Razboiul politic de la Bucuresti are ecouri internationale. Se pare ca multe din acesta sunt intretinute (cu bani si argumente) de la Bucuresti. Iata un schimb intre Kim Lane Scheppele, sau cine a postat in numele acesteia intr-o engleza aproximativa pe blogul de la New York Times al lui Paul Krugman, si cititori, cei mai multi din ei romani.
Kim Lane Scheppele
4 July 2012
4 July 2012
Now it’s Romania’s turn to worry those of us who care about constitutionalism, democracy and the rule of law.
A political crisis has gripped Romania as its left-leaning prime minister, Victor Ponta, slashes and burns his way through constitutional institutions in an effort to eliminate his political competition. In the last few days, Ponta and his center-left Social Liberal Union (USL) party have sacked the speakers of both chambers of parliament, fired the ombudsman, threatened the constitutional court judges with impeachment and prohibited constitutional court from reviewing acts of parliament – all with the aim of making it easier for Ponta to remove President Traian Basescu from office. They hope to accomplish that by week’s end.
In just a few months in office, Ponta’s government has caused a great deal of political damage. Setting its sights on the next election, Ponta’s government passed an election law (later rejected by the constitutional court) that would make it much easier for the government to stay in power. The government has already neutralized the legal effects of decisions of their key opponents – the constitutional court and the president – by taking control over the publication of the official gazette that determines when laws and decisions come into force. If the government fails to publish the decisions of the constitutional court and the decrees of the president, they are simply not law. To top it all off, Ponta launched a culture war. .
Things are moving fast. Another EU democracy in the east is unraveling the rule of law by attacking all legal constraints on the power of the prime minister.
Behind the desperate actions of the last few days is a highly polarized political environment fueled by an economic crisis.
Romania was one of the countries hit hard by the global recession. In 2009, Romania got a $26 billion bailout from the IMF in exchange for a harsh austerity program. The center-right coalition of Prime Minister Emil Boc survived 10 confidence votes before resigning in early 2012 amid growing protests. Angry crowds in the streets in January rejected draconian public spending cuts which included, among other things a 25% cut in public sector wages and dramatic slashes in public benefits.
The next prime minister, Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu, took office in February 2012 as political chaos grew. He barely got a chance to govern before he was toppled by a no-confidence vote in April, which brought USL leader Victor Ponta to power. Ponta and his party next face the voters at the regularly scheduled election in November.
In the last two weeks, Ponta’s government has been rocked by two scandals and a fit of pique, which could well combine to bring him down even before the November poll. But Ponta doesn’t want to give up power. His frantic reactions of the last few days seem to be a desperate attempt to cling to office, even if it means smashing all other constitutional institutions to do so.
The first scandal involved corruption. Two weeks ago, another former prime minister, Adrian Nastase, was sentenced to two years in prison after being convicted on corruption charges. Ponta supporters, for their part, believe the case against Nastase was politically motivated. Nastase is generally thought to be Ponta’s mentor in politics, and so the conviction meant that the trail of Romania’s legendary corruption culture was leading ever more obviously to Ponta’s door. As police came to cart Nastase off to jail, however, Nastese shot himself in the neck and wounded himself seriously enough to go to hospital instead.
The second scandal involved plagiarism. The 39-year-old Ponta had received a PhD in law in 2003 from the University of Bucharest with a dissertation on the international criminal court. Last week, the ethics committee of the university found that 85 pages of his 307-page dissertation had been cut and pasted from the work of other scholars, leading some to start calling himPrime Minister Copy Paste. When the charges of plagiarism were not yet proven, Ponta said he would resign from office if they were found to be substantiated. Once they were, Ponta’s education minister angrily dismissed the committee that had found against him. Ponta has vowed to stay on as prime minister. Wednesday, it emerged that Ponta claimed a master’s degree on his c.v. from the University of Catalina in Sicily but the president of that university says that Ponta was never there. Ponta just altered his c.v. as aRomanian website comparing the two c.v.s has shown.
The fit of pique involved a trip to Brussels. The President Basescu asserted that he had the right to represent Romania at the European summit last week. Ponta, as prime minister, insisted that he travel to Brussels instead. Ponta got the parliament to pass a resolution mandating that the prime minister represent the country in Brussels. Basescu went to the constitutional court which ruled that the president had the legal right to represent the country in international meetings. Ponta angrily defied the ruling of the court by going to Brussels the day after the court decision. The official gazette, now published by the government instead of by an independent body, never published the decision, which means that the government effectively blocked the court decision from taking effect. Ponta’s presence in Brussels created the understandable impression that Romania’s leadership was in chaos.
This week, after returning from that trip, Ponta sprang into action to prevent the two scandals and the fit of pique from bringing down his government. He started replacing all those who could oppose him. He angrily attacked the constitutional court, calling for his justice minister to remove from office all of the judges who voted against him in the matter of the Brussels trip. This caused the constitutional court on 3 July to send a rather unusual letter – adesperate plea of help – to all of the European officials who might have jurisdiction. Backing down, Ponta’s party passed an emergency resolution through the parliament, removing the power of the constitutional court to review any of the parliament’s actions. The constitutional judges are all there – but have no power to do anything about the escalating crisis.
All of these machinations seem to be aimed at one target: President Basescu, who has been president since 2004 and who was once affiliated with the center–right Democrat Liberal Party (PDL), which currently opposes Ponta’s government in the parliament. Ponta has not missed an opportunity to accuse Basescu of everything – from ferreting out Ponta’s plagiarism to inciting the judges of the constitutional court against him.
Ponta’s government is now moving fast to remove Basescu from office. By neutralizing the constitutional court, firing the ombudsman, and sacking the presidents of both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, there is no institution of state that could stand in the way of a vote to impeach.
On 4 July, Ponta’s parliamentary majority brought in a 17-page indictment against the president. But presidents, under the Romanian constitution, can only be removed for “having committed grave acts infringing upon constitutional provisions” (Article 95), something the document never argues. An impeachment vote, however, is expected by week’s end.
