(story to be published in tomorrow’s issue, March 7)
The Democratic Party has unleashed a new crisis immediately after the tension caused by Victor Babiuc remaining at the Defence Ministry was soothed, with an amiable exchange of press releases: PD’s Political Bureau expressed its regrets for the statements of its representatives that could have been offending to some Liberal leaders, and PNL’s Permanent Bureau accepted the apologies, announcing its willingness to attend a coalition meeting to clarify the issue. Both parties said they were looking forward to a compromise in order to set things straight. The next logical step should have been a meeting between leaders deciding to replace Victor Babiuc. Instead, surprise! PD chairman Petre Roman came out with a genuine declaration of war addressed not only to PNL, but to the entire coalition. The party’s decision to limit its parliament activity to draft laws that harmonise Romanian and European legislation rules out the adoption of drafts made by the coalition, but which, at least at first sight, seem not to be part of the community acquis. What does PD want? What does it want this time, a citizen might ask, weary of the persistence with which PD periodically gets angry. How consistent is PD’s threat? First, it is obvious that PD’s warning is a bluff. This is seen clearly in the press release announcing that the decision was made as a result of the movements of the “political group” within PNL. The distinction between adversaries is therefore clear – the political group led by Valeriu Stoica – and the party that signed, through its chairman, the agreement that established the coalition – PNL. And a party cannot issue warnings so radical when it is talking about a group, unless it is looking for scandal pretexts, or to justify some future action, and to leave room for returning into the coalition. If we consider the way PD has always acted in its alliance with CDR and UDMR, it is possible that the Democratic Party has sought to settle some scores. For the first time after 1996, PD has been brought up against the wall. PNL could not tolerate the temperamental outbursts Traian Basescu is toying with, and promised to stay out of coalition meetings unless it has his apologies. For PD, which had just lost the Senate presidency to PNL, such a meeting was necessary to solve the Babiuc case. Moreover, the Liberals had pronounced for keeping Babiuc on the job. PD agreed to apologise and the importance of the gesture is that the party has given in for the first time to a coalition partner’s conditions. But this does not suit PD, because it does not fit the image it has sought to acquire in the last years, that of a small but kicking party, a party on which the coalition’s fate depends. And it was offended by PNL not when the latter conditioned its presence in coalition sessions with apologies, but by the fact that PNL made a pass at the job PD had reserved for itself. The Democratic Party wants to reclaim the role of a party that slams the table whenever it feels like it and makes others play to its tunes. To this end, it has chosen the weapons to take on PNL with. It will battle with reform. The situation has at least two consequences. If Babiuc’s replacement has been truly accepted by coalition leaders, then in the public opinion it should not have appeared as a concession to PD, but as a decision the party has forced with its force and ability. Perhaps in the acceptance of PD strategists, public opinion should not be left with the impression of a weak PD that is no longer what it used to be. The same is valid for the party members’ perception of their bosses, in order to prevent grumbles. On the other hand, if the power’s leaders, including the President, still had doubts about dropping Babiuc, PD wanted to bring a stronger argument. The moment is favourable: the nationalised houses law is being imperilled by PDSR, the state farms privatisation law is blocked by PD and opposition senators, the Securitate Archives Board needs PD votes to start working, and Stoica is preparing reform in the judicial establishment. This is how we get to the second possible explanation of PD’s actions. Perhaps it wanted to give a political excuse for the refusal to vote for the property laws and the Archives Board. This assertion is easy to back up considering that the farms privatisation law is blocked, two candidates were appointed for the Archives Board that do not meet legal criteria, and the party left the hall during the vote on the law, invoking the Babiuc crisis. The problem is that, regardless of what it is after, PD is playing again with Romania’s interests. If it takes this game too far, we could miss the last chance of adopting major laws and enforcing them in practice. Because even if these laws are adopted, and the Board is validated, the vote will not bring practical results if it comes too late. The community acquis PD is referring to is not limited to technical laws. The European Commission 1999 report explicitly stated the need to return property confiscated by the communists. In the other former communist bloc countries, which have been more successful than us, this measure, along with the uncovering of the political police, has been the basis of reforms. As to reform in the judicial system, the same report stated that the process had already begun, with several important moves accomplished, but there is still a long way to go.