Politicians defend their privileges

One of the fashionable subjects in the last two Parliament sessions has been the reform of the parliament system. Parties big and small dashed to submit to the press assorted ideas as to how the ideal Parliament should look like. Even more, commissions in the two Chambers have received legislative initiatives to that end. On the other hand, a single amendment has been approved so far – importantly, by ordinance – the lifting of the electoral threshold to 5% for parties and 5% plus 3% plus a 1% multiple for alliances. In the same government session that issued this ordinance, another proposal by the Ministry of the Public Function, to cut Lower House size by 50, was doomed to fail. Cause: lack of political support. Why all this haggling when the need to reform the Parliament system has been discussed for so long?

The first thing we should note is the background against which negotiations take place and proposals are launched. There is a profound grudge about the way the Romanian Parliament works. Beyond the political games parties are making and beyond the salary issue, which has stuck to Romanians’ minds, Parliament’s greatest problem is that it has become a genuine resort for the incompetent. A journalist accredited in Parliament can draw up a generic picture of these characters who will never evolve into personalities, but who nevertheless have learned one thing: that they deserve respect by virtue of function alone. Some of them come up with a new idea every single day, others can barely wait for Tuesday (in the Lower House) to talk to an empty room about the subjects bothering them, mostly petty territorial conflicts, especially with ministers who came in the way of their business, others go to a commission session, and upon conclusion are unable even to say what was discussed there, or they make suppositions and say nothing but rubbish; and there are some who prefer dozing off anonymously or seeing to their personal business, leaving the quorum to waste.

The laws these individuals make are just as bad. The Legislative Council has criticised in its report the flaws in documents passed by Parliament, businessmen complain of the same problem, and ordinary Romanians no longer trust Parliament.

Therefore, for a good public image, any party enjoys talking about Parliament reform, but what about doing it? Parties would lose their present privileges. For instance, a drop in the number of deputies – as the Ministry of the Public Function attempted – would mean less positions for all parties that will have representatives in the House this fall. That is, less privileges, less people to finance parties or do favours to their leaders. The battle would have been even more fierce. What difference would it make then that billions would have been saved? None at all. It’s the state’s money, not the parties’.

In any case, the ordinance would not have reformed the Lower House, it would merely equal a personnel downsizing in the economy. “Starting November 2000, we no longer hire 343 deputies, but only 285,” would be the poster on the Parliament Palace door. It would be nothing but a patchy measure, like any other.

Parties would have lost so many more privileges would the parliament system really change. A single-chamber Parliament, a uni-nominal, mixed or preferential vote are just as many ways to select those who will occupy Parliament seats, where the electorate will have a word, above politicians’ priorities.

Perhaps Parliament reform will follow the same sinuous road as economic reform. It will remain on everyone’s lips – especially with the autumn election campaign coming – but concrete measures will come trickling. But what is going to happen when this necessity becomes an empty phrase, devoid of content?