The Constitutional Court is the supreme instance as far as the interpretation of the state's fundamental law is concerned. It decided that President Traian Basescu might hold on power at least during this first mandate. The symmetry principle won't be applied for a referendum meant to dismiss him. He may be dismissed only if half plus one from the total number of citizens with the right to vote go against him. But such a score will never be achieved, simply because too many Romanians are abroad and too many won't go voting. But it doesn't mean the President can't be suspended and preserved for a long time, maybe until this mandate is over. This is chess with no checkmate. It is eternal chess, as estimated in an editorial by Adrian Patrusca, the ZIUA editor-in-chief. What scenarios are there likely to follow for Romanians?
If the political opposition is constant, to suspend Basesecu will be just a mere formal procedure. The Parliament's democratic double exercise - done once for the rectification of the referendum law and then for the motion against minister Macovei - proves that Basescu's adversaries are two thirds. What if he may be suspended, but he may not be dismissed by referendum? What solution will there be left for the opposition? Here is one solution: a referendum to take place one month after the committees in charge of analyzing the President's deeds breaking the Constitution have debated it and after the procedure to suspend the President is over. Such a referendum will matter only if the opposition manages to mobilize the electorate and more than half of electors go voting. The President will thus be suspended. For how long? Until a new referendum occurs. But the law includes no norms on a deadline for such a case. Therefore the following referendum may take place after months. And Basescu will no longer live in Cotroceni Palace or use his residence on Primaverii Avenue. Someone else will take over his mandate. As I have already described it, it is chess with no checkmate.
This deep, long lasting political crisis that is lying ahead originates in the constitutional system, although the latter is also the solution. Today's Romania is developing from a misfortunate pattern, in between parliamentary republic and presidential republic. The half-presidential form is guilty of the endless conflict involving Presidency, Government and Parliament. And the history of the last 17 years is illustrative of it. I am an adept of the parliamentary republic, no matter if Cotroceni Palace is headed by a President with a criminal record who is daring enough to give directions to the prosecutors working for the National Anti-Corruption Department, a recuperating President surrounded by hungry bitches, or a more balanced head of state, such as both Iliescu and Constantinescu were. This is simply because the chance to have an entirely corrupted Parliament is smaller than the chance that one single person, the head of state, should be mad or corrupted. But maybe there will be many more to go for the presidential republic. It is rarer in Europe and it grants the head of state with substantial prerogatives of executive nature, as well as with certain powers over the Parliament.
Until Romanians agree to have the Constitution changed one way or the other by means of referendum, we can only see that who reaches conflict with the Parliament, be it the President or government, will certainly lose. The Parliament is the most important guarantor of democracy. The results I am talking about are to come soon. Beware, Basescu and Tariceanu Cabinet!