(story to be published in tomorrows issue, April 3)
In the first days after December 22, 1989, in the open studio of the free television, people of age came to thank the young, for the courage of stepping up with their bare chests against the dictatorship. Some of these people are making a political career even today. This is a Romanian paradox. For ten years, the country has lacked a clear strategy for the future. On the other hand, it had to choose between various models of the past, represented by venerable symbol-leaders. Among them, Ion Iliescu has been the closest to the past. His model – a mixture between the controlled détente of the ’60-’70s and the Soviet perestroika of the ’80s, a sort of socialism with small private firms, with large state enterprises and Western magazines on sale around street corners – has proved closest to the perceptions of most Romanians alive. His merit – opposition to Ceausescu, from the very inside of the system – was close to the memories of most people. This explains why Iliescu was been the main political winner of the ’90s. Historic party leaders have looked to the pre-World War II past, a more remote and less remembered past. This is why they have been from the outset credited with distrust and even hostility. But these leaders have come into public life surrounded with the aura of long years spent behind bars in Communist prisons and, eventually, their permanent resort to morality has made their case, as Ion Iliescu’s public image was beginning to erode. But their heritage has proved insufficient for an efficient government. Many hopes have been deceived. But what exactly happened in this decade? Sergiu Cunescu laid the foundations of the Democratic Convention. Mircea Ionescu-Quintus, under his mandate, has managed the impossible: the liberal reunification. Ion Diaconescu fought hard to maintain a balance in a party splintered on the inside by immense ambitions, and has made inhuman efforts to make do on every task, as party head and Parliament chamber president. For as long as he lived, Corneliu Coposu warded off with dignity the most appalling slander, and eventually attracted the respect of society through all he had done and said. The slanderers turned silent. During Ion Iliescu’s presidential mandates, the grounds were laid for the institutions of the democratic state. The question is what these leaders can do from this day forth. In the Romanian Social Democratic Party (PSDR), the relay has also taken place. Alexandru Athanasiu came to lead the party, and Sergiu Cunescu retained his honorary position in the hierarchy of traditional social-democracy. The man who initiated the political union of the opposition in 1992 and laid the basis for the first political alliance on doctrinal criteria (USD, in 1996), was also the first who found it necessary to withdraw. The Saturday statement by PNL president Mircea Ionescu-Quintus is also the signal of another veteran of the Romanian political stage bowing out – a withdrawal that will take place, with all the honours, at the Liberal congress in the spring of 2001. At the PN?CD, the change of generations took place at the level of executive leadership, at the National Conference in January 2000. But this change came too late and was accompanied by numerous convulsions. Corneliu Coposu’s generation remains, even after the disappearance of the unquestioned leader, and the January changes have rather demonstrated Ion Diaconescu’s incapacity to keep the status-quo. True, the party still retains Ion Diaconescu on the top job, but only until the next congress, scheduled after the elections. Opinion polls reveal him as one of the worst rated politicians and with the worst degree of trust. Among all, only Ion Iliescu is determined to continue, at least for another four years. The Social Democracy Party (PDSR) has just recently expressed unity around its leader and readiness to repel any attack against him. But, reflecting its link to the past, the party limited itself to the banner “it was better in our times” and refused any internal reform. The party’s programmes seem to be written for the Romania of 1992, ignoring any of the substantial changes that happened in the Romania of 1996-2000. PDSR and Ion Iliescu will be able to speculate on people’s discontent with reform and restructuring, and win the year 2000 elections. But he will be unable to offer Romania the past of 1992-1996, or a more remote past, that of socialism with a human face, and, much less, a future. Nevertheless, Ion Iliescu has assumed the risk of not following in the footsteps of the other patriarchs of the ’90s and to continue. He is risking his image. Romania is risking much more.