PNTCD’s failure in the recent locals demands that a few heads should roll. Someone, even if not directly responsible, should be held accountable, and responsibility does not belong to people but to a complex of factors. But one rule of the democratic game, in democratic countries, is that the lead people should be taking the blame. Something of the kind was also asked for in PN?CD, but the revolution, as they say, lasted for a day. And it ended up in nothing of the kind, on the contrary, the present leadership received a sort of confidence vote. And, more importantly, a renewed blank cheque to organise the party’s election campaign in view of the autumn confrontation.
Such a roadblock in the way of change could simply devour the party as the electorate perceives its inability to escape harmful inertia and degrading stalls.
The reality is so ruthless on the PN?CD that it may deny the party even the opportunity of changing the leadership, despite a deplorable failure in the locals.
What could the new leadership do? It could criticise the failure, analyse the causes and establish responsibilities, and then use a different strategy to promote a new image and win back the lost electorate. But realistically, such a recovery can only be a long-term bet, with the deliberate and wise acceptance of stepping down into the opposition. In any case, it cannot possibly work in the next few months, before the autumn vote.
The fact of the matter is, although they did enjoy bossing the Convention and even the coalition around for the last four years, the Peasants are not the only ones responsible for the failure of government, as the Liberals, Democrats and Hungarians are also guilty. Alas, the Peasants are surprised to discover that voters blame no one else but them. Their own voters. And that’s no surprise, because in ’96 the party had an electorate which now has become disappointed. With clever and hypocritical manoeuvring, coalition partners managed to dump the entire blame on the Peasants. At least that’s how it looks to the electorate. And the vote proves it. PD has in fact improved a little on its score since ’96 – after all, its electorate wouldn’t have anything to grudge about because PD took a massive bite out of the blessings of power but avoided its perils. And the Liberals, who didn’t even have an electorate back in ’96, went alone in the locals and secured an unexpected but so keenly awaited victory against the Peasants, and are now asking to take the lead if they are to resume a partnership, in the formula: “Either a Liberal Convention or none at all!”
Peasants today are seeing all those who contributed to the pre-1996 failure taking the lead and making arrangements to secure a seat in the future government. With anyone but PN?CD, which they flee like the plague! Or with a vassal PN?CD, at most!
Under these circumstances, the Peasants are trying one last move. A move perfectly allowed by the rules of the democratic game. They are looking for an ally. To the Peasants – ridiculed by the Democrats and betrayed by the Liberals – there is only one! Its name is PDSR, who is looking for its own allies to look good abroad.
The Democrats, who already see themselves as a source of prime-ministership, are inviting the Peasants to shine their shoes. But if they have to, the Peasants would rather shine PDSR’s shoes. They aren’t any more “perestroikist” than the Democrats, and anyway, Peasants themselves don’t shine like the sun when it comes to capitalist reform.
With the Liberals, things are clear. They kicked the Peasants out. So now, Peasants are asking them back into the Convention, on equal partnership basis. If their offer is turned down, the Peasants will be politically free to seek any alliance. And if the Liberals are looking at PDSR, why shouldn’t the Peasants, too, who haven’t gone too far with capitalism?
So they are saying, heck, let’s see what happens! Neither them nor the PDSR can sound the horn just yet about a possible collaboration. Some PDSR fans won’t even hear about Peasants, and some Peasants feel the same about PDSR! But after the elections, everything is possible! This way Peasants deal with their Constantinescu problem: the President will be pressing to take over the party (of course, to save it!) if he realises he is going to lose the vote.
Still, for a post-electoral pass at PDSR, the Peasants need their present people at their lead. Just so they can blame someone should this arrangement backfire. Of course, a fresh team would be inappropriate: should it really begin its term with a PDSR alliance?! Doesn’t sound right!
Let’s be realistic. After the locals, a legion of peewees have sprung up, each with less than 10% of the market, only 12-13% for PD, one claiming to be smarter and stronger than the other, in search of a bride. But there is only one bride on the market: PDSR. The great loser, PN?CD, is also entitled to look for one. Even more so if the peewees will consider marrying each other, without the PDSR bride. Such a bride-less marriage would be modern, in the spirit of a recently ratified amendment the European Council requested for Article 200 of the Penal Code, but it remains chimera, given the chest-pounding each of the peewees is doing.
To PN?CD, things are simple: it either stays on the path of political compromise, inaugurated by its collaboration with PD, and joins the courtship struggle to win PDSR’s hand – and then it does so with the present leadership – or, with a new leadership, it pulls back into the opposition and tries to recoup the party’s traditional moral values.