Although the second round of the locals is still ahead, most parties are already looking closely at the legislative elections. The countdown has begun, and the first round on June 4 failed to sort things out. Despite its score, PDSR still lacks the guarantee that the story will repeat in the autumn. Even so, Ion Iliescu’s party can still be stopped in its tracks by a widened alliance. Situations like this have happened before and are feasible in our country, despite the coalition’s bellicose and harmful experience in the last four years.
In fact, several parties are already offering assorted alliances. To add credibility, they submit their “own analysis” of the first round and draw the conclusions that are favourable to them. But, at least in what has surfaced so far, an unbelievable hubbub seems to reign: PN?CD says in 2000 it won CDR’s elections of 1996, PNL has an eye on a Convention controlled by Liberals and another on a centre-left alliance, UFD eventually agrees to mingle with more left-of-centre people, such as ApR. What lies behind the apparently chaotic offers? What are the parties calculating? The answers to these questions will affect us for at least four years ahead, if not for longer.
First, PN?CD becomes singled out again through its decisive “no” to change. They talk nostalgically of a victorious Convention. They want to rebuild a structure from a remote, politically even prehistoric past: the ’90 Convention, when UDMR was under the same umbrella with historic parties and civic organisations. The only changes the Christian Democrats seem to accept are two grafts: one in 1996 – when it attracted the UFD, which later left CDR in 1998 – and a principle agreement with the two parties that left off from PN?CD – ANCD and PPDR.
Perhaps the Christian Democrats are saying this only to save the appearances, because it helps them avoid talking of this year’s failure. Or maybe it is for real, and then it is proof of the party’s incapacity to adapt to changes on the political arena. Or maybe it’s a flop, like so many others.
Anyway, the CDR message was heard with only one year by each party that was meant to hear it. Because for parties such as PNL and UFD, CDR has already become the last variant. They’ve given out clear signals that they won’t accept falling under PN?CD subordination again, in an inert organisation whose rules are from a different time. They won’t take Christian Democrats’ permanent blackmail – either with a failed experience (PNL’s failure to enter Parliament in 1992, when it left CDR), or with young age (UFD was founded in 1996 and would not have made it to Parliament had it not used the Convention’s ticket). They won’t accept superiority treatment, especially now, when everyone comes with their own electoral base, while PN?CD fell back visibly.
PNL, in fact, is playing on both ends. The common element of the two plans, however, is to acquire as good a status as possible. According to Valeriu Stoica, the Liberals want either a Convention where it has the key levers, or an alliance with PN?CD and ApR that would present joint lists and a single presidential candidate. Such a coalition would be CDR’s death certificate and the confirmation of PN?CD’s supremacy wish. Parties that would accept this formula would negotiate their power positions depending on current conditions; negotiations would not begin with predetermined hierarchies, unlike the Convention.
ApR, too, is playing on two fronts. It flirts with one and another, but does not hesitate to give out a more conclusive signal, because in both cases it would have something to win. In a centre-right alliance, it would “wash off” its PDSR past. The formula worked fairly well with PD. In an alliance with PDSR, chances to get to power seem better. The same policy is harboured by PD, which can easily walk away from a centre-right alliance into one with PDSR, which, with its arrival, would become centre-left rather than left. The problem is that PDSR is too uncomfortable as a coalition partner, because it uses its partners rather than cooperate with them.
UFD is also displaying a more flexible tone. Three years after the Manifesto of the Right, when it squarely refused any collaboration with the left, now UFD is accepting to talk with ApR. Reasons of doctrine? No, political reasons.
If we were to draw the line and add the numbers, the result would be that, aside from PN?CD, all the other parties are preparing the ground, looking for new formulas. The Christian Democrats are deficient here, but this is not to say their offer is more concrete than the others’. In fact, the second conclusion is that these parties seem undecided as to where to go. They are still testing the waters. Or perhaps they have decided, but are not telling.
Anyhow, the following period will be a genuine nuptial season, of a crucial importance for each party. Because their future is being decided now. Power or opposition, a referee’s role or marginalisation – the alternatives leave no room for half-measures.