Transatlantic Politics

"YES" (DA) was the Romanian Orange elections slogan in 2004. Now President Basescu’s supporters have to say "NO" (Nu).

For the first time, Romanians voted today in a referendum whether to impeach the president on  alleged anti-constitutional gestures or not. 75% of the voters backed Basescu. Although the turnout was not as great as expected - 48% - the results show a clear option: NO to the impeachment procedure, seen as a reaction of a corrupt and antireformist parliamentary majority to the president's bold moves against corruption and push for openness and reforms.

The new government under the same Premier who used to be Basescu's ally in the DA-Alliance is now his fiercest fiend. Calin Popescu Tariceanu chose to back down on the reforms pushed forward before Romania's accession to the European Union, in January this year. He and the members of  the new minority government, backed by the socialist (post-communist) opposition are championing in doublespeak, a skill trained by Romanian politicians in over 45 years of communism.

 “We will continue and accelerate the fight against corruption,” promised the new justice minister, Tudor Chiuariu, when he took office one month ago. But his first move was to request the dismissal of a top anticorruption prosecutor who was investigating senior members and supporters of the ruling coalition. The reasoning was that these probes were proving fruitless. “A prosecutor should by evaluated by the number of cases he has won. Until now, there have been no verdicts, which mean the cases are not solid enough,” the minister argued. He omitted to mention the fact that prosecutors didn't get the chance yet to present the probes in a trial of high level corruption, due to the delays and procedural loopholes that allow the defendant to postpone the actual trial.

Still, a good sign was the reaction of  several prosecutors and magistrates who openly protested against Chiuariu's measure. A German expert named this "the Macovei effect" - named after Chiuariu's predecessor, Monica Macovei, broadly appreciated by the EU and US for shaking up the judiciary and granting independence to the magistrates. Due to the "Macovei effect", Romania has now a critical magistracy, aware and openly opposing to any brutal interventions like the Chiuariu incident. The same day Chiuariu asked the interim president - an old-guard communist, Nicolae Vacaroiu - to approve the dismissal of the anti-corruption prosecutor, the Parliament passed a law establishing a new control body to verify the assets and conflicts of interests of politicians and civil servants.

That was a key condition for EU membership; failure to get it going would have triggered a "safeguard clause" from Brussels. But the newborn “Integrity Agency” has a major weakness: it is not an independent body, but subordinated to the very same parliament it is supposed to investigate.

Nonetheless Tariceanu  hailed the new body as a great success, proving that Chiuariu's negotiating skills as opposed to his predecessor's uncompromising style. Still, media and foreign observers concentrated their attention on Chiuariu's move regarding the anti-corruption prosecutor. Especially since he was investigating some cases regarding current government members or allies from the Socialist Party.

A strong signal came on Wednesday, when 9 foreign diplomats participated to the hearings of the High Council of Magistracy, where the fate of the anticorruption prosecutor was to be decided. "The European Commission and the EU Member States follow closely the reform of the justice system and the fight against corruption in Romania. That it is why they attended today's meeting of the High Council of Magistracy, which was a public one", stated the EU Representation in Bucharest. Opposition spokesman Cristian Diaconescu said "It is an unprecedented embarrasment. Romania has become a country with limited sovereignty, under a stronger monitoring than Kosovo."

The Council ruled to postpone the decision and requested an evaluation over the activity of the prosecutor. Chiuariu backed down and said he will respect the Council's decision, one way or the other.