The parliamentary vote to impeach Basescu would have to be approved in a popular referendum before it could take effect. A previous USL government had voted to impeach Basescu in 2007, but then his popularity enabled him to defeat the motion in a referendum. Now that Basescu has spent two years helping to enforce the IMF/EU austerity mandates, however, he is not so popular. It is not clear he could win a referendum at this point. Ponta, then, might just succeed in bringing down his long-time opponent without following the niceties of the constitution.
Even if the efforts to remove the president and the constitutional court judges fizzle, it is not a pretty sight when a democratic government goes rogue. Ponta’s rage against the constitution shows that he doesn’t respect legal limits, and that is dangerous.
Is Romania therefore becoming another Hungary? It all sounds familiar – the attempt to dismantle constitutional checks on power by an imperious prime minister who hates to lose. But there the similarity ends. Orbán is a man of the political right; Ponta hails from the left. Orbán has been head of a party for more than two decades; Ponta is a comparative newcomer to Romanian politics. Orbán has absolute control over his party; Ponta must govern with a coalition that consists of at least one party that has switched sides before.
Though misery is not a competition, the Hungarian situation is far more serious than the Romanian situation – at least right now. Viktor Orbán has rewritten the Hungarian constitution, implanted his own loyalists in virtually all important state institutions, compromised the independence of the courts, centralized local governments, rigged the electoral machinery and otherwise dug himself in, both legally and practically, for the long haul. It is hard to see how his party will ever be forced from power because there is virtually no independent political institution left standing that would give any opponents leverage from which to launch such an effort. And the political opposition is in complete disarray.
By contrast, Romania’s strong multiparty system forces Ponta to govern with a fickle coalition in a context where there is a seriously organized opposition that controls at least some of the key offices of state. Ponta has not yet captured the presidency and the constitutional court, which have shown their willingness to block him. And he has not been able to rewrite the constitution just to keep himself in power.
Ponta may well have the same ambitions as Orbán but, so far at least, he hasn’t had the success at changing the entire system of power. Ponta seems to be aiming at getting rid of particular individuals who oppose him, not at changing the whole constitutional system into a dictatorship. But these are still early days. Ponta has only been in power since April.
The fact that Romania isn’t as bad as Hungary – yet — doesn’t mean that all in Romania is fine. The speed with which this crisis has escalated as well as the tenacity with which Ponta is clinging to power are both reasons for serious concern. If Ponta succeeds in ousting the President Basescu and muzzling the constitutional court, a constitutional coup is still a possibility in Romania. That is why people who care about constitutional democracy must pay close attention.
Kim Lane Scheppele is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the University Center for Human Values as well as Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University. She joined the Princeton faculty in 2005 after nearly a decade on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, where she was the John J. O'Brien Professor of Comparative Law. From 1994-1998, Scheppele lived in Budapest, doing research at the Constitutional Court of Hungary and teaching at both the University of Budapest and at Central European University, where she was a founding director of the Program in Gender and Culture. Scheppele’s work concentrates on the intersection of constitutional and international law, particularly in constitutional systems under stress. After 1989, Scheppele studied the emergence of constitutional law in Hungary and Russia, living in both places for extended periods. After 9/11, Scheppele has researched the effects of the international "war on terror" on constitutional protections around the world. In short, when the Berlin Wall fell, she studied the transition of countries from police states to constitutional rule-of-law states and after the Twin Towers fell, she studies the process in reverse. Her many publications on both post-1989 constitutional transitions and on post-9/11 constitutional challenges have appeared in law reviews, social science journals and in many languages (including Russian, Hungarian and French). Her new book is called The International State of Emergency: The Rise of Global Security Law. It will appear in 2013 with Harvard University Press.
During the 1996 ~ 2000 period, Romanian president Emil Constantinescu personally appointed over 170 judges and prosecutors.
During 2000 ~ 2004, Romanian president Ion Iliescu personally appointed over 130 judges and prosecutors.
During 2005 ~ 2009, Romanian president Traian Basescu personally appointed over 3011 judges and prosecutors.
Now Traian Basescu, on the brink of a popular referendum new elections that he knows he’ll lose, claims that the new government is attacking the “independent justice system” Romania.
The justice system in Romania is just as “independent” as the 3011 judges and prosecutors that the current president has personally appointed.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED10
It's a sad day when an esteemed Princeton professor like Kim Scheppele takes part in a disgusting disinformation campaign, and when such a blatant piece of propaganda is published on Paul Krugman's blog. One wonders how an academic with no background in Romanian affairs is suddenly so familiar with the Romanian language and with the Romanian constitution. One also wonders how come a native English speaker (a professor, no less) makes English language mistakes typical of Romanian speakers ("The President Basescu" instead of "President Basescu"). Coincidentally, the Economist article Kim links to is even more riddled with language mistakes typical of Romanian speakers, which casts doubt as to who really wrote these articles. Interestingly enough, all the talking points listed here are identical to those parrotted by the army of internet trolls that has flooded both the Romanian and the international web media. Is it all just a concidence?
It would take too long to refute all the nonsense, but suffice to say it's mostly a list of blatant lies. One of the most outrageous ones is the imaginary "university ethics committee" which supposedly detected Ponta's plagiarism (so far plagiarism accusations have only come from anyonymous internet rumors and a self-appointed committee of PDL party members with zero legal legitimacy). Also, there have been no attempts to remove Constitutional Court judges (despite at least two of them having been named fraudulently).
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED9
Sadly, this article reflects solely the views of only one side of this political conflict, namely of President Basescu and the party that kept him in power, PDL. The article paints a distorted picture of the Romanian political life. My schedule does not allow me to write a complete rebuttal of this article, but I will try to correct some of the poorly researched statements made above.
