The Minister of Education and Research, Daniel David claims that Nicușor Dan obtained not only the vote of European Romania, but also attracted support from the other two Romanians. Education is the key that will prevent Romania from becoming a fragmented society, with weak institutions, always on the threshold of anarchy.
From a psychocultural point of view, there are three Romanians: European Romania, Romania in the phase of emancipation and traditional Romania, says the Minister of Education and Research, the psychologist Daniel David.
The victory of Nicușor Dan at the presidential elections of May 18 was due to the broad support of European Romania, but the independent candidate has attracted a significant number of votes and in the area of the other two Romanians, says the psychologist.
Daniel David explained what has to happen so that the differences between the three Romanians do not turn the country into a fragmented society, with weak and manipulable institutions, always on the verge of scandal/anarchy.
He also showed how we can go over the split that divided Romania and the reasons why the diaspora voted against the modernization of the country.
Why is the diaspora a factor of modernizing the country
The truth: How do we manage to go over the split in the Romanian society, published in the context of the presidential elections?
Daniel David: Understanding that Romania is of all and building institutions that work well, not stupid, not for them, but for people. This is done with people in leadership positions that have credibility that they can do that! In addition, mobilizing a modern patriotism, through which we all have to protect and develop our country, without putting it at internal risk (for example, polarizations with social breaks and scandal) or external (for example, trading of our sovereignty in the face of unusual powers/practices, under these extremely dangerous conditions.
The diaspora was perceived in the previous elections as a factor of modernization of the country. What happened in the meantime?
More things happened. Thus, and where the diaspora is weakened, the institutions weakened and, often, the socio-economic conditions were worsening, thus generating frustration in the diaspora, but also models to fight with the institutions.
In addition, in the country, institutions did not improve, to be closer to people, and instead of working for people, they have sometimes worked for them. I am not talking that the political establishment did not show availability of change, but sometimes he communicated arrogance.
“At frustration, you express yourself according to the level of education!”
The debates in the online environment have seriously degenerated, turning into swearing competitions. How is this explained?
Simple, you express yourself according to the level of education! And as a style of argumentation of a thesis and in the form of content.
In the psychology of the Romanian people, they said that the Romanian society is divided about 50/50 between collectivistic and autonomous individuals. Nicușor Dan’s victory means that the autonomous individuals have exceeded, as a number, the collectivists. What does this mean?
That percentage was estimated in 2015. Since then, I have talked and wrote many times about three Romanians, from a psychocultural point of view. One of some already emancipated autonomous individuals, who support the institutions of modern (European) democracy. A Romania of some autonomous individuals in the phase of socio-economic emancipation, which are often antisystem (anti-institutions), starting from the poor functioning of institutions and a deficient educational fund in the country (in which the conspiracies and pseudutenration) and which are often incurred. Finally, a Romania of the more traditional (still collectivist) part, with fear of Romania to a European democracy. Nicușor Dan obtained the broad support of European Romania, but it also attracted significantly from the other two Romanians, the antisystem and traditional one.
The three Romanians who chose Nicușor Dan
Describe us, briefly, the three Romanians.
In Romania of modern democracy (power delegated by representativeness / truth distributed by the free media / state of law guaranteed by rules-institutions), we have the people who understand and respect their institutions (institutions from kindergarten, to political ones), most of them with Euro-Atlantic orientations. In general, there are already emancipated people, with concern for the common good and openness to the global world, this being the group with the largest share of graduates of higher education between the three groups we discuss. From an economic point of view, most are in the upper or middle class (the middle class refers here to the part of the population that has an annual available income between 75% and 200% of the available average annual income).
In the “antisystem” area, we have especially people in the emancipation phase, more selfish in this stage, because they want especially the opinion/voice to be listened to and followed, and their own opinion/opinion is easily confused with knowledge (truth). They feel more special, some as a result of a more recent economic-social jump, most of them being in an area of a middle class, economically speaking. Against this background, they are against the existing institutions that they want to destroy and/or replace them by taking over them, often feeling that they are not respected and valued by them, psychology being often dominated by negative emotions (frustration/hatred). It accepts special “chiefs” more easily and, when/where the educational level is weakened, it develops bizarre historical-social narratives through their exceptionalism (eg false traco-gothic stories; conspiracies through pseudcines and pseudoreligia). They often self -teach themselves as “sovereigns”, while others describe them as “isolationists”, wrongly thinking that they represent all the people and speaking without a mandate on behalf of all Romanians. Most are with high school. They are very sensitive to restrictions, automatically cataloging them as antidemocratic (eg “progressive”, “sauorous”) and are often against the modern democratic system and its institutions.
Finally, in traditional Romania, we have more fearful people than any change and who have not yet found their place in modern democracy. Economically, most are in an area of poverty or in the middle class.
“If the pseudcinescence overcomes education”
Very many families and many friends have arrived, Lately, to argue violently as a result of discussions with political themes. How can they reconcilia?
Understanding more rational and common sense, namely that:
(1) You can fight for your needs/desires/interests/values, but you must respect the fact that others have needs/desires/interests/rights;
(2) you must leave room for those who are not like you in thought and behavior and
(3) The value of a man is not reduced to what he thinks-he does/does, and that thus, a man is like you of his human nature. In this framework, consensions or agreements can be sought and found for various cognitive manifestations (by thinking-limbage)-behavior.
How do you see the evolution of society in the next 5 years from a psychocultural point of view?
If we develop education and becomes an antidote to the pseudcines that surround us, then I see a democratic society based on knowledge, with people who have a good quality of life and an increased expectation of good life and with a well -being for most (desirable for all). If the pseudcinescence overcomes education, then I see a fragmented society, with weak and manipulable institutions, always on the verge of scandal/anarchy (eg by the voice of the best or the most aggressive), at risk on the quality of people’s life and social well -being (poverty)!