Romanians can only hope that with Basescu's return to the presidential palace, the push for a reform of the political class will grow stronger. The first signs seem to appear: the Socialist opposition leader Mircea Geoana spoke about the need for MPs being elected directly and for a much stronger parliamentary discipline and transparency. Even the Premier admitted that "the public agenda is totally different than the politicians seem to be aware of" and that "this month with a suspended president was a waste of time and money". If this is "the beginning of a beautiful friendship" remains to be seen. Campaigning will continue in the next two years, as Romania will elect its 35 members of the European Parliament in autumn this year, followed by local and regional elections next spring and by parliamentary elections in the fall of 2008. The next presidential elections are due in autumn 2009. Foreign observers expected early parliamentary elections after today's referendum. "It will be a great political loss for the ones who voted to impeach the president. In Germany, we would expect early elections, since the people vetoed the Parliament's decision", said Holger Dix, the representative in Bucharest of the German conservative foundation "Konrad Adenauer." But Romania is not Germany…

[I contributed to the today's cover story in The Economist]

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A comment I published in EUObserver: 

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - Of all the central and eastern European countries to have joined the EU, Romania appears to still have the strongest ties with its communist past.
If transition went smoothly in countries like Slovenia, now a proud eurozone member and next year's holder of the EU presidency, Romania is again dominated by old-guard politicians from the former communist party, doing their best to scrap or water down the reforms started in the past two years.
With a suspended president and all reformist ministers kicked out of office this month, the situation surpasses even the worst-case scenarios predicted just after Bucharest joined the EU on 1 January.

The new political configuration around liberal prime minister Calin Tariceanu is using and abusing every possible democratic tool for its undemocratic goals: delaying the European elections for fear of facing the voters, an impeachment procedure against president Traian Basescu based on no constitutional grounds and a cabinet reshuffle to get rid of performing ministers thought to be "too close to the President".

The majority of MPs voted last week to suspend president Basescu from his duties, despite the Constitutional Court's ruling that he had not overstepped his constitutional rights. But since the court's verdict was just an "advisory" one, the parliament could go ahead with the impeachment procedure.

The socialist old-guard politician Nicolae Vacaroiu, the speaker of the senate, has taken over the duties of interim president for one month.

A referendum on the impeachment is due on 20 May and is likely to produce a reconfirmation of Mr Basescu - who is still the most popular Romanian politician - as president.

But the socialist plan does not stop here, as they are also plotting a modification of the constitution in order to weaken the presidency's attributions, adding an amendment so that a suspended president can never be allowed to run again.

Reversible reforms
For the newly installed "Black Coalition" – the one Romanian voters never approved – the stakes are great. The four "Black Coalition" parties – Liberals, Socialists, the ethnic Hungarian UDMR party and the small Conservative Party of former communist secret police agent and media owner Dan Voiculescu - are trying to defend the very privileges and impunity they have been used to so far.

The European Commission seems to have predicted something like this when it constantly called for "continued reforms that are irreversible."

Four months after Romanian accession, it is clear that not even the post-accession monitoring mechanisms imposed by Brussels and the threat of safeguard clauses are real means of pressure for the Romanian politicians.

A proof: the new justice minister Tudor Chiuariu who tries to distance himself as much as possible from his reformist and EU-acclaimed predecessor Monica Macovei. When talking about his priorities, Mr Chiuariu bluntly said that "I care about the needs of the citizens, not about pleasing Brussels and getting nice phrases in the monitoring reports."

Of course, the young and very politically-motivated minister failed to explain in what way the two are in contradiction.

Without the bold reforms and anticorruption measures implemented by Ms Macovei, who was sacked this month, Romania probably wouldn't have made it into the EU on 1st January. But the new justice minister underlined he doesn't want to become a "Robin Hood" after what he called a "Joan d'Arc."

Romania's return to kleptocracy
The EU's cautious and often too diplomatic approach could prove wrong in this case and perpetuate a modus operandi that will ultimately backlash at Brussels itself.

Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso last week expressed his wish that the crisis be solved "by the Romanian institutions in full respect of the democratic and constitutional principles as soon as possible".

Not wanting to take sides, Mr Barroso reminded both the premier and the president of Romania's commitment to fight corruption and to reform the judiciary.

But promises from the acting interim president, the "Black Coalition" and the new justice minister resemble too much what the socialists were so proficient in doing when negotiating Romanian membership with the EU commission in 2000-2004: shallow promises, institutions that worked perfectly on paper and no real reform.