I will start with the assertion made in the article that the President Basescu will be removed from power by the end of this week by the coalition around the Prime-Minister Ponta. It is in the legal powers of the Parliament to "suspend" the president, but it cannot remove the president from office. Only the population, through a referendum, can do that. The procedure is similar to governor recall elections in the US and is perfectly democratic.
In other words, the Romanian Parliament is likely to "suspend" President Basescu, but he will be kept or removed from office depending on the results of the referendum. Even though Basescu is very unpopular, having only 10% approval rating, he will be hard to remove from power, because the referendum requires at least 50% of the population to vote, which in the past has proved to be very hard to achieve.
Why is this democratic procedure a source of concern?
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED7
This is disgusting proBasescu propaganda!
Mr Scheppele, is you the danger for our democracy!
July 5, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.RECOMMENDED7
Florin BrinzaVaslui, Romania
Mr. Krugman, you write here about my country's political situation, without fully understanding it. You talk about how Basescu is no longer popular because he had to enforce all those austerity mandates, but it is not entirely true: in 8 years of ruling, Basescu has surounded himself with money-sucking individuals, and he fed them money which came from public taxes, stealing from a country that was already stryuggling. You talk of how Ponta sacked the leader of the Chamber of Deputies, without knowing that, in every civilized country, she ought to be in jail for abuse of power. You talk of how Ponta bullied democracy, ignored constitutional laws, without knowing, that if you take Basescu's ruling, and pick a random month, you will EASILY find a moment in which he brutally did so. It is true that Ponta skipped a few steps, but only because Basescu and his men took care of making these procedures so stuffed, so entangled, that it is virtually impossible to follow all of them. Basescu killed democracy in Romania, by entangling the democratical apparatus, by threatening his political opponents, and his allies as well, through the secret services (which he took care to over-budget for 8 years, eventhough budget cuts were made in departments like education, health and so on. He failed us as a President time and time again, proffiting from the ill-educated people that voted and re-voted him because of food packages that he supplied during his campaign. You should know both versions.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED6
you'd think an article titled "Romania unravels the rule of law" has at least one instance of, you know, violating the law, but Scheppele doesn't present any.
moreover, Scheppele goes to great lengths to avoid any facts that are embarassing for the romanian president, Basescu. this leads to some explanatory gaps. for example, Scheppele tries to suggest that the campaign against Basescu is motivated by the desire of a prime-minister embroiled in scandal to keep his job. but the article also mentions that the same president was the subject of a different attempt to impeach him in 2007, when the current prime-minister was merely a marginal political actor. what made the parliament try to impeach Basescu that first time? Scheppele doesn't say. the current events make more sense if you know that in 2007 Basescu's repeated attempts to undermine his own political coalition's government brought the country to political deadlock and thus managed to alienate his allies (and in particular the right-wing liberal party). the liberals then joined forces with the main left wing party to try to impeach Basescu. ever since then, Basescu has positioned himself as the foe of a profoundly corrupt (and crypto-communist!) parliament (nevermind that many in his own party - including himself! - are strongly suspected of corruption). the present events are just the latest in a five-year battle for political legitimacy between the parliament and president Basescu.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED6
Jerry Fincher HoughDurham, NC
I am waiting for the articles on Italy and Spain and fear I won't have too long to wait. The bankers seem determined to re-introduce Mussolini in Italy, but the question is whether a new Franco can stop the Allende who was the more natural outcome in 1938 or whether a new Franco will emerge.
The surprising thing about Eastern Europe was that the only justification given at the time for including them in NATO was that this would allow us to engineer a military coup in unfortunate circumstances. It will be interesting to see what happens.
July 5, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
If you need to worry about something is about your source of informations. If you have read in the romanian press this misinformations, guess what, the majority of the press makes the president basescu propaganda. Some undercover and corrupt journalists from Romania who prais Traian Basescu have been exposed as they have been given non-legit ranks in the Romania Army, there are leak-papers from Ministry of Justice that prove this.
There is no attack on Romania democracy, is just a legal and constitutional change of the presidents of the 2 chambers. It just happend that we are having a new majority in the parliment who by the law has the right to recall the presidents of the 2 chamber, do you understand this, is a new government majority. PDL&President Basescu have ruled this country for the last 8 years and they think they are forever in this positions.
Former President of the Chamber of Deputies,is a national thief, she was caught in real time how she fraudet the pension law& several other laws, there are facts to profe this but the "independent Justice" and Basescu's prosecutor have decided that she is immaculated even in the face of evidences.
Former President of the Chamber of Senate, was replaced the same way he took the position last year, and no one was crying of any constitutional rights broken. Don't forget that the majority of romania population have decided something on the last elections, and the vote was that we are no longer want PDL&Basescu.
July 5, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.RECOMMENDED6
Did you try to listen to the other 80% of the Romanian people before writing or, for you, is enough one single part opinion?!?!
I just want to inform you that what you call an abuse against democracy, is the correction and the go back to the democracy!
After the first try to remove basescu from presidency, he (basescu) and his party changed the law regarding the referendum and the law for Constitutional Court in such a way that he cannot be removed anymore! Is that democracy?
The former (now) head of Common Chamber (the second chamber of the Parliament) is a thief! Proved by the internal TV cameras of the Parliament! For approving a law for cutting money from the retired people, she declared 160 persons at vote, when in fact there were 85-90! Is that democracy??
For having basescu's favorite approved (regarding the head of the Constitutional Court!), same coalition that support basescu, voted twice, until two o'clock in the night, because at the first vote it has been voted another one... Is that democracy?
And, hundreds of such actions...
At Brussels, there are all but 2 (presidents from Cipru and France)... basescu has nothing to do there!
As for Nastase: In the court final decision is written that they have NO direct proof, but, however, they THINK he is guilty... Is that justice?
I (and other 80%) think it's the only right thing to do now if we still want to have democracy!
