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]

04.05.2003

Governing at random

One of the essential problems of the modern societies, maybe the most important one, is the redistribution of the resources. The simply reason is that, beyond material commonplace interests, it is also about justice, and the citizens feel they are at home or not in their own country also depending by how there it is materialized the justice.

But, Romania is one of the European countries which distinguishes it self by the almost totally missing of the criterions in redistribution of the resources, along all the post-communist governments. The only criterion which may be followed somehow constantly in the big governments programs is the unhappy one of the equalitarianism; beyond these tendencies of forced social equalizing yet, it remains a territory of arbitrary discrimination. On a hand, it is not followed the moral principle - so natural - to redistribute also according to the contribution size, that is according to the merit, on the other hand it is not succeeding in settling universal norms based on certain reasons having the majority consent; because of the large society carelessness, these norms remain arbitraries, and just because nobody knows if they do represent the majority options or don't, neither exist the mechanism,- meaning the motivation and the necessary resources to ameliorate them. The arbitrary and discriminatory settles, which include only the willing of some government agents who action more instinctively , based on a social emphatic "contract", constitute unfortunately even the deep substance of the Romanian state.

As an example, the pensions endure a process of equalization, by differentiate indexation (even if the logical motivation is the inflation), on the other hand their amounts vary grotesquely according to the retiring moment; or, it's hard to imagine a most arbitrary discrimination criterion , except those regarding the race, ethnic or sex. The social programs of building dwelling for young people are also deeply discriminatory: it is not ensured the equal access for all those in need (which would be absolutely compulsory, even if this treatment equality should decrease the subvention rate), but there is built a ridiculous small number of dwellings, whose distribution- inevitably arbitrary - obliges to corruption; moreover, there are granted subventions and grounds from public propriety to build houses of about 50-60.000$, something absolutely aberrant in any way. Finally, the same arbitrary and discriminatory character may be followed on the huge majority of the government programs or taxes system, from the program of putting thermo insulated windows and dwellings compulsory insurances to the confused and abusive settlements of the global tax.

So, this discussion refers only secondary at the too much higher taxes level in Romania - which results from the impossibility of conceiving a justly system, based on clear, transparent principles; getting from them we should understand why it collects more from some and less from the other, why some receive more and who certain are those receiving more (of course, also as a result of discriminatory taxes collection). The high taxes level it is evidently linked to the equalitarianism tendencies, but deeply it is consubstantial with the arbitrary character of government acts, deprived by principles and values which to make the object of a control, and then of a social accord. That is why, the high taxes level in Romania is not even a left one, which is obvious by the fact that its finality is not coherent equalitarianism, but more discriminatory; moreover, the so -called 'left government' even does not take into consideration social categories which, in a socialist vision, should benefit the most by the budget resources, as the street children. The high taxes level is thus, close to the semi-inequality state promoted even by the governs, one of the clauses which preserve a confused situation, also social and politic, and from which take advantages the social and politic "tips".

This is also the general pattern for the initial decision of Nastase government to limit the children rising pay granted to young mothers. That decision was as first absurdly equalitarianism, even more absurd then the communist system measures, system which allowed to a certain extent a differentiation of the incomes, even unofficial; couldn't be yet a real left measure, because it just arbitrary limited the big incomes, without rising up the small ones by this decreasing.

It should get to the absurd situation that a woman with a raised income might contribute at the social insurances budget with bigger amounts than those she got back. Moreover, the new settlement cancelled retroactive the effects of the previous law, meaning cancelled the payments to those mother who paid for at least 6 months at the social insurances budget. This arbitrary kind of the govern act made by the problem of mothers' pay an emergency situation , in which the dramatic evolutions impose radical solutions taken on the moment (which is obvious absurd); unfortunately this government, as the previous ones, has not even a 6 months time horizon for the decisions it takes.

The previous law was in itself questionable, because it offered the possibility to obtain a substantial pay with a minimal 6 months contribution, therefore neither it had a social character. Unfortunately yet, because of the arbitrary kind of govern, this law was not rationally fined, but, on a hand it was retroactive cancelled, which is against all the modern contractual principles, and on the other hand it is replaced by an abusive settlement. In all the European countries, the pay offered to mother is proportional to the salary. The European convention in the domain settles a maternity leave of minimal 14 weeks, which is yet longer in some countries (especially in the Scandinavian ones); in this leave period it is given a percent usually of about 100% from the salary.

It would be therefore reasonable to discuss if the Romanian state can stand to stipend mothers for two years, especially those with small dues. It is possible this to surpass the Romanian budget resources, especially a drained one by corruption and chronic inefficiency; on the other hand, the comparison with the European states must not necessarily lead to this conclusion. It may be or not a paradox, but the poorest countries usually has to spend more for social protection than the richest ones. In the developed countries, where the personal welfare is high, there are some other protection resorts (private savings, private insurances etc.) which just let everyone to administrate the founds, public administrated here. The scope is a better and a more directly administration, without intervention from the state, by which anyone may enjoy of his earnings (precisely that's why the brutal leveling of the Nastase government is so absurd and anti European); at the same time, the unemployed and the other people in need benefit by help from the state, but of course not to the same level as the ones who work.

We believe that a protection longer than 14 weeks for parents is necessary in Romania, but the term and the percent of the pay must be settled realistic and principled, not by immediately ordinances given over the night and fined also over night, few days later. Anyway, it has to be a percent, not a fix amount. The Minister of Work and Social Solidarity has proven a cynicism which unfortunately is not even surprising when he said that the new pay will not affect the birth rate, having the argument that people want children as a joy for them, not for the money.

This is an elementary sophism. Of course the normal people do not have children for money, but the modern society people, especially ones from the superior segments who were brutally stroked by the Nastase government decision, want to offer to their children the best conditions, of which most of them didn't benefit in the childhood; it is a normal and legitimate wish. That's why; the decreasing of the birth rate only in a certain social segment implies by the absurd government decision gets also an obvious politic connotation.

More than anything , we believe it is necessary as the govern style in Romania to be radically transformed, as the measures taken by the Govern not to speculate anymore the missing of the society retort, and especially not to ignore anymore this retort if it surpass a certain limit; it is completely absurd as a government to transform in decisions al the ideas it comes over night, ideas produced by a mixture of personal interests, perverse values and approximate politic skills, and the govern act to be constituted by all these decisions, minus the ones the government takes back because the civil society protests were too strong and to expensive for its image. It is degrading for each of us.

This mode of fining an initial decision followed to the civil society protests is the extremely serious symptom of a chaotic govern, who administrate the crisis at the damage functioning level, and who can not offer a future to the Romanian society. Although at first the government announced it will go back to the payments proportioned to the salary, later on it decided only the simply postponement of initial decision application ,in conditions of replacing the limitation with an absolute equalization. Actually, what the Nastase government does is to delay on undefined term the Romanian government to minimum acceptable standards.

That is why we need a new kind of govern, which to produce measures based on principles, not arbitrary measures, therefore able to be ameliorated, because they express values that may be discussed and submitted to many forms of public control. We need a new kind of governance able to represent more than those who govern.