Premier Isarescu's dilemmas

(story to be published in tomorrow’s issue, March 14)

From the moment he accepted the job as Prime Minister, Mugur Isarescu was faced with dilemmas that so far have offered no obvious solution. Especially since Mugur Isarescu has to steer through a crisis where he is the manager, willingly or not. Running the government as a technocrat on the last run of the mandate, which also includes the election campaign, which no politician will refuse, requires a stubborn determination for the priorities the entire Cabinet has taken on. If we recall the statements of the politicians in power when the Isarescu government was formed, the commitments they took then did not foresee the crisis that today seems set to break the coalition apart. Perhaps Mr. Isarescu himself did not imagine then that the government alliance would hang on a thread only two months later – before this year’s budget is adopted and at the very moment when Romania begins accession talks with the European Union. Perhaps even the most pessimistic scenario could not have foreseen that the post-Helsinki euphoria would end in several weeks’ time, and statements that year 2000 would bring responsibility to the political class would be overturned before the electoral show is made official by the campaign. If the government coalition really breaks apart, what will Mugur Isarescu do? Will he remain the Prime Minister of a Government with a Parliament minority? When he started off hand in hand with this alliance, Isarescu said he had to manage the medium-term EU accession strategy, to adopt the budget and prepare this year’s elections. The politicians in the alliance, along with President Constantinescu, presented Isarescu as the guarantor of negotiations with the European Union and international financial institutions – the World Bank and IMF. They also said Isarescu was the person that can represent us best in the relationship with these institutions, where the Romanian style of working is not accepted. It was also said that the government would at last lay the foundation of economic development. If the CDR-USD-UDMR cohabitation were to end now, what will he be able to say his Prime Minister mandate has contained? The state budget, now in Parliament, will probably pass unhindered, even if PD pulls out or is removed from government. Because the party led by Petre Roman said it would vote for it, and because the Opposition, aside from criticising it, will not oppose it. The EU accession strategy, however it turns out to be, will not slam into con votes in Parliament. No party that says we need to join the good EU family will help its image by opposing a plan that lays the set for accession. But regardless of how many boxes a Prime Minister can check under the achievements and failures section of his mandate, Mugur Isarescu will not be able to keep a distance from the current crisis. No matter how hard Mr. Isarescu tries to distinguish between his statute as a technocrat and his role as Government head, politicians will draw him into the dispute. From the first moment, PD demanded Isarescu to lay off Babiuc. Then came the demands from PN?CD and PNL, which suggested he should intervene – either to pronounce about Frunzaverde, or to mediate the conflict. President Constantinescu, too, asked Isarescu to summon coalition leaders and quickly deal with the crisis. Although the Prime Minister asked his leaders to let him act as a technocrat at the lead of a political Government (which functions according to the algorithm), they rushed to establish the technical terms of Isarescu’s collaboration with the alliance. And they probably won’t, so long as they think only of the electoral capital that could run out if fewer people are found responsible. The Constitution defines the prerogatives of a Government head, and Mugur Isarescu has clearly said that in the question of Babiuc the decision is the coalition leaders’ alone. But, being the politicians they are, they did not exhaust the subject (which seems not to have been the real subject of the conflict) and visited the Victoria palace once again, not to resolve the crisis but to deepen it. Isarescu was supposed to call off Babiuc and nominate Frunzaverde, as the PD asked? This would mean he would use the instruments offered by the Constitution. Had he used them, he would have pleased only some of the politicians, and anyway it would have been a late gesture, since PD was saying at the time that it was considering exiting government. Wouldn’t this be a political gesture from a technocrat? As long as PNL, first of all, and PN?CD, have conditioned Babiuc’s replacement with the law adoption protocol, doesn’t this mean that PD is aiming for something else than replacing the Defence Minister? How could Isarescu act in this conflict without being charged of taking sides? And particularly, how can he keep away from personal and party pride or pre- and post-electoral political interest? Now, Isarescu stands before the second meeting between leaders. But since PD or PNL do not seem interested in having the problem solved, what will Isarescu do? Will he ask them to strike a line between the political problems of government, the scandals, arrogance and priorities that have prompted him to join them in December? Or will he let himself be dragged into a story that will not end even beyond the elections? Perhaps it is the time when, if the politicians cannot foresee an end to the scandals, Isarescu should put into the equation the exact terms and conditions under which he collaborates with a Cabinet that is too political for the priorities of a responsible government.