P.S. I'm not member of any political party...and, sorry for my English
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
Sorry, but you have no idea what's going on in Romania. President Basescu and his party which he personally leads have been like cancer for our country. They stole european money and the peoples funds.
Referring to the visit to Brussels the Prime Minister is supposed to go, as the other EU countries are also represented by prime ministers, but president Basescu always insists he be the one to go although he doesn't speak any foreign language and has no diplomatic skills.
You talk about prime minister Ponta wanting to get rid of Basescu at all costs. Do you understand what it is like to make 300 USD as a doctor in Romania and then have your wage cut by 25%? Or have not even 1 highway built in 22 yrs? Or not have a single factory where to work as an engineer?
I am sorry, but you have no idea what you are writing about and I am afraid you can never understand until you've lived it. Until you've had grand parents with 150 USD pension or see that you live in a country where you make more as a bartender than you make as a Robotics Engineer or a doctor.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
(2) "In the last few days, Ponta and his center-left Social Liberal Union (USL) party"
the USL is not a center-left coalition. it's a coalition of the main left-wing party (the social-democrats) and the main right-wing party (the liberal party) in the country. this coalition, in turn, was created because of president Basescu's attempts to cannibalize the liberal party (which was his main political ally at the time) by incorporating it into the president's own party. as for the latter, it's really an exaggeration to say it has any ideological bent - its members seem motivated as much by the desire to stay in power as by any ideological affinity. Basescu's party was a social-democrat offshoot (they separated when Basescu's wing lost an internal fight to take over that party) and took on a semblance of right-wing ideology mainly because it seemed politically convenient. in 2009, needing a clear majority in parliament in order to be able to govern, it assimilated a new round of deserting social-democrats looking for jobs in the new government. so what Scheppele presents as a battle between left and right is more like a battle between the two main left and right political parties, on the one hand, and the ideology-free presidential party, on the other.
all this is not to say that prime-minister Ponta's moves are legal, or that his character is spotless. but Scheppele is obviously not presenting the whole picture here.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
I'm afraid that while your post is factually correct it is strongly lopsided. While you mention the abused or attempted abuses of Ponta, you mention nothing of the president and former government's 'accomplishments'. For example, the change in the electoral law which you mention and which consists of replacing the current mixed system with the first-past the post system was first proposed and fiercely advocated by president Basescu. At the time, his party was the one that stood to gain most from such a change. In the meantime, the political situation changed and the liberal-democrats (the president's party) stand to loose massively.
Then, the Constitutional Court is not the neutral body that you suggest it to be. 5 out of 9 judges have been named by the president or his party without observing the rule that all parties should be able to name judges at the Court. In one case, the Parliament was kept in session until 2 a.m. until the liberal-democrats managed to gather the votes necessary to appoint their favourite. And as for the changes to the referendum law and the Constitutional Court's powers, these are merely being reverted to what they were 3 years ago.
While I agree with you that the current prime minister is trying to oust the president forcing the limits of the law, it is the president who tried to prevent Ponta from governing. Finally, the protests you mention were less about the austerity cuts and more about the corruption and the abuses of the liberal democrats.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
a few more examples of misleading claims by Scheppele.
(1) "Setting its sights on the next election, Ponta’s government passed an election law (later rejected by the constitutional court) that would make it much easier for the government to stay in power"
this sounds very menacing, until you realize that the electoral law the prime-minister has passed is a version of "winner takes all" elections, which should be very familiar to American voters. (interestingly enough, president Basescu was a champion of that law himself when his party was doing well in polls; apparently, Scheppele doesn't deem this bit of information relevant, or she is ignorant of it). you might wonder then why the court voted such a law unconstitutional. i'm not an expert on romanian constitutional law, but the most plausible explanation has nothing to do with the constitution anyway: the court is stacked with judges that are indebted to president Basescu, and thus will avoid taking decisions that harm his political prospects. this relates to another accusation Scheppele makes - that prime-minister Ponta is trying to cut into the power of the constitutional court. however, if the court acts just as the president's juridical arm, this fails to look like a first step towards dictatorship, as Scheppele suggests.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
Florin RToronto ON
Here's another "serious person" saying important and serious words about lost democracy in Eastern Europe, a dark territory where all kind of political zombies are at war with the Western "culture", seen as a standard of high morals and democratic principles. Hold you horses, madam! The changes made by the new Government are perfectly legit , democratic, and constitutional. When Basescu's PDL came to power in 2005, they did swipe clean all Government institutions planting their own people to serve them, including the heads of Senate and Parliament. Wow, what a "coup d'etat!" that one was...nobody screamed than, but now we are talking about a "cultural war"...
Oh, by the way, I doubt you have ever read the Constitution of Romania before your lips said "unconstitutional".
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
All that you have mentioned in the first paragraph is true,But the President Basecu's Party had secured all this addition to previous laws such as extended Constitutional Court's power.
There is nothing Unconstitutional in the behave of Ponta's Governement,or the new majority.
The problem is that President Basecu had used a serious of State Institutions to blocked all the actions of the new Governement,only to blame them, that they are unable to Govern.
In fact only the Romanian people have the power to oust the President,through a Referendum.
And after four years of economic crisis,amplificated by the corruption of the Basecu's Governments (Boc and Ungureanu),after the cut of the wages by 25% and the pensions by 15%,the roumanians will be happy to oust him.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
Dear lady, withalldue respect, your cultivatedremarks on the Romanian political scene gave me a good laugh. The situation there rests the same as it has been for the last decade. Just to get things straight for you, there are two wild bunches of shrewd politicians, that is, vast networks of clients, patrons etc, who would do anything to gain the top levels of power in the state. What happens now through the agency of SLU differs little from what has been done for years by the other bunch. The only difference is that this time, the DLP through its network of intellectual clients managed to get their protests in the global media, thus close to your easy-to-scandalize ears. But don't worry pls, nobody's going to modify the constitution or the legal system in the country, just the people in certain key positions in the state apparatus. Seems to me this is an universal of capitalist politics. Things like this happen everywhere in the world. Look at the recent search warrants received by France's ex-president, at the relation between your Supreme Court and some presidents... and you'll see what is at stake everywhere.
