Vivid Election 2004 archive

>>ROMANIA'S ORANGE REVOUTION
February 2005

>>THE PD-PNL'S POLITICAL PROGRAMME: MORE SOUNDBITE THAN SUBSTANCE
November 2004

Regulars
ELECTIONS 2004
The PSD's political programme: a populist message to a disillusioned electorate

by Mark Percival
October 2004

In early September, the Social Democratic Party (PSD) launched its electoral programme alongside its new ally, the small Romanian Humanist Party (PUR) which recently sold out its independent status, banking on a PSD victory. The PSD/PUR programme is unlikely to have major impact in boosting the alliance's popularity. Its description of PSD's record in government to date gives the impression of a completely different country from the Romania we know. The preamble refers to the period since 2001 as ''the most productive since the Revolution'' mainly basing its argument on economic growth. The PSD claims to have ''brought Romania back to where it deserves (sic)'' seeing 2001-4 as ''four years of effort for a return to normality.'' Yet the economic statistics tell only part of the story.

There has indeed been growth, but the figures conceal the fact that Romania has become an increasingly divided society, with large gaps between a new wealthy elite and a substantial part of the population who have yet to share in prosperity, in spite of the PSD's social democratic rhetoric. Moreover, growth figures mask a very low starting point. Foreign Direct Investment, though rising is still several times lower per capita than in most of the 2004 EU accession countries.

It is highly ironic that the PSD programme refers to the apparent defects of the 1997-2000 administration, ignoring the fact that many of the vices mentioned are its own. So you have the rather bald statement: ''Freedom of the press, the multi-party system and freedom of association were all brought into question by the government of the right of 1997-2000. Inflation, corruption, the marginalisation of Romania, social disorder and the restriction of public authorities were the result of a political adventure which must not be repeated.'' For the PSD to claim press freedom has improved is a total distortion of the facts. Numerous NGOs such as the Media Monitoring Agency, Center for Independent Journalism and Reporters without Borders have all expressed grave concern at the severe deterioration of media freedom over the last two to three years.

The PSD government has abused both press freedom and public money by using state advertising in the media as a political tool to influence the editorial line. In the provinces, anti-government newspapers are subjected to severe harassment often involving supposedly independent state authorities, in a gross abuse of the independence of public institutions, which is a fundamental element of a free society. Sixteen journalists were assaulted in 2003 according to the Media Monitoring Agency, the most notorious case being that of Timisoara based journalist Ino Ardelean, who was attacked by unidentified assailants after a series of reports about corruption among local PSD officials. Again supposedly independent state authorities failed to act impartially to bring the culprits to account. The Timisoara police chief responsible for investigating the Ardelean case considered that the reporter ''had not been beaten badly enough'' for anybody to be taken into preventative arrest even though the reporter had required 55 days medical treatment.

The broadcast media are increasingly subservient to the government, mainly due to the cosy arrangement under which debts have been rescheduled with the tacit understanding that this will lead to political compliance. This is an abuse not only of the independence of the media but also of the principles of the free market economy and the rule of law. Some local TV stations (for instance in Constanta) are now so one sided that their news bulletins resemble those of the Ceausescu period. The reality is that democratic freedoms have severely deteriorated under PSD, in terms of media independence and the impartiality of public authorities. Romania is now more of a semi-authoritarian system with limited freedom of expression, in which the rule of law is weak. The country is definitely less free than in 2000. Yet the PSD claims that ''Romania is a democratic society with a functioning market economy'' even though the EU has yet to grant the country that status.

The programme contains many statements which are simply distortions of the truth. Firstly, the PSD attempts to discredit its political opponents through associating them with the unpopular 1997-2000 administration, described as ''the PD-PNL government'' even though both parties were merely junior partners in a coalition led by the now defunct Democratic Convention. Further, for all its faults, one achievement of that government was to secure greater recognition for Romania internationally. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was influential in arguing for Romania to be included as an EU candidate country following his visit to Bucharest in May 1999, after President Emil Constantinescu supported Nato's war on Serbia. So it is a complete distortion for the PSD to claim that Romania was internationally marginalised in this period. In fact the country then emerged from the isolation of 1990-96, when governments led by the PSD's predecessors were largely ostracised by the international community initially because of the violent suppression of dissent, and later because of the presence in the ruling coalition of extreme nationalist parties promoting xenophobia against the country's ethnic Hungarian population.

Further distortions describe the PSD's record. So the government ''obtained credit for the construction and modernisation of motorways'' neglecting to mention the widely criticised Brasov-Bors project which will be financed from public money because the private sector was not interested. Likewise the number of places in shelters for the victims of domestic violence will be ''doubled'' which is a fairly meaningless gesture when current facilities are almost non-existent. Even more absurd, the document refers to the strengthening of the leu, yet measured against the US dollar rather than the euro, ignoring the unprecedented depreciation of the American currency on international markets over the last twelve months. Against a basket of currencies the leu continues to depreciate.

On corruption, the PSD claims that there has been a considerable improvement since 2000, contrary to the perception of many observers and NGOs. The PSD claims that under the previous administration, political considerations allowed some to escape debts to the state, ignoring its own behaviour towards the private TV stations. Likewise the PSD claims to have concentrated on reducing corruption in the allocation of public contracts. Yet in the last few months there have been several cases where the government has failed to follow transparent procedures of public tendering. The Brasov-Bors motorway contract was awarded without tender, as was the advertising contract for the referendum on the new constitution in October 2003. Most recently, the government has been criticised for awarding a contract for frontier protection without public competition. There is no mention of signing further international anti-corruption conventions.

The PSD makes bold claims that it will raise salaries and living standards, making the country ''a place Romanians can be proud to be a part of.'' Yet such claims come across as mere populism given the distorted presentation of PSD's record to date. Romania's increasingly sophisticated electorate is likely to judge this programme with scepticism.

Mark Percival is the Managing Director of Romania Think Tank. More on Romania Think Tank can be found at its website, www.rtt.ro