I've written a 12 page paper on this subject, an approach closer to the Russian perspective than the predominant American one; Causes of the fall of the Soviet Union, relation between that and the end of the Cold War; an interesting read.
"The collapse of Nazi Germany has created a large power vacuum in the middle of Europe that needed to be filled. The former allies presented themselves in the following manner: The United States with its new president Harry S. Truman wanted to preserve the alliance but didn’t succeed; Stalin’s Soviet Union wanted to be remunerated for the Russian suffering in the war with territorial coin, while Churchill’s Great Britain wanted the prevention of a Soviet controlled Central Europe1."
I've written an article which had the honor of being published by Buzzle.com.
An article that analyzes the probable outcomes that might occur regarding stability in the executive, taking into consideration all main possible results in the November 2009 presidential elections in Romania: Traian Basescu for a second term, Mircea Geoana and Crin Antonescu. The article is concluded by a brief mentioning of the appearance of royalty Radu Duda on the political horizon.
It is very difficult to predict a positive result in determining how stability will be a characteristic of the Romanian government after the November presidential vote. The ’09 elections are by my consideration one of the most important ones in deciding who the next head of state will be, and they will constitute a turning point in our public and political life.
Started with the article of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published by the London Review of Books in 2006, the topic of the so-called Israel Lobby has been brought into the open and academic, politic and historic discussions arouse on the subject. It's one of the most controversial themes of debate relating foreign policy in the U.S and I wanted to post some links that sum up this debate.
The Post-Communist Romanian political sphere has been undoubtedly characterized by the emergence of as many political parties as interests existed at that historical crucial moment when after the 4 major politicians that successfully undermined the communist dictatorship and took power (Iliescu, Roman, Brucan, Mazilu from the Frontul Salvarii Nationale revolutionary democratic party - FSN), the country started to freely express liberal political thoughts heard for the first time by Romanians in over 40 years.
The 1989 revolution in the consequence of which the Communist Party (PCR) was outlawed, brought forward an ex PCR dissident in the name of Ion Iliescu who with his party, took on administrative and governmental powers and organized popular elections in may 1990, in result of which two thirds of the Parliament was from his party and the prime minister became the other prominent figure of FSN, Petre Roman. This political solution became tense due to domestic crises and ideological differences between members of the FSN which in March ’92 divided into two separate entities one of which winning the September elections with considerable parliamentary majority and Iliescu as president of the Republic. In ’93 this party became known as PDSR (Social Democrat Romanian Party) and the ’92-‘96 period, the PDSR government. The next 4 years were dominated in the Parliament by a large coalition of the Democrat Convention (CDR) (representative of which became head of state, in the name of Emil Constantinescu), the Liberals (PNL), Democrats (PD) and Hungarian Minority Party (UDMR). The following 4 years, between 2000 and 2004 meant the governmental ruling of the reformed PDSR – PSD with prime minister in the name of Adrian Nastase and the parliamentary opposition of PNL and PD. The turn of events after the end of this government is the election of the democrat Traian Basescu in 2004 as president and the major political instability caused by the scandals of the ongoing struggles between the government at the head of which was PNL Tariceanu and president Basescu, as well as between the social democrats on one hand and the liberals on the other.
To bring this brief introductory section to an end I must arrive to the most recent and present government formed in 2008 by a remarkable coalition between the left and the right, PSD[1] and PD-L[2] (PD-L being a previous coalition between liberals and democrats), a historical unprecedented event, in which the governmental portfolios are divided only between them and the Parliament is dominated by them in foreground and PNL and UDMR in the background.
The article that I am writing will focus mainly on two cases of political opposition turned alliance, first on this previously mentioned coalition between completely opposing political forces in the governmental apparatus headed by ex PD, present PD-L Emil Boc, and the second, on one clearly disturbing electoral list for candidacy to the European Parliament in the elections of June 7, put forward by the radical nationalist party led by Corneliu Vadim Tudor – PRM.
