ZIUA reported yesterday on the appeal authored by 50 intellectuals, some of them very notorious, expressing concern about the political crisis in Bucharest and more. The message is on a danger such as suspending and even dismissing President Traian Basescu. Of course such an initiative can't be ignored. This is the reason why most media instruments have reported on it. Are the authors right? Can such a warning become useful to Romanian democracy and to the health of our public life? Or are the 50 intellectuals wrong?
Ever since 1989 the best known scholars have traditionally supported the initiatives of the political right, except for the "smallest evil", when they urged the right wing electorate to vote for Iliescu. Right parties have pleaded more convincingly and constantly for the consolidation of democratic institutions and for the Euro-Atlantic integration of Romania. It is also true that the intellectuals were the ones to author the final strike against a democratic President, such as Emil Constantinescu was, after the latter had let himself defeated by the main structures of the Securitate (Communist Secret Service in Romania), which he had failed to dismember. If we are talking about a general trend embraced by that part of the civil society represented by intellectuals and scholars, who can afford democratic exercise to take the temperature of politics every now and then and warn people about possible crises, then we can say the appeal released yesterday is part of this set of values. But only if it truly is the expression of this category's prevailing view.
Still this time I am sure there is a get between a small group of intellectuals close to a publication as small as 22 weekly and the remainder of Romanian intellectuals, some hundreds of thousands. In other words, it is more than likely that the appeal authors approached it on their own and they have become both the authors and the victims of their own slip. They have decided all by themselves that Traian Basescu, who worked in Anvers in the past, is playing a positive part only and he shouldn't be suspended or dismissed. They have agreed that there is a monstrous coalition of politicians and businessmen now unbound, who want to eliminate the President in order to protect corruption, communism and the Securitate (Communist Secret Service in Romania). Morover, they claim the parties participating at this parliamentary operation are isolated from people and contradict citizens' real will.
The appeal's premise is as false as possible. Under any democracy, including the Romanian one, the supporters of political parties are those who vote for or against the most important decisions. One such decision is the choice for a President or, in case of referendum, for dismissing the President. This is why options are expressed by means of direct poll. The 50 enraged politicians have got the right to express any opinion publicly. But they can be convincing only if they express arguments. What arguments can there be against the constitutional procedure to suspend the President, since the initiators haven't even got to argue for it? I believe a gap has this time widened between the 50 people pointing to the fight against corruption, to communism and the Securitate on the one hand, and all the others on the other hand, as the latter are aware they are facing mere games of the President's.