weekly's Children of the Street [11.23] Constitution [10.08] Who Is Protecting Who? [08.04] Statistics [07.21] Derogations [07.07] The Mammouth [06.15] Criticism [05.25] State Theft [05.17] The "Christian" Socialism [05.09] Freedom of Speech [04.21] Circle of Power [04.16] Redistribution [04.05] Anti-corruption [03.22] CNSAS [03.15] Working Code [03.10] Health [03.03] special Romania, for whom? [05.31] Perversion of diplomacy [04.30] Iraq War [03.25]

05.25.2003

The normality of the criticism

The Romanian reality is for sure a hallucinatory one. Many times it is hard to realize if things that we see and hear do really happen, if they are only exaggerated interpretations or, at a limit, a reality parallel to the normal one. Many times, the Romanian reality is so absurd that it naturally provokes extreme attitudes:" something like this is possible only in Romania" is one of the most well known refrains, but in this capitol get also all the "arguments" which conclude that Romania is a total catastrophe, impossible to be recuperated. As a top of an irony, the summary moralists who give no more chances to Romania, may be ex- communist dignitaries or notorious corrupted persons of the transition. That - isn't it ?- seem to agrees them , meaning that Romania is a desperate place, as geometric place of international absurdity.

Yet things are not quite like this. The critics regarding Romania need all the discernment we can prove, maybe more than any other subject. At first, we don't need to take into consideration the critics of those who have no the moral right to make them. We don't have to value the critics of Adrian Nastase regarding corruption, as cannot be taken into consideration the critics of Silviu Brucan or Octavian Paler regarding the communism which they served with fidelity. Then, the radical criticisms must be seen in a reserved way. They don't have to be considered as inopportune. Any society which limits the possibility of internal criticisms is a sick society, whose consistence and develop opportunities are artificial. Unfortunately, the criticism was always marginalized in Romania , if not forbidden by law, at least bad seen and discouraged not only in politics, but also in culture. Having these would be absurd now to marginalize the criticism.

It is necessary yet as the pertinence and the possible utility of the criticism to be carefully examined , also critically. Especially those who propose themselves to contribute to the Romanian development, from any position would they do this, have to evaluate attentively the effects their critics have, because there is the risk as their virulence , however entitled, to marginalize the solutions which any criticism should propose. It is not only about the specific solutions that criticism can propose, but generally the possibility for amelioration the criticized situation. When the negative tone become black, even apocalyptic, the likely amelioration ways for the future situation have no sense anymore, because the future itself has no anymore sense. It is the example of the uncouth criticisms which the generation of 1927 (or the Criterion generation) formulated about the Romanian reality, especially about the democracy between the two Wars. That was not seen as an imperfect reality, even quite imperfect, which may be ameliorate, but as an apocalyptical situation who ask for exceptional solutions. In their case the exceptional character of the solutions stand in their totalitarian and/or mystical character, thing that contributed much to the Romanian drift after 1940, and to the present catastrophe which those critics' progenies accuse it on the same apocalyptic tone.

That's why is essential to understand as better as possible the role and the consequences of the criticisms. Not to control the others' critiques, but ours, by defining them according to the utility they should have. Of course, it is not about censoring the critiques. Everyone is free to express himself, however vehement wants to, however selfish or unfair is in his criticism. But those who assume the responsibility to bring an improvement to the Romanian situation must think about the effects of their criticisms. There is the risk to loose their greatness by making these critiques. There is also the risk as the effective solutions of improvement to be less spectacular. Being pragmatic means many time to be not interesting, but those who want to be pragmatic in order to do something palpable have to assume that risk.

We need mediocrity. Of course, it doesn't mean mediocre people to lead Romania -as actually it happens now- but "obedient" solutions meaning a real , concrete improvement, even a modest one. It may seem a paradox, but exactly this serious situation of Romania that stimulates apocalyptic critiques, asks actually for modest solutions, which don't need geniality or big courage acts, but a minimum common sense and coherence of efforts , which there are not now, unfortunately. It is not necessary to be a genius to realize that the taxes must be collected equally from all the payers, or to be a high state man not to take money from Health and give them to Unemployment. It is not a great work of administration to put asphalt on the streets as to keep more than just a season , and don't have to be mother Therese to see that is immoral as the heads from the Culture ministry to subvention their own books. It needs just a few common sense , normal decisions and normal actions. What should we propose now to our self is just the normality, with all its banality and, to the limit, with its mediocrity, better than exceptional solutions whose proposal is stimulated by the absurd situations the governors create.