First and foremost, with domestic political relevance, I will comment the circumstances in which this awkward coalition was formed out of necessity now in 2008. The 2004-2008 government headed by Calin Popescu Tariceanu has left Romanian politics in crisis. With it came a situation of uncertainty among the electorate regarding political platforms that can best serve them and the nation. The scandals, conflicts, and sometimes utmost hatred put forward by politicians to gain popularity but, wrongly, even more, to not only turn balances in their favor, but also to destroy opponents in the eyes of the electorate, created a state of political predicament, from which the PSD-PD-L coalition promises to salvage the country. In a press conference prior to the November ’08 elections, Emil Boc denounces Tariceanu for his betrayal of the nation by allying his party with PSD to try to impeach Traian Basescu, culminating with the 2007 referendum to vote Basescu off his duties, and promises all Romanians everything they need and not yet received as rightfully theirs[3]. It appears that hypocrisy is not that uncommon even at the highest levels of domestic policy making, seeing that the elections show that this situation of political games only created an uneducated people charged with choosing their leaders; there is a new trend that blames the electorate for not being supportive of Romanian politics and for not being more involved in the system, fact that may be true in most rural cases and some urban situation, but it is not at all a general characteristic of the nation. PD-L didn’t manage to receive majority in parliament and was forced to ally with the opponents in the name of PSD (who as shown were co-responsible for as Boc put it “transforming state institutions into their own interest political machineries”[4]).The reason for this, I dare to say, is not the fact that both political magnates led a competition proved to be of great character, persuasive results or in terms with what people are asking of them to provide after they are elected. It appears that maybe the people are more confused rather than unwilling to give necessary thought on political subjects, seeing that they don’t know what’s going on regarding the diverse political movements; camps are being switched, ideologically unjustified alliances are made, core beliefs are being lost in history, party platforms are being constantly undermined. This would be an explanation regarding the lack of political culture and tradition in political discourse Romania seems to show, for why voters are so divided and confused. To put it in terms of how many say it, the people are fed up with all these political, not only changes but also un-transparent politician behavior and party activities. Perhaps a more conservative approach on the behalf of the parties should be invested in order to have a well needed stability for all the external pressures that the year 2009 brings upon the Romanian people and economy. Progress is well needed, and although we know that this political maneuver of coalition was not made on core political belief grounds, but on the necessity on the part of the liberal-democrats to govern in this year of presidential elections, we are, I am sure, all curious of the turn-out and we can only hope for the best regarding the governmental stability vis-à-vis the different parliamentary interest pressures. It is the best assumption that now that PD-L managed to climb to governmental responsibilities, the now acting president Basescu will and must be reelected in November 2009 in order for stability to occur. I say that he will be elected because he is an ex PD member and the influence he has upon the party is of considerable magnitude, and if we witness that a president coming from a different party is going to be elected, the gap between the executive and legislative will widen causing a great deal of instability, as previously shown situation in 2007 with the scandal of impeachment of the president.
I previously mentioned the two aspects on focus in my essay that, in my opinion, characterize Romanian politics and power struggles as truly remarkable in their means and ways. The first one dealt with, the government coalition, shows that physics laws apply also in politics – opposing forces can be attracted by one another. The same thing can be seen though, pushed by one of the most prominent radical in Romanian politics, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, head of the Great Romania Party (PRM[5]), a nationalistic party, historic for its unforgiving character towards Hungarian minorities and its disturbing allegations towards some other political opponents, including one of the most notorious figures at the beginning of 2009, George Becali, head of the New Generation Party (PNG[6]), soccer club owner and overall financial magnate.
The relationship between the two can be historically characterized as, as some say, a ping-pong match of cursing, defaming, and general radical, disrespectful opposition when it comes to political matters.[7]
The two are both renowned for their speeches, for their ways of addressing different issues, having earned some respect among the population by, I would say, some confused individuals. I say this because supporters of Vadim are nationalists, some with more or less radical indoctrination of the matter, radical egalitarians etc. On the other hand, Gigi Becali is recognized for different things. He is first and foremost the head of one of the most popular Romanian soccer clubs, a business man of many sorts, and later on a politician. He characterizes himself as a very religious person, being popularly known as a friend of the church, building monastic institutions, helping impoverished people by creating homes and resorts, sponsoring many churches and benefactor institutions. This, plus a special way of addressing different aspects of public life in ways that may be considered humorous, caused a situation of popular awareness of his existence. As a politician, ideologically he is a Christian democrat, as his party defines itself.
The beginning of the year 2009 up to the Easter holidays, Romanian public life has been riddled with controversies regarding the arrest of George Becali and the legitimacy of this judicial act[8]. In only a few words, in January his car was stolen from the front of a store where as Becali himself presented the situation, he left his car unattended, with the keys in and the ignition on. He was arrested for sending his bodyguards on wild and dangerous car chases with the perpetrators that stole his car, and holding them against their will in his private bar where he made them sign declarations that proved their guilt in the theft of the vehicle.