As it stands, Romania is firmly going in the 'good' direction [this means stable, westernized, capitalist market], irrespective of the shuffles and noises heard at the top. My advice is to worry less about the political dérapages of politicians in a small distant country, and be more active denouncing the serious genocide your country produces in Iraq or Afghanistan.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
The article is biased, or at least incomplete. It's not a good idea to endorse such an article, with your name, Mr. Krugman.
What the present government is doing is just reverting to the popular vote intention in 2008 and share of each party in parliament, if there were not for the abuses done by the current contested President.
And the article is biased - because it presents the PM like "clinging to power", when the opposit is true. The PM has a 52% popular vote, while the President has a 15% popular vote. Free, normal, election will come soon, and things will be very clear.
What the article is missing - is saying bluntly that that law has been abused in the first place by Mr .Basescu - the current President which the new party in power wants to oust. And that has been done for 4 years, with the same degreee of gravity, but spread in time - 4 years. Both Presidents of Parliament chambers have been changed, member of parliament have been bought to switch sides, etc.
Now, undoing this in 1 months makes all the people saying it's an abuse. It's just overturning 4 years of abuses, in 1 months, maybe with small abuses, but how can you oust a small Dictator like the President. With a small revolution, and very soon with free elections. Nothing wrong with that, but good.
July 5, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
Where is the journalistic impartiality to present all the facts and let the audience decide what is really happening.
The romania peoples have already given a negative vote to PDL&Basescu, there's a lot of hate towards them, and this can be confirmed by the last elections results. Look at below pictures, reality will hit you hard.
The presidents of county council: http://bit.ly/LzEUAa
The mayors of county capital: http://bit.ly/Lkz0CR
The Romanian Constitutional Court is not an infallible entity, is an entity populated with peoples, this peoples have political affiliation, no matter how hard you'll try to convince me of their impartiality you're wasting your time, they are political named in this positions. And it's well known that PDL&Basescu have the majority there by 5:4, do you get this, almost all the decissions are favorable to Basescu&PDL, they have ruled this country pretending that they respect the constitutional law, which in fact the only think they have done was to make their own law and to still from the goverment money, which by they way is from my paid taxes as well.
July 5, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.RECOMMENDED5
forgot to add one thing:
And again sir, regarding my democratic president, Basescu. he has been working in the government for the past 16 years and his salary has never been greater than 1500euros.
His wife is not working and is a housewife.
And his income declaration never said something about additional income.
So please tell me how can his biggest daughter buy a almost $1million apartment (that she never explained with what money).
How can his younger daughter be less than 24 at the time when she bought, in cash a Range Rover Sport?
I don't need a prosecutor or a judge to tell me when someone is stealing and is corrupt.
Because math is math, and many things just don't add up.
And although i like the fact that the former prime minister, Adrian Nastase went to prison, because his "rule" was corrupt as well, I wanted to inform you that the judges specifically said in the decission..."THERE IS NO DIRECT CONNECTION to mister Nastase being involved, but we are doing this as an example".
Please be more informed next time.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED4
I could disagree more with your views dear sir.
First of all the president Basescu has countless corruption cases surrounding him, ranging from the sale of the romanian fleet to the more recent sale attempt of some copper resources and mining facility.
President of the Chamber of Deputies , Anastase, was filmed while "miscounting" votes. There were 70 people in the chamber and she counted 180. And the "constitutional court" didn't consider this event a criminal offense. And now it's screaming "wolf" when Anastase is legally changed from office.
Also, Macovei, Member of the European Parliament in case you didn't know was a prosecutor in the communism regime. And her father was a general in the communist secret service. So i don't think she is in a position to preach about democracy.
As for protests you might see on TV, I ask you to look closely. On one hand you have a meeting with a stage and politicians talking (Piata Revolutiei) where people all applaud in tune and in my personal opinion on demand.
And on the other hand you have the opposition for Basescu, that are not organised by anyone. And you can see the spontaneity of things.
So please tell me kind sir. How many spontaneous protests with stages and politicians on them have you witnessed? I think that sounds more like communism than democracy.
What's happening is a good change, a change towards democracy. Although corrupt officials that lose power don't like it.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED4
Ha ha ha!! Well, maybe finally Americans will know the difference between Romania and Hungary, and they will know that Bucharest it's a different city from Budapest. So, finally we got your attention with this situation, as a country?!? Sorry, but this was my first reaction reading this. Do you know anything else about Romania except this problem? I am just curious. Please, more respect!
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED4
Romanian problems prove once more that harsh economic measures lead to political instability. In a country where people make in average less than $500 but food and energy prices are higher than in Western Europe, it is difficult to follow IMF guidelines of reducing expenses without producing social instability.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED4
As a Romanian, I can vouch for it all.
However, it's quite funny. What do you do when you become prime minister by leading a hungry party in a hungry country and you plagiarized your doctoral thesis? Of course, before people knew that, you have declared yourself to be the cleanest, most professional Romanian prime minister ever and you have thought you'd ride the wave for four years at a minimum.
However, the plagiarism comes out. So, now you're just a little fraud, what do you do? You just pile impunity over impunity, just hoping that the people debased by austerity and social need will ignore your plagiarism. So he decides to bring down Basescu in less than one week, by stepping over institutional corpses.
Of course, the charge won't go away and of course, since he leads a coalition, the just replace Basescu with someone which will use the plagiarism against him at the first conflict.
It all unavoidably leads to Ponta's demise. The traditional leaders of his party didn't even comment this week on his assault (it's really unprecedented to use political power in this way). I'm quite sure they'll bring him down quickly if he fails. It might even happen next week, since it's possible the Constitutional Court will stop the suspension process tomorrow.