Unfortunately, these situations have become so often as they seem to make the reality, that's why is so important as those who feel correct the reality as a "nightmare" to make all the possible to get out of it, even in a violent way. The last aberration of Nastase Government is the one about the declarations of wealth. A good thing, by principle, but transformed into a flout by the PSD intension of guising and not to expose the possible wealth got in an illicit way. Thus, the dignitaries have just to declare if they have accounts bigger than 10.000 Euro. Doesn't matter if it is about 11.000 or 500.000 Euro, all they have to do is to tick off the square with "more than 10.000", and there was only one parley who had, in the first phase, the decency to specify exactly how much he has more than 10.000. So, what is then the sense of declaring the wealth?

The stipulations of so-called Anticorruption Parquet are so vague under this aspect that the dignitaries were satisfied with this ridiculous declaration, that they have accounts bigger than 10.000 Euro. Some of them , more stressed, made efforts to transfer the accounts and possessions on their wives' names, because the law does not foresee also the obligation of the first degree relatives to declare the wealth, which is not normal for a settlement who should pursue the dignitaries wealth with their gain sources. That's why many didn't feel embarrassed to declare consistent wealth having yet any business from which that could be got in a licit way (for example, the minister of the Environment ).

Of course, this will have no any consequence , because the sinister joke that The Anticorruption Parquet is does not pursue in any way this confrontation. So the difference between those who non-embarrassed declared their wealth and those who made an effort to transfer on their relatives the strong cars and the big houses, remaining only with an old car and the old apartment, will be just that the last ones will seem to electors more naïve, "poor but honest". But none of the rich PSD leaders (the most of them, with rare exceptions, are rich or very rich) will not have to truly justify their wealth , in the conditions in which very few of them lead really private business , meaning profitable business on the free market, and not with the State.

What attitude can we have than , facing such an aberrant situation? We may, of course, to accentuate the moral dirt of some politic leaders who affront the electors with their wealth, which they will be never able to justify legally. It is important yet to see what can we concretely do as to change in good the situation, to make it less aberrant. Thus, the politicians who want another model of combining the politics with business than the vicious one proposed by PSD should respect, first, the normal standards in the domain. Even the law adopted by PSD by assuming the responsibility does not oblige, they could really declare their wealth , inclusive how much their accounts exceed the amount of 10.000 Euro. They could declare (and even to refuse!) the gifts which are not pure symbolic; they shouldn't prevail by the PSD law which establish the limit of 300 Euro, a limit much bigger than the one in USA and another countries in which the influence traffic it is seriously disproved. The model of power and exemplary action should be never sub estimated, as more in a country as Romania, whose politic system couldn't propose a credible model of the honest politician.

Of course, the opposition disputed the Anticorruption Parquet project, which was normally taking into consideration how absurd are its foresees and how perverse its hidden intentions. But the protest could be expressed also without PRM association. It is exactly the difference between expressing a critique at all costs taking no into consideration the long time effects, and on the other hand , an attitude which really sustains values, having a practical and moral content. Criticizing the immorality of the PSD project shouldn't imply the serious compromise of getting in alliance with PRM. It is not possible to sustain democratic values by encroaching , for this, another democratic values, or even the same values. There are principles that politic people shouldn't ever encroach , at first because so is moral, and then because this is the only way they can give substance to their actions, particularly to the manner they oppose to a corrupt force. The discursive critiques come and go. The attachment to the values, if there is, it stays and can change the society in better.

There are important distinctions which have to be done in the problem of corruption in Romania. At first, the phenomenon shouldn't be absolutized. The corruption was always serious for us, so our times are not an apocalyptic exception and does not ask for exceptional solutions; it is just necessary a pragmatic onset, trenchant also, which to dislocate the corruption and influence networks from Policy , Justice or administration. Then, the corruption has to be politically "annihilated" and uncover at individual level, case by case; there is to much generally talking and demagogical. At this moment , the power and the opposition talk just about the corrupted individuals in the other's part, and however changing the power did not get to the conviction of the "other" ' s corrupted people. To the surface the two classical parts from the Romanian policy fight violently upon corruption, actually they mutual cover one another.

So the simple critique, the "generally" critique and "from pantry", so beloved by some people it is not sufficient at all. The politic people who want to criticize the corruption
from Romania should have moral authority, which happens seldom. Then, they have to include rational and pragmatic solutions; the anticorruption campaigns type Victor Ciorbea, puerile missing of reality, are useless. Generally, the hole anticorruption discourse of the Romanian society should be bring with the foot on earth. The Internet discussions lists are filled with anticorruption diatribes. The problem is the most of them are so caricatured that they get us the perception of a fictional Romanian reality so the action problem has no sense anymore. Furthermore, even from those who weep by the apocalyptic corruption in Romania, few have the power to resist in face of the functionary who asks them for a gift.