Vivid Election 2004 February 2005

Looking forward from Election 2004
Action on corruption: the imperative for the new government’s political survival

by Mark Percival
February 2005

Two thousand and four was a turbulent year for Romania, in which the future of democracy itself was called into question, and the country came perilously close to a return to authoritarian rule. The media came under extreme pressure, while complaints of political control and corruption in the judicial system continued. Although the European Commission awarded Romania the much coveted status of a functioning market economy in the autumn, in practice the decision was more political than economic. Many inequities continued, in particular political favouritism in the collection of taxes, giving a competitive advantage to those with the right connections.

The culmination of this downward spiral of corruption and authoritarianism was the election of 28 November, in which the governing PSD, realising its deep unpopularity amongst much of the electorate, showed few scruples in its desperate bid to retain power. During the campaign, ruthless tactics were used against the media, including, on at least two occasions, mass purchases in the early morning from kiosks throughout the country of newspapers critical of the government, an old trick used by communist agitators in the late 1940s. When these methods still failed significantly to shift public opinion, the PSD resorted to outright fraud in the first round, on 28 November, taking advantage of the numerous loopholes in the Romanian electoral system, in particular those facilitating multiple voting, as well as the lack of independence of the Central Electoral Bureau.

Yet as many of us who have been here for some time will recognise, Romania has an astonishing ability to retreat from the brink of the abyss. A strong campaign by parts of the media and NGOs drawing attention to the fraud in round one meant that the run-off between the two leading presidential candidates on 12 December was largely trouble free, leading to the surprise victory of the opposition leader Traian Basescu over his rival, Adrian Nastase. Most encouraging of all was the sense of civic duty shown by many Romanian citizens, some of whom waited for hours to vote, showing little inclination for the country’s traditions of passivity. The elections demonstrated that Romania is still a deeply divided society, but Basescu’s victory also showed the strength of a growing class of mainly urban Romanians with strongly Western European values, who are tired of being held back by corruption.

Politically the new government faces many problems, with a highly precarious parliamentary position. Had the 28 November contest been fair, it would probably have been possible for the Alianta to form a majority alongside the Hungarian Democratic Union (UDMR). Instead, the government must rely on support from the opportunistic Romanian Humanist Party (PUR) which allied with the PSD in the election campaign, and yet were willing to join the government ''in the national interest'' according to party president Dan Voiculescu. The best option would still be fresh parliamentary elections at an early stage, as these would almost certainly give Calin Popescu Tariceanu’s administration a much stronger mandate, eliminating the need to rely on the PUR as a minority coalition partner. But under the constitution this can only happen after two votes of no-confidence. As long as opposition parties fail to vote the government down, Parliament cannot be dissolved. PSD and PUR deputies know that they would lose out in a new contest, which would take place under very different conditions to that of 28 November. Many would be out of a job. Perversely, therefore, the government has an interest in losing a confidence motion, while for opposition deputies it would be better for such a vote to be defeated. Perhaps only in Romania is such a backwards situation possible.

Yet the government’s precarious parliamentary position may be a blessing in disguise for Romania, since it makes it more important than ever for Tariceanu’s administration to retain public support through reformist policies. As long as early elections remain disadvantageous to PSD and PUR deputies, the Alianta parties can continue in control. PSD-PUR can make a noise, but in practice will always have to accept the PD-PNL led government’s decisions.

So far, the new administration has handled the situation well. The PUR’s threats to leave the government when it was not given five prefects’ positions proved empty, and the party backed down. Yet Tariceanu has been unable to resist pressure to retain Adrian Nastase and Nicolae Vacaroiu as presidents of the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. This is unfortunate and not a little disappointing, as Vacariou’s presence in particular in one of the highest offices in the country is deeply damaging to Romania’s image. The senator has been implicated in major corruption scandals, which have never been investigated due to his parliamentary immunity. He is accused of making massive profits from petrol smuggling to Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war in violation of the UN embargo, as well as making enormous gains from banking collapses in which ordinary citizens lost their savings.

The key for the new government to retain popular support and hence control of Parliament must be vigorous anti-corruption policies. It is consequently encouraging that President Basescu broke the normal protocol of an Interior Ministry celebration to demand a clampdown on graft in the police. These statements must be backed up by actions in all areas of public life, based on a strategy of zero tolerance, combined with improvements in salaries to reduce the temptation to accept bribes. The health sector and education are two other priorities where an anti-corruption drive would win large scale support among the population. At the same time, the new government must not be afraid of trials for high level corruption, which are essential if Romania’s citizens are to be convinced there has been a real change. These are for the judiciary to initiate, but the government must ensure that reforms are carried out to make the courts genuinely independent, so they will prosecute regardless of wealth or status.

At the same time, the new government must be constantly on guard against corruption within its own ranks, particularly from PNL barons. Allegations that the recently appointed prefect of Vaslui is connected with compromised figures should be thoroughly investigated. Equally, the President would do well to waive his immunity and answer accusations that he made illicit profits from the sale of Romania’s merchant fleet while transport minister in the 1996-2000 government. The charge may have been politically manipulated during Rodica Stanoiu’s period as head of the Ministry of Justice, so there is a good chance Basescu could clear his name. Such a gesture would strengthen his authority, win respect and show a clear distinction from the Iliescu-Nastase administration.

Above all, the new government must avoid the mistakes of the 1996-2000 administration, which lost popularity due to procrastination, hence becoming a prisoner of coalition infighting as early elections ceased to be an option. Consequently, it must enact vigorous reforms to create a society based on the rule of law whatever opposition it faces from Parliament or its opportunistic coalition partners. Such firmness would create tensions in the short term, but in the long run would strengthen the government’s position, while the PSD is so lacking in real ideology that it could even implode in opposition, without the ability to milk state coffers to reward its supporters. With the right approach from the new administration, 2005 has the potential to be a pivotal year when Romania can begin to emerge from its post-communist political primitivism.

Mark Percival is the managing director of Romania Think Tank, about which more can be found by visiting its website, www.rtt.ro