This created an incendiary situation in Romania among his supporters but not only. The fact that his arrest was conducted with the help of Special Forces at his house disturbing the whole neighborhood and his family and creating a circus added to the general unrest regarding state authority and its image in front of the Becali cohorts.[9]
As you can imagine, to the previous existing supporters an extremely large number of people added in solidarity to the “Gigi Becali cause” building in term, an ever-larger electorate for himself, coming to the pinnacle of his political carrier vis-à-vis the number of followers, with almost 2 months before the euro-parliamentary elections. I previously mentioned his religious beliefs that bounce out of almost every statement he makes; this is an important fact if we consider one of the greatest coincidences (or not) that takes form in his release on April 17, the Great Friday in orthodox religion, a day that ends the Easter Lent, a day in which all refrains in the name of redemption end.
If we look at these events, taken together, in a political perspective, we can see how Gigi Becali managed to play out an extremely successful political maneuver to attain an increased electorate based on political irrelevant grounds. Corneliu Vadim Tudor, in a visitation of Becali in lock-up, offered him a friendly collaboration that places Becali on the PRM list for the euro-parliamentary elections, resulting in the latter’s acceptance and resignation from his own party, and bringing about a public friendly attitude of one another in help for Becali’s release before Easter[10]. This led to a situation in which, already INSOMAR poles show that the 5% threshold in the European Parliament will be attained by the PRM list with Vadim and Becali as its heads[11].
Drug addict and mentally ill is only 1 example of how Vadim characterized Becali, respective vice-versa in public debates or press conferences for a long time. It is again, an unprecedented situation when two figures of this magnitude end up in the same bed as if they have been long allies. Party platform, ideological loyalty, even personal grudges cease to matter or even exist when it comes to opportunities presenting themselves with the possibility of such remarkable turn-outs in terms of achieving political statute and power. Again, the electorate will not decide anything based on political reflection but on personal image and recent events, and the individuals that are being fooled into voting upon such criteria represent the people whom I mentioned above that can be named politically uneducated. Even though the poles see these elections, for the European Parliament, dominated by the large parties, such as PSD, PD-L or PNL, we mustn’t overlook this struggle of the small parties that manage to come ahead using such means. The people must recognize the fact that it’s only political games Vadim and Becali are playing, and even if they are not playing such games, voters should see through the politicians and into their party history and platform to better understand what their interests are, and I am certain that those underlying interests with which they all started their political careers do not change over night. They may bend their beliefs that are put forward to the public, in accordance to gaining the necessary power to then, later, act upon their own personal in the worst cases, party in most cases, or national interests in the best cases, but primordial interests do not change.
The Romanian people should start paying more attention also to political factors that emerge in cases other then in electoral eve. This will help build a more generous political culture because politicians then become more transparent, and they will enunciate their party platforms more clearly. It is a difficult process, a vicious circle because one is dependent upon the other. The vast Romanian nation cannot learn from political individuals that take advantage of the people in order to obtain the power, and the same, we cannot have a political culture with 15 different parties that relatively have the same interests, but consider themselves opponents, and in the cases in which their orientations really are opposed such as the case with the PD-L – PSD coalition, act upon a reconciliation and cooperation for the sole interest of gaining and maintaining power, power that after achievement, will turn into means for sabotaging their former partners.
The essay sought to show my own view and discontent for the current Romanian political atmosphere in the eve of the euro-parliamentary elections and not to bring about offense to neither character or part mentioned, but at the end I would like to say the following: The European Parliament can have neither Becali nor Vadim-Tudor in its body, as their rhetoric would be vastly detrimental to the Romanian nation and image, as I am fairly certain that if receiving seats in the Parliament, the rivalry will re-flourish between the two, but this time it will be seen on an international scale rather than just home. Regarding the 2008 governing coalition that, as seen, so poorly implemented itself to governmental responsibilities, I see it as a sham, a political fight of the acting president to maintain his power, and is in fact detrimental to national interests in such troublesome times we are now experiencing, as proved by some reforms they insist on pushing (i.e. the fixed tax for small and medium enterprises). The European Union is asking stability in Romania and we have a left-right coalition governing with absolutely nothing in common but the basic democratic values.
Will a positive result for PNL candidate for presidency Crin Antonescu mean a better chance for stability?
Romanian Student of International Relations and European Studies addressing political issues as well as international relation topics that strike its own personal interest, while trying to preserve an academic character of the art of writing.
Who will achieve the most votes from Romania for the European Parliament?
