The Democratic Party’s furious attack on Prime Minister Isarescu is perhaps the first actual sign that parties are not particularly keen about new and promising characters entering political life.
Lately, a lot of people have shown willingness to bow to idols, especially since names have been cited already. Public figures and businesspeople join committees supporting the new personalities. Former Prime Minister Stolojan is getting a lot of attention, across the country and not just in the capital city. His name has been cited even for a PDSR nomination for a top position. The name of Mugur Isarescu is being mentioned very often. His chances depend considerably on a change of economic perspective following the programme he assumed.
Both personalities have the same major advantage: they have not been officially involved with any party so far. Which, in the eyes of most of the populace, has become a valuable calling card, due to the disastrous image parties have built as they succeeded each other in governments which, for the many, have been all the same: the frustration of poverty and the defiance of corruption.
Both personalities can boast management successes. Former Premier Stolojan remained in the memory of many Romanians as a man who knew what needed to be done and who is determined in what he does. A few years ago, he managed in a short time to bring some order into an economy dangerously disorganised by the Romanian government. Mr. Isarescu is the artisan and shepherd of the post-December National Bank, the man who kept the boat of an oppressed leu afloat on the waves of the inefficient economy it represented. But both personalities have their vulnerabilities: Mr. Stolojan – the fact that the order he promoted did not extend beyond the gates, into the enterprises themselves, and that for most of the time he was on just one side of the barricade; and Mr. Isarescu, beyond the political dance under many governments, the unfortunate lack of firmness in banking supervision, which, had it been intransigent, would have limited the disaster in weighty banks, such as Bancorex, Banca Agricola and Dacia-Felix. It may be, however, that since things are clear as to current politicians’ ability, people would overlook the new politicians’ vulnerabilities, and bank only on their proven qualities.
Not least, the two personalities seem to enjoy foreign credibility – Stolojan since his employment with the World Bank, and Isarescu from the prolonged negotiations he had as governor of the National Bank with representatives of international financial institutions. Many, whether unknowing or biased, are tempted to place an equal sign between foreign credibility and representation of foreign interests, but if such talk had not existed, we would not have been in Romania. Although we must be frank and say that because of the faulty management so far, which drove the economy from bad to worse, the country’s dependency on the great economic and political powers of the world, particularly on international financial institutions, has deepened to such an extent that strictly Romanian decision making has severely less room to manoeuvre. Obviously, these power centres prefer accepted partners, but for Romania itself it is also preferable to have accepted partners, so they can obtain more favourable terms than those who, however willing and well-spirited, lack foreign credibility.
Unfortunately, these two personalities, still without a party, and others that may appear in the time to come – more or less known – will have to struggle not only with economic, political and social matters in Romania, but, much worse, with the same political formations, their immobility and inertia, their structures, their central and local leaders that are difficult or impossible to replace, their mentalities and faults, their economic clientele, accustomed to certain behaviours in years and years of post-December history, the clientele that supports the party for serious reasons and will not accept the needed change of rules or at least the indispensable “rule of law.” Parliament remains the realm of parties, and they will force a government based on their Parliament representation, according to the Constitution itself. Without political support first and foremost in Parliament, no real changes will be possible in Romania. Parliament, as the experience of post-December years has shown, has been the structure that promoted the least changes among all institutions of the state.
New figures, not only more competent but hopefully better and more honest than those who dominated the post-December political stage so far, will have to fight with, in terms of reform – because this is what they will be called to do in the country’s political and economic life – the almost irreconcilable contradiction between an efficient reallocation of resources, the very essence of reform, and the clientele-driven distribution of resources, which, for purposes of a party, a group or a person, political forces that have been in power have been practising all along, on either side of the barricade. This is the worst foe of reform, an almost impenetrable obstacle in the way of promoting it.