The rule of law and the end of the impunity era that seemed to take a hold in Romania the past three years proved to be a short lived effort championed by a handful of reformists, who now have been cast away.

Romania's return to kleptocracy will be devastating for its citizens and business environment.

But ultimately, Romania's backlash will prove that EU's "soft powers" are sometimes too soft. This is particularly so when facing old guard communists with decades of experience in cooking the books, corruption and promises that are never fulfilled.

See also: Ukraine and Romania (2): rotten oranges

              Ukraine and Romania: countering the orange revolution
 

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Again, it is Kiev that gets all the headlines. But the similarities to Bucharest are there. Just like in November-December 2004, when both countries held elections and the orange opposition candidate won the presidency. It was weeks of protests in the cold winter streets of Ukraine for Viktor Yushchenko who managed to reverse the framed first result and topple Viktor Yanukovich, Kremlin's protegee. It was a massive turnout, media reports on fraud and the look at the neighboring Ukraine that got Traian Basescu into power, although the parliamentary elections were won by the post-communist Socialist Party (former president Iliescu being a Kremlin-fan trained in Moscow when he was young). Like in Ukraine, Basescu's allience was orange and formed of 2 parties - the Democrats (Basescu's party) and the Liberals (Premier Calin Popescu Tariceanu's party). Like in Ukraine, where the Premier Julia Timoshenko didn't play the same game with the President, the Romanian Premier demonized the President and preferred deals with the post-communist and corrupt Opposition, sabotaging and ultimately kicking out the Democrats from the governing coalition. Unlike Ukraine, the Romanian president has neither the right to dissolve Parliament and call for early elections nor to fire the Premier. Even if Tariceanu is not a Kremlin protegee like the current Ukrainian Premier Yanukovich who organized the counterrevolution in Kiev, ignoring Yushchenko's constitutional right, the Romanian Premier and his new cabinet formed just of Liberals and members of the tiny Hungarian Party plays now exclusively by the book of the Socialist opposition who voted unanimously in favor of this new "ultra-minority" government. The numbers prove it: representing just 20% of the current Parliament, the current cabinet has yet obtained almost 80% of the votes. Corruption, Romania's nr.1 problem before accession to the EU and the reason for the unprecedented "post-accession monitoring" from the EU Commission, is no longer a priority for the current government. After sacking the only true reformist and dedicated minister in the cabinet, Monica Macovei, the Premier stated that Romania's main objectives are promoting a better image abroad and withdrawing the troops from Iraq. The new Justice Minister, a young lawyer with the appropriate "political friends" has already made clear that "my concern lies in the needs of the citizen, not in getting a good report from the EU". What he seems to ignore is the fact that a bad report from the EU will affect precisely the citizen, as the Romanian verdicts would no longer be recognized in the EU, with a huge negative impact on the economy and on property rights.

Like in Ukraine, everything evolves around energy. The Premier, the new Defense Minister and the new Transport Minister are all close friends of the main financing patron of the Liberals, the CEO of a Romanian oil company called Rompetrol. He's charged for money laundry, insider trading, fraud, tax evasion and manipulating the stock exchange. The Premier tried several times to intervene in favor of his friend - by calling the Attorney General, by arranging a meeting with Patriciu and Justice Minister Macovei, even by writing a memo to the President asking him to talk to the prosecutors about his case. The former Energy Minister is being investigated for giving insider information on strategic privatizations. The new Communication minister appointed by the Premier on Monday is also under investigation in this case. The President himself has been accused, on the other hand, of trying to influence the energy distributors in dropping the price for certain industry sectors. Just like in Ukraine, where former premier Julia Timoshenko accused the President of cutting a bad deal with Gazprom after the natural gas crisis in the winter of 2005.