So hopefully Ponta goes find another career at under 40 (he doomed his public life by plagiarizing) and Romania will go back to building democracy. The alternative is not so funny.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED4
I sympathize with the general gist of this article, but I worry about the fact that the author is portraying electoral labels such as USL and 'center-right' as meaningful (for example, in the comparison with Hungary). Because of the stigma of communism, a real Left has never managed to establish itself in Romania after 1989, most parties ascribing to various shades of neoliberal-populism. Besides, ideology in general has played a much smaller role in post-revolutionary politics there than in the established democracies of Europe, the main purpose of the political class being money-making. There is, nevertheless, an encouraging youth movement for direct democracy, and perhaps things are about to change.
July 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.RECOMMENDED4
How much money have you received to write this article?
Since then you pay attention to Romania?
Do you support Basescu and his camarilla?
You should have stayed in Romania during the Basescu regime before you say something about!
Please do not complain about Basescu.
Da click aici ca sa vezi totul! VREI SA-I INTALNESTI? cin s-aseamana s-aduna la facebook peromaneste
Descoperirea făcută de Ion Spînu în Raportul anual al ICR este uluitoare. Ea aduce dovada care ne lipsea în aceste zile nebune, când pietroaiele cad de peste tot dar întotdeauna la punct ochit și în favoarea lui Traian Băsescu.
Știrea că ”norocosul” autor al interviului cu Victor Ponta în "El Pais", cel care a reușit să-i smulgă o promisiune de demisie, a fost bursier ICR are darul de a ne lămuri. Carmen Valică, o corespondentă gureșă a României Actualități la Bruxelles, a difuzat în lume știrea cu iminenta arestare a judecătorilor Curții Constituționale a României. Alți ziariști cu gura mare din țară sau străinătate, băsiști cu stele verzi în fiecare propoziție, sunt și ei pe lista profitorilor ICR. Să nu mai vorbim de tradușii ICR-ului, de trimișii la post gen Ioan T. Morar sau de subiții îndrăgostiți de România.
În regimul Băsescu, România a produs, sub diverse denumiri, cel puţin o reţea de acoperiţi şi agenţi de influenţă în străinătate. Ea poartă numele de Institutul Cultural Român. Presupun că mai există şi altele. De fapt, toate țările au oameni sub acoperire și toate organismele externe ale acestora sunt înțesate de ei. Atâta doar că îi protejează cu grijă și ei nu operează împotriva partidelor din țările lor de origine și a cetățenilor care plătesc taxele, inclusiv salariile acestora. Cazul ICR este ceva mai complicat și cu adevărat românesc! Nu faptul că Institutul Cultural Român este o plasă complicată și cultivată cu grijă pe bani din bugetul țării noastre mi se pare pe dos. Grav mi se pare faptul că această reţea este dirijată de la conducerea statului pentru a interveni hotărâtor în disputele politice interne. Sau pentru consolidarea puterii unor persoane din țară, pentru promovarea lor sau pentru succesele nu știu cui în campania electorală. Implicarea colaboratorilor, funcționarilor sau conducătorilor ICR în dispute politice sau în diversiuni mediatice pentru a produce efect în jocul politic intern mi se pare demnă de o comisie parlamentară de anchetă și de dosarul unui procuror. Folosirea ICR în jocul indigen de putere nu are de-a face nici cu scopul său primordial, nici cu cel secund și nici cu copilăria democraţiei. Cu atât mai puțin cu o ”propagandă” în favoarea culturii române și a României. Această reţea, cel puţin cea aflată sub umbrela ICR, în momentul în care, în aceste săptămâni, a fost ameninţată cu stoparea resurselor și cu decapitarea, a ales să provoace daune ţării noastre şi să târască forţele politice, dacă nu chiar și țara, în noroiul dezinformării.
Totul pentru a conserva banii, privilegiile şi pentru a-i proteja pe stăpânii de la Bucureşti. La fel este și situația serviciilor secrete. Nici ele nu au fost create pentru a penetra parlamentul și guvernul. Statutul lor le împiedică să opereze cu oameni în aceste două instituții fundamentale ale statului. Or, mai nou, serviciile secrete ale României sunt ușor de detectat în fiecare instituție importantă. Și mai ales în cele în care sunt interzise cu desăvârșire. În acești ani, n-a mai funcționat nici o regulă. Serviciile secrete s-au infiltrat peste tot, devenind o marcă a regimului Băsescu. Inclusiv în presă și în ONG-uri! Recenta listă a promovărilor în grad ale unor oameni din primării, partide și presă a scos la iveală mii de avansări-cadou făcute unor acoliți politici ai regimului Băsescu. Ei defilau cu aparența de neutri, de independenți și deontologi, iar pe sub masă avansau în grad și se pregăteau să exerseze comanda de tip militar. După îndelungi dovezi de subordonare și fidelitate erau pregătiți pentru o structură politico- militară cu două fețe. Una de drept privat și alta cu regulament militar. Spre norocul nostru, tărășenia a fost devoalată cu ocazia ”accidentului” că s-a schimbat puterea. Să nu mai vorbim de Serviciul de Pază și Protecție, instituție destinată securității instituțiilor de referință, persoanelor cu demnități importante și ambasadelor și care, în stilul lui Traian Băsescu, s-a transformat în serviciu secret scutit de control parlamentar și subordonat orbește ”înaltului” personaj. Argumente în favoarea unei stilistici de regim pot fi aduse cu nemiluita. Numai cine n-a vrut nu le-a observat! Dar abia acum, când regimul se clatină, când construcția nebună a lui Traian Băsescu trosnește din toate încheieturile putem să vedem și esențialul.
