Given the false independence of the three powers in a state and the aberrant idea that there is need to separate them, it is impossible for any government not to get in trouble, be guilty and get nailed to the wall. This is exactly what is happening with Tariceanu's Cabinet now. As there are no constitutional or methodological clarifications, there is a vicious circle that entraps every representative of the political power one by one, whether Executive or Justice representatives. This is because the separation of the three powers cannot be total. They must be visibly interconnected and communicate.
Who is responsible in front of electors, in case economic-financial criminality and corruption amplify instead of diminishing? All the three powers in state are sure to be guilty in such case. And the president as well, although he is not part, but would like to be, in any of the three powers. At the end citizens feel they are betrayed, for the promises made during electoral campaign by the parties they voted for and brought to power were not kept. Every four years every five years, as far as the president is concerned the electorate comes with sanction. As the sword of Damocles hangs above them, the three powers search for solutions, each with its own means. There are both common and different solutions.
Just like usually the victorious party announces intention to diminish corruption. The Executive does the same. But their powers are actually limited. They can promote normative documents, but it is up to the Parliament to promulgate them or not, or even to twist the meanings. The government controls the Interior Ministry, the Police too. These institutions may start investigations. The Executive may get basic data on financial-economic crimes and corruption, directly or indirectly, via the president, who is in charge of the information service community. From this point on the fight of criminality can catch a disease and the Executive might lose control, anyway. Policemen' s investigations must turn into notifications to the Prosecutor's Office. In order to complete investigations there is need of co-operation between the two institutions. It is just that the Executive loses control on prosecutors, although the latter are representatives of the state as prosecution lawyers. This is because some stupid normative documents turned them into magistrates. And as seen, they are not magistrates, be it only because it is the Justice minister who names Prosecutor's Office heads. And the Justice minister is member of the Executive, not to mention that this official has recently brought lots of policemen to the Prosecutor's Office.
Therefore the government may start action against criminality which gets at a standstill simply because beyond Police there is an intermediate layer, called Prosecution, which is neither in the Executive nor in Justice. It is a soft wall which any bullet can hit. On the other hand, given this wretched layer, the Prosecutor's Office can also play games and use Justice independence as argument for protection. There are prosecutors, mob clans and groups of economic and political interests who play games. And there are more state institutions doing the same, such as the secret services and presidency. Theoretically, they can play their cards with help from prosecutors. They can profit of an independence that is only an attribution of the juridical power and prosecutors are not actually part of the latter. They may start all sorts of inquiries and we have seen how, as well as they can compromise policemen's efforts, preventing their investigations. Moreover, out of incompetence or deliberately, they often have the chance to provide courts with incomplete records, poorly drawn, lacking evidence or vulnerable, under the pretext of obedience to procedures.
If courts, on whom all the blame is put, get entrapped, trying to prove their contribution to the diminishing of corruption, and reach illegal or ungrounded sentences, then they get to the European Court of Human Rights. And the Romanian state has lost one case after another. In the end it will be the Executive to be found guilty for it. So isn't there need to draw a clever line between these powers in a state? What about the links between them? Without insisting on the legislative power, I think it has the main part in establishing fair norms to interpret the Constitution.