The current situation in Ukraine looks like a gordian node. The Economist sums it up perfectly. "Early elections? Maybe." The following analysis fits perfectly to Romania as well:

The coalition's leaders are now openly bent on amassing a majority big enough to override the presidential veto and strip Mr Yushchenko of his residual powers. It sounds like the sort of constitutional fine-tuning to be expected in a young democracy. In Ukraine, alas, disputes that may seem like issues of principle are often disguised struggles for wealth. Politicians' attitudes to any given office depend on their prospects of occupying it. Beyond the Rada, the country is worryingly divided between Yanukovich supporters in the east and south, and those mostly in Kiev and the west who want a more enlightened government.

 It seems like the EU membership has changed only the surface and the language of the Romanian politicians. Deep down, the same post-Soviet deals are still being made. And with the EU focusing on climate change and the famous Constitution, what is happening in Romania doesn't seem to bother too many. Ukraine even less.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This is not a joke, it's actually from the EU jargon.. so don't crack yourselves up.  The mega-efficient EU anti-corruption enforcement squads have just payed a surprise visit to the Brussels bureaucrats in an attempt to crack down on the "passive corruption". Here is what EUObserver reports:

European Commission officials were being interrogated by Belgian police on Tuesday afternoon (27 March) following surprise raids by police on commission buildings.
Jos Colpin at the Brussels prosecutor's office told EUobserver the officials arrested on Tuesday are suspected of "passive corruption," or taking "bribes" from real estate and security firms.
The officials being interrogated - the number of which is not being made public - possibly "circumvented normal tendering procedures" involving the commission's representation premises in Luxembourg, France and Italy.
The civil servants are suspected of pocketing bribes from real estate and security companies in return for rewarding them contracts to rent and secure the commission buildings.  

The beauty of the story lies in the minor detail that this case has been going on for the past..3 years. With no convicts so far…Just another regular EU procedure with no scary outcome. But the OLAF (EU's anti-fraud and (anti?)corruption body) has been "fully supportive" so there still is hope.

A commission spokesman confirmed the raids in commission buildings, but refused to comment on the affair other than saying the commission is "fully co-operating" in the investigations. The EU's independent anti-fraud office, OLAF, took part in the investigations, he added.  Belgian Prosecutor Berta Bernando-Mendez started investigations into the case three years ago, leading to Tuesday's operation which was spearheaded by the Belgian police's anti-corruption unit and which also saw the participation of Italian and French police. It will be decided before Wednesday morning 06:00 CET whether any official will be held in custody for further interrogation, Mr Colpin said.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Politicians the world over have to be marveling at Nancy Pelosi's ability to bribe her fellow congressman and have it portrayed in the American press as "a triumph".  Well done, Nancy.  All it took was $20 billion (with a B) in earmarks and other vote-buying schemes to convince her fellow Democrats to vote for the Iraq appropriations bill:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated she can pile on enough pork to bribe enough Democrats to cobble together a bare, partisan majority to "send a message" that has no chance of becoming law. Congratulations…

The lengths that Democratic leaders had to go to win their "triumph" betrayed its cynicism. To get her narrow majority of 218 votes, Ms. Pelosi and Appropriations Chairman David Obey had to load it up like a farm bill: $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers, $283 million for dairy farmers–all told, some $20 billion in vote-buying earmarks of the kind Democrats campaigned against last year.

From The Wall Street Journal 

Not only has Pelosi proven the hypocracy of the Democrats' earlier promise to rid Washington of this sort of vote-buying and corruption, she has significantly hindered the overall war effort (not just the funding of it) by flatly stating when U.S. troops will withdraw.  She has taken the management of the war out of the hands of the U.S. military in Iraq and instead imposed an arbitrary timeline on our troops in the field from 3,000 miles away.  Has anyone ever heard of winning a war by declaring your intent to withdraw?

Even more sad (or ironic, depending on your point of view) is that the passage of this bill will accomplish nothing - 0 - zip - nada here in the U.S.  The passage of this bill in the Senate is highly unlikely and President Bush has already declared his intention to veto the bill if it reaches his desk in the unlikely scenario that it does pass the Senate.  What this bill actually accomplishes is that it sends the clearest message yet to those who would defeat our efforts in Iraq that we are preparing to abandon the place in the near future.  Once again, well done Nancy.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!