(story to be published in tomorrow’s issue, March 21)
The political statement signed by the majority of parties that announced they had accepted the Romanian economic development strategy in view of European Union accession represents a moment of political responsibility. But the most important test these parties have to pass is to prove that they intend to enforce this strategy. This is how, beyond any statements, the political class in Romania will be able to prove it is competent and mature. Of course the moment itself is an event in our political life. And this is because, regardless of doctrine options, of positions and attitudes on reform and how it should unfold, party leaders are saying they are for effective integration of Romania into the ranks of Western countries. That they want to join the EU and NATO is doubtless for virtually all political parties in Bucharest. But their explicit efforts, more precisely, the difference between official words and concrete action, are often contradictory and leave room for scepticism about political arrangements. Parties of all colours, with different views on how to do reform, are saying they want the strategy they signed last week, which is now on its way to Brussels, to be the red-line path Romania will walk so that, in 2007, Bucharest becomes one of the capitals of the European Union. Nothing more worthy of respect. That Ion Iliescu next to Ion Diaconescu and Emil Constantinescu, that Petre Roman next to Mircea Ionescu Quintus or Corneliu Vadim Tudor say they agree with this strategy, is an event. But what really counts is that, regardless of who will run the country or will be in the Opposition in the next seven years, they realise that not one particular party or coalition, not some political leaders, but Romania has been invited to negotiate its accession so that, once prepared, it becomes a member of the European Union. This means that the targets in the economic strategy should not only be assumed by all governments that will come in these years, but that they must also be attained in this interval. Scepticism about the parties that signed the document comes from the experience these parties have in distancing from the genuine priorities. Therefore, the existing coalition has issued enough cynical signals that it has other priorities, closer to immediate party and personal interest, than those announced when the Isarescu government was formed, if we are to consider only the present relations between government parties. More exactly, the recent crisis in the coalition has proven that for these parties an official job or their own party programmes outweigh the certainty that the strategy goes to Brussels from a climate of unquestionable political stability. Coalition leaders have deemed necessary to evaluate the act of government – not to improve the management of reform, but to discuss whether quitting government is an option. In its turn, the Opposition, especially the PDSR, believed, before the document was signed, that it must always say “No” while negotiating with parties in Power. But at the same time, PDSR realised that consistent and constant rise in the polls could bring it not only the Power, but would let Ion Iliescu’s party manage accession to the European Union – at the negotiations table in Western chancelleries, where saying “No” is not that easy. This is how, immediately after Brussels, PDSR started issuing statements one more official than the other, accepted by ever more party members, that accession to the EU is a priority for the party, and that the ownership regime needs regulation. Additionally, PDSR forgot its incriminating tone against the West, especially against international financial institutions, and acclaimed the importance of a strong-hand strategy. Beyond any scepticism, it is important that Prime Minister Mugur Isarescu has managed to obtain a consensus between parties in a full-blown election campaign for signing this statement. More important is that, since 1995, when in Snagov the same parties achieved a consensus about working on a strategy to integrate Romania with the European Union, political leaders have agreed that national interest can lead beyond Parliament seats, where the opposition and power are travelling in different directions. Since the statements are made from a position of power, whatever it may be, perhaps the time has come for the parties that are in an understandable competition to leave aside the stated purpose of themselves climbing to the top spot (in our case, in Brussels) and to lead Romania (with its economy and society) toward this finish line. No matter what these parties will do exactly, whether in power or in the opposition, politicians should write down in their agendas that not only party options force them to think about EU integration as a government exercise, but the voters too, who in the polls are saying that the European Union and NATO are targets for every one of us.