Traian Băsescu a construit un sistem de putere după chipul, asemănarea și gândirea sa de ofițer, de informator și de agent al serviciilor secrete române. Instituții publice, de stat, de media sau asociații cu funcții de comunicare au fost împănate cu oameni sub acoperire, dirijați prin comandă centralizată din serviciile secrete. Fidelii și performanții în executarea ordinelor au fost răsplătiți cu vârf și îndesat. Diversiunile și manipulările au fost și ele dirijate tot prin oameni cu asemenea statut, indiferent că acționau în țară sau în străinătate. Toate poartă însă marca acelorași manuale tipărite în marile capitale ale propagandei și spionajului internațional. Din păcate, protecția consumatorului, mediul, biserica, business-ul, sportul, emigrația sau supravegherea invaziei insectelor n-au scăpat de amprenta de informator și ofițer a lui Traian Băsescu.
Nebunia din aceste zile vine din criza unui sistem improvizat după mintea unui securist bătrân și paranoic, dar cu vână de aventurier, circar și conspirator.
Într-un mesaj e-mail al Minei Andreeva - purtătorul de cuvânt al comisarului european pentru Justiţie, Viviane Reding -, la o zi după conferinţa de presa (5 iulie), purtătorul de cuvânt confirmă ”întâlnirea cu Valica, din 3 iulie, când corespondenta Radio România Actualităţi venise cu mesajele alarmiste referitoare la arestarea judecătorilor de la CCR şi la desfiinţarea CCR, luate iniţial ca informaţii corecte de Comisarul Viviane Reding”.
În acelaşi e-mail al Minei Andreevna, purtătorul de cuvânt al comisarului Reding spune că ”Reding încă se gândeşte, nu ştie încă dacă informaţiile venite despre România sunt sau nu corecte sau certe, aşteaptă sa vadă evoluţiile, nu se ştie clar dacă Reding s-a referit la independenţa justiţiei sau la Raportul pe Justiţie pentru România şi Bulgaria care trebuie publicat peste 10 zile de Comisia Europeană... ”.
Din transcriptul intervenţiei din data de 5 iulie a corespondentei RRA la Bruxelles Carmen Valica, redăm fragmentul în care jurnalista continuă cu dezinformările. De data asta, în sens invers, de la Bruxelles către Bucureşti. Numai că doamnei Valica îi scapă un porumbel şi îşi devoalează acţiunile:
”Diana Hârneanu (realizator RRA): Bună ziua! Prin telefon cu noi acum, corespondentul Radio România Actualităţi la Bruxelles, Carmen Valică. Bună ziua Carmen!
CARMEN VALICA: Bună ziua!
Realizator: De asemenea prin telefon, sociologul Alin Teodorescu. Bună ziua, domnule Teodorescu, mulţumim de asemenea pentru participare.
Alin Teodorescu: Bună ziua!
Realizator: Există un protest semnat de 2, 4, 6, 8 ONG-uri din România. Este adresat preşedintelui Comisiei Europene, domnul Barroso, vicepreşedintelui, doamna Viviane Reding, comisarului pentru afaceri externe, secretarului general al Comisiei Europene. Societatea civilă avertizează: statul de drept este atacat fără precedent avertizează: statul de drept este atacat fără precedent în România. Carmen, voiam să te întreb pe tine dacă se ştie la Bruxelles de acest protest.
CARMEN VALICA: Acest protest nu a făcut obiectul discuţiilor de ieri, de aseară sau de astăzi legate de situaţia din România. Ce este valabil aici este declaraţia comisarului pentru justiţie, cea de ieri. Viviane Reding a postat pe contul său de Twitter o declaraţie în care-şi exprimă îngrijorarea în legătură cu «atacurile recente la adresa Curţii Constituţionale din România». Precizările de astăzi ale purtătorului de cuvânt al comisarului Reding sunt că s-a luat notă de ce se spune în România astăzi, de declaraţia USL de ieri că nu vor fi schimbări la Curte. În aceste condiţii, analiza cerută aseară de comisarul Reding pare să nu mai aibă obiect, dar situaţia - acesta e mesajul de la Comisie - situaţia e urmărită în continuare. Iar dincolo de Curtea Constituţională şi de independenţa justiţiei, de această temă pe care a atins-o comisarul Reding, există situaţia generală: România rămâne, alături de Bulgaria, în acel Mecanism de Cooperare şi Verificare pentru justiţie. Mark Grey, care este reprezentantul Comisiei care s-a ocupat mereu de declaraţiile legate de acest mecanism, a reamintit că funcţionarea justiţiei este importantă, Comisia este mereu atentă la evoluţiile din România şi în acest moment Comisia se uită în continuare la ce se întâmplă în ţară”.
IATA FRAZA CHEIE DIN TEXT: "În aceste condiţii, analiza cerută aseară de comisarul Reding...". Păi despre ce analiză vorbea Valica? În primul rând, e total falsă informaţia că Viviane Reding ar fi declanşat o anchetă prin serviciile Comisiei Europene, după cum s-a putut observa mai sus în e-mailul primit de la Mina Andreevna, purtătorul de cuvânt al Vivianei Reding. Şi apoi, ce înseamnă ”în aceste condiţii”? Adică în condiţiile în care de la Bucureşti de la Guvernul României au fost dezminţite zvonurile halucinante cu care fusese intoxicată doamna Viviane Reding. Zvonuri pe care însăşi Carmen Valica le-a plasat purtătorului de cuvânt al comisarului Reding. Fără să vrea, jurnalista de la RRA s-a demascat în direct pe postul public de radio: ea răspândise zvonuri alarmiste (arestarea judecătorilor de la CCR, desfiinţarea CCR) şi după ce zvonurile au fost dezminţite de Guvernul României - ”în aceste condiţii” -, analiza pe care, vezi Doamne, ar fi cerut-o Viviane Reding devenea inutilă.
