It is moral to state aloud what you are, it is moral to be consistent in affirming your own beliefs, it is moral to think in the long run, it is moral to affirm your own identity. It is moral to have the courage to say you are different from the others, even if the others represent, for the time being, the majority.“The repeated appeal to Article 53, when the Government has done absolutely nothing to overcome the crisis shows that the Romanian state is a failed state”
The Horia Rusu Foundation has organised a debate about the quality of democracy in Romania, to which politicians, political analysts, economists and journalists have been invited.
Most participants wondered whether or not Article 53 ought to be kept in the new Constitution, given that it is a dangerous tool in the hands of authorities which may have excessive tendencies.
Prime Minister Emil Boc assumed responsibility for the austerity measures of his government and is now faced with a motion of censure and the fear that his own party might betray him.
In order to justify slashing salaries and pensions, the PDL president has invoked an article of the Constitution which is invoked only in case of war, coups d’état, public danger or terrorism. Thus, the Government declines any responsibility for the economic state of the country and declares itself incapable of providing solutions. Even grimmer seems the answer to the question: why do we still need a government, if it is incapable of solving a crisis unless by curtailing the freedoms of its citizens? Is this the failure of a state?
The Horia Rusu Foundation has invited its guests to answer a few questions inspired by the events of the last few weeks and which interrogate about the very quality of the Romanian democracy:
1. How did the pensioners, the unemployed, the doctors and teachers become dangerous for the security of the state?
2. Can the solution of Article 53 be adopted also in the case of large-scale strikes or manifestations against authorities?
3. Which are the instruments individuals possess to react to abuses perpetrated by public authorities?
4. Is the citizen educated enough to claim his rights?
5. How is the citizen formed for the democratic life?
6. What sort of state do we wish to have?
7. What unites us, Romanians, nowadays?
A synthesis of declarations may be found below:
Dinu Zamfirescu, vice-president of the Horia Rusu Foundation:
Resistance to oppression is one of the fundamental rights of the individual. Much ado is being made about Article 53, while ignoring Article 47, which demands that the State provides its citizens a decent standard of living. In one of the articles of the Declaration of Human Rights, it is mentioned that one of the fundamental rights of the individual is resistance to oppression. And the oppression initiated by the current president is increasingly visible.
Gheorghe Piperea, member of the Commission for a New Constitution, initiated by the Horia Rusu Foundation:
Authorities consider us all as potential criminals.
Our authorities lie to us and only now admit it. There was a legislative project, which allowed individuals to place themselves under the protection of tribunals against abuses from banks or fiscal authorities, but it has been blocked in the Chamber of Deputies, because the government has promised the IMF this would not happen. The fiscal authorities consider us all as potential criminals.
Radu Călin Cristea, political analyst:
A new Constitution ought to avoid all those articles or formulae which may allow authoritarian tendencies to gain ground.
We may expect an evolution with much worse effects because of poverty. This, combined with poor democratic education, creates a fertile soil for dictatorial actions. Some politicians even claim that authoritarianism may be the salvation of our nation in this moment. They say that a confused nation needs now an iron fist to guide it. A new Constitution ought to avoid any phrases which may allow even a hint of authoritarianism to take hold.
Bogdan Glăvan, economic analyst:
Solidarity does not mean covering other people’s mistakes. This is an attack on my right to property.
Government policy is an attack against my right to property, and I can give you two examples – the agreement with the IMF and the public pensions system. The agreement with the IMF is profoundly detrimental, as it institutes the privileges of a certain economic sector (banks) over others. So long as I respect the bank’s property right, the bank must respect me in turn. I am not guilty for their crisis – they should overcome ir on their own. The IMF agreement has placed a debt of 5000 euros on the shoulders of every working Romanian.
Ion Ioniţă, journalist:
The measures to restrict individual rights will be extended beyond 1st of January 2011. There is a danger that Article 53 may become a permanent presence.
Bogdan Glăvan, analist economic:
The crisis is no accident, but it results from systems such as the public pension system.
Not just reducing pensions by 15% is an attack on the right to property, but the public pensions system in itself is an attack to my property. A simple calculation: how long do we work? For approximately 40 years, paying about a third of our income. That means that, after 40 years of work, I should be able to enjoy 12 years staying at home on full wage. Well, what do we get? Life expectancy in Romania is 72 years. We receive barely a quarter of the money we have deposited in the Pensions Fund.
Emil Constantinescu: Former President of Romania
The guilt for what happens now in Romania belongs to intellectual elites and to the civil society.
In my opinion, this is not an economic crisis, it is a nervous breakdown. Certainly, behind the economic crisis there is a moral crisis, for which the intellectual elites are responsible. This prevents us from thinking clearly. The second factor is represented by mentalities. The democratic mindset is in a much worse off now than in 1990. Who is to blame? The citizen? No. It is the fault of the intellectual elites and of the civil society. If members of the civil society have authoritarian nostalgia, how can we blame ordinary people?
Simina Tănăsescu, member of the Commission for a New Constitution:
In order to adopt a new constitution, we must first determine a few common objectives, something that would determine us to act in concert.
Daniel Barbu, member of the Commission for a New Constitution:
A Constitution must be loved, it must arouse passions. Societies are held together by Constitutions and by the major systems of social cohesions – the public healthcare, public education and public pensions systems.
Raymond Luca, senator Partidul Naţional Liberal:
I have listened with surprise the claims made by Mr. Barbu. In the US, everybody knows that the public pensions system will collapse in 2041 and nobody is frightened by the perspective. I also wonder about the idea of loving the Constitution. I wonder not how loved by its citizens is our Constitution, but to what extent we are citizens at all.
Bogdan Dima, PhD candidate at the Law School, University of Bucharest, member of the Commission for a New Constitution:
The current crisis is good for three reasons: it allows us to unite and resist on the civic front, the opposition parties have an opportunity to demonstrate their political competence and we can give new meaning to our Constitution.
„The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” (Thomas Jefferson)
The Democrat-Liberal Party, whose unofficial slogan is „shut your mouth!” did it again: following the public declarations of some preeminent members of ...
read more
The government coalition is terrified. The protests which will take place today in Bucharest, and which will gather around 80,000 people according to their organizers, are described by the government ...
read more
RSS Articles