After having managed to cause the fall of the government led by Ilie Bolojan, the Social Democratic Party is now in a position to support Eugen Tomac, a close associate of the former president Traian Băsescu, for the position of prime minister, and, at the same time, to give up the portfolios he held within the Executive. Looking in retrospect at this sequence of events, the question naturally arises whether the political benefits obtained by the PSD justify the costs and risks generated by this political conflict. Political scientist Cristian Pîrvulescu analyzes this topic for “Adevărul”.
The removal of Ilie Bolojan from the head of the Executive was the main objective of the social democrats, but the cost of this political victory risks the installation of a prolonged period of instability. In the opinion of political scientist Cristian Pîrvulescu, the nomination of Eugen Tomac and the option of a technocrat cabinet represent an improvised compromise solution, which significantly complicates the governance process and the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament.
“The PSD comes out as weakened as the others, because they no longer participate in the government, but they still managed to remove the prime minister. They managed to remove the prime minister who was creating very big problems and whose plan to eradicate the PSD became visible to everyone, which they claim as clearly and gloriously as possible. So, from this point of view, I think the PSD has achieved its objective (…) PSD has no reasonable alternative at this time. His objective was to remove Ilie Bolojan, and in order to achieve this objective, he must accept the given situation. He has no other option. I know it seems ironic and that many believe that if this matter had been discussed a few months ago, it would have seemed impossible. But that’s the situation at the moment”says Cristian Pîrvulescu.
“There was a calculation error”
In the opinion of political scientist Cristian Pîrvulescu, one of the main strategic errors of the social democrats was the refusal to wait for the expiration of the 45-day term provided for the exercise of the mandates of the interim ministers. The debate was also fueled by divergent interpretations among constitutionalists. While some of them believe that, after the expiration of the interim period, the government should request a new vote of confidence in the Parliament, others argue that the approval of the legislature would be necessary only for the appointment of the new interim ministers, without affecting the mandate of the entire Executive.
“The error that the PSD made was the method by which it removed the prime minister, strategic, not just tactical. The PSD counted on the fact that it would succeed in producing a quick disembarkation of the prime minister, which did not happen. It is a calculation error. If they had been patient and waited the 45 days from the moment the PSD ministers resigned from the government, next week would have been the 45 days and could have put the government in a position to depend on the vote of confidence, due to the change in the political composition. I don’t know who convinced them that they would not vote in the Constitutional Court. It is certain that, for them, the situation is not the best, but in any case it is better than what it was when Mr. Bolojan was the prime minister, because his reign created a lot of problems for they”, explains Cristian Pîrvulescu.
The increase in confidence in Ilie Bolojan, a “perverse effect” of the PSD action
Another consequence of the dismissal of the government led by Ilie Bolojan, which the Social Democratic Party assumed, was the significant increase in public confidence in the current interim prime minister, who managed to position himself as the main exponent of the opposition to the PSD. In the opinion of political scientist Cristian Pîrvulescu, the wave of sympathy accumulated in the last weeks by Ilie Bolojan has a conjunctural character and is expected to gradually fade with the passage of time.
“It will decrease as quickly as it increased. Public opinion changes a lot. Ilie Bolojan is not the winner of this ultra-known communication strategy, primarily the famous TINA, “There Is No Alternative”, used by Margaret Thatcher, by the way, which seems to be his political model. Suggesting that there was no alternative to the policies he supported. There is always an alternative, better or worse, but there is an alternative. And this endorsement is risky. Excuse me, but when you talk about support, you mean 30%, right? How much does 30% mean in the context of public support in Romania? In Romania, politicians are not trustworthy. If you compare with the figures of President Iohannis at the beginning of his term, there were figures of 70%. At the moment, the situation is dramatic. Romanian politicians are not trusted. Mr. Bolojan is also relying on the anti-system strategy, becoming a fighter against the “corrupt system” that PSD built”, explained the political scientist.