Mai mult de atât, pentru a vedea că jurnalistul Carmen Valica avea o ”misiune” de îndeplinit, iata link-ul de pe site-ul Comisiei Europene unde se află înregistrarea conferinţei de presă de la Comisia Europeană, conferinţă de presă la care a fost prezentă angajata RRA (după ce lansase zvonul cu arestarea judecătorilor de la CCR) şi când o ţinea langa cu ”analiza cerută de Viviane Reding”: http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?type=ebsvod&sid=207872&fb_source=message
Şi europarlamentarul PNL Norica Nicolai în conferinţa de presă pe care a susţinut-o vineri de la sediu USL a confirmat dezvăluirile referitoare la faptul că jurnalista RRA Carmen Valica a fost cea care a lansat informaţia falsă conform căreia urmează să fie arestaţi judecătorii de la CCR şi CCR desfiinţată. ”Cer colegilor de la PDL să nu mai manipuleze presa; şi vă dau exemplul unei domnişoare, Carmen Valică, corespondentul RRA la Bruxelles, care, într-o discuţie cu şefa de cabinet şi purtătorul de cuvânt al comisarului Reding, în conferinţa de presă, a afirmat textual că în România judecătorii Curţii Constituţionale vor fi arestaţi. Este o afirmaţie gravă, grosolană şi ne vom rezerva dreptul să facem toate demersurile juridice şi legale împotriva celor care dezinformează în legătură cu situaţia reală din această ţară în momentul de faţă”, a declarat Norica Nicolai.
Mai ales în ultimele zile, noua Putere din România a fost atacată sistematic folosindu-se aşa-zisele articole din prestigioasa publicaţie engleză „The Economist”. Acum sîntem în posesia dovezii că autoarea acestor texte este, de fapt, Liliana Ciobanu, fost reporter la Realitatea TV, care-şi postează alegaţiile pe un blog găzduit de publicaţia engleză! După cum veţi vedea, textele ei sînt preluate de pe blog de Laura Ciobanu, care le publică în „Evenimentul Zilei”, atribuindu-le ziarului „The Economist”!
L.C. ÎNSEAMNĂ LILIANA CIOBANU
Citiţi cu atenţie acest text apărut în „România liberă”:
„Un nou articol despre România a fost publicat PE UN BLOG AL PRESTIGIOASEI REVISTE THE ECONOMIST. "Cine spune că politicienii români nu-şi merită salariile? Chiar dacă politicienii români nu prea sunt îndrăgiţi de popor, nimeni nu le poate reproşa că nu sunt energici şi ingenioşi", scrie AUTORUL BLOGULUI, care semnează articolul "Democraţie sau demagogie?" SUB PSEUDONIMUL L.C.”
Aşadar, după dezvăluirile noastre din zilele trecute, „România liberă” nu mai preia orbeşte articolele „din presa străină”, ci, aşa cum este normal, dă toate amănuntele despre locul exact unde au apărut acele texte, adică pe un blog găzduit de o anumită publicaţie! În cazul nostru, blogul este doar găzduit de „The Economist”, iar L.C. nu este un pseudonim, ci iniţialele Lilianei Ciobanu!
LILIANA CIOBANU NU ESTE REDACTOR LA „THE ECONOMIST”, CI PATROANA FIRMEI „PURPLE MIND PRODUCTIONS”
Cine are curiozitatea să deschidă blogurile publicaţiei „The Economist” va observa că aproape toate textele referitoare la România sînt semnate „L.C. / Bucharest”.
În ziua de 1 iulie 2012, ziarul „Evenimentul zilei” preia textul şi precizează într-un şapou: „Prestigioasa publicaţie "The Economist" comentează...”, iar în final adaugă: „scrie The Economist, în articolul intitulat "Ponta at War".
Cine credeţi că semnează articolul din „Evenimentul zilei”? Ei, bine, Laura Ciobanu, care se preface că nu ştie că adevăratul autor este Liliana Ciobanu!!!
Liliana Ciobanu a fost pînă acum doi ani reporter de teren la Realitatea TV, primind apoi, din senin, cîteva burse scurte la CNN. Ea este acum proprietara firmei „Purple mind productions”, care trimite texte în regim freelancer pe unde apucă. Textele sale sînt, deci, simple opinii despre un subiect, nicidecum analizele unui profesionist în lumea complicată a politicii. Ale cui jocuri le face, se poate vedea uşor lecturînd postările sale, unde Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu este un înger, iar Traian Băsescu un fel de Dumnezeu.
Deci, pentru cineva din România care citeşte doar articolul din „Evenimentul zilei”, Laura Ciobanu pare că a preluat un articol din „The Economist”, cînd, de fapt, ea a preluat un text de pe blogul Lilianei Ciobanu, despre care numeroşii cititori englezi poate că nici nu au aflat!
Prestigioasa publicație "The Economist" comentează că, în războiul legat de reprezentarea României la Consiliul European de la Bruxelles, problemele importante pentru România, cum ar fi accesul la fondurile structurale sau primirea în Spațiul Schengen.
"Nici Andrei Marga, Ministrul de Externe, nu a fost capabil să prezinte agenda oficială a statului. Întrebat de un ziarist român să explice cu ce poziție se va prezenta România la Bruxelles, purtătorul de cuvânt a declarat că dl Marga nu a avut timp suficient ca să "proceseze informațiile"", scrie The Economist, în articolul intitulat "Ponta at War" (Ponta la război).
Cu alte cuvinte, cazul Lilianei Ciobanu demonstrează cît se poate de clar metoda prin care aceşti agenţi dezinformează opinia publică din România, punînd o presiune artificială în viaţa politică.
Liliana Ciobanu se aşază, în acest fel, în fruntea listei dezinformatorilor plătiţi pentru astfel de servicii, alături de Carmen Valică de la Radio România, de profesoara Kim Lane Scheppele de la Universitatea din Princeton, de bulgarul Alexander Levy şi de bursierul ICR Raul Sanchez Costa. Într-o listă care, în mod cert, rămîne deschisă.
Trimiteți un comentariu