore, it is directly responsible before the popular will, not to the whims and fantasies of political parties.

Less than three days have passed since his latest statement and now Mr. Dacian Ciolos suddenly makes a strange pirouette, to Mr. Klaus Iohannis, who has silentio stampa so far and in front of this new act of political ballet, he issues statements that are radically opposed to the previous ones:

“We study all possibilities. (Dacian Ciolos)

“The idea of electing Mayors in two voting rounds is obviously great. The question is whether the law can be changed in such a short time before elections. It is a decision that belongs to the parliamentary parties and obviously, to a certain extent, to the Government. I wish them to find the wisest solution”. (Klaus Iohannis),

Obviously, all this cacophony of political and apolitical orchestras is completed from behind by the opinions of the chairmen of ALDE, UNPR, etc., suddenly awakened in the midst of this scandal.

The questions that rise from now on and that concern us, Romanian citizens, who are expected to vote this year in two important sets of elections, would be the following ones:

Could anyone, of any side of a power within a state, regardless of its name, discuss any possible change or amendment in the text of a law, outside its legal deadline?

Is Government that gained the power due to unimaginable human sacrifice, that will definitively place their stigma on November 2015 for the entire Romanian nation from now on, a Government that declares itself as apolitical and technocrat in an utopian fashion, allowed to discuss in an obviously political position about negotiations with political groups of power and interest named parties on an essential law that concerns, first of all, the options of Romanian citizens for anything named social and its consequences on this country?

Is the President of this country who, constitutionally, should be positioned above any form of politics and political attitude, allowed to express such opinion, thus inclining the balance of political power by a more or less direct verbal veto in the interest of a political group or another?

And last but not least, where are WE in this obviously political game of electoral agreements? Based on the electoral law or outside of it.

Where are the public debates we are constantly promised since the dismissal of the Ponta Government, precisely due to the fact that it was obviously a Government focused exclusively on the needs of the political game with oligarchic tendencies and with a separation nearing isolation to all aspects of public and social reality?

Where is the communication channel promised not only by Dacian Ciolos, as Head of the new Government, that expresses popular will and that represents a mediator between a President promoted similarly as an emanation of popular will and political games of the Parliament, as used as a tool for both the President and the Government ascending to power?

Does Liviu Dragnea represent popular will?

Does Alina Gorghiu represent popular will?

Does Calin Popescu Tariceanu represent popular will?

Does Gabriel Oprea represent popular will?

Is PM Dacian Ciolos supposed to discuss with these people the existence of one voting round or two, and any other things that concern Romanian citizens? It is a question that concerns directly Mr. President Iohannis, too.

Or does the fear of a motion of censure, by which the parties may not only punish, jeopardize but also blackmail this Government represent the only orientation mark for the present Government and for President Klaus Iohannis, who sees it as property and a benefit?

Let us hope for concrete and immediate answers to these questions as I think they are not only mine, but they also belong to all Romanians in this country that are truly interested by what happens and especially by what we would be visibly and, most of all, invisibly demanded to do.

Related posts

One crucial week

The draught of Romanian governments

The tempest