After four months of deadlock, the governing coalition between PSD, PNL, USR and UDMR managed to reach an agreement on the reform of the administration. Although critics see the measure rather as an optimization of expenses and not as a structural reform, political scientist George Jiglău, lecturer at Babeș-Bolyai University, explains in an analysis for “Adevărul” why this moment represents a vital sign for a political construction born of necessity.
The recent agreement between PNL, PSD, USR and UDMR comes at a time when the governing parties are facing immense pressure from the opposition represented by AUR. George Jiglău believes that, beyond the “reform” label, the ability of the four parties to reach a consensus, even with delay, is important.
A coalition of constraints, not options
In the opinion of political scientist George Jiglău, the key to understanding the slow pace of decisions lies in the genesis of this alliance. It was not a choice, but a necessity dictated by the results of the December 2024 election.
“We are dealing with a governing coalition that no one wanted. None of the four parties that are in government today would have wanted to be in this formula. This coalition was reached as a result of what happened from the fall of 2024 to the spring and including the summer of 2025, in an extremely complicated political context, very complicated socially, very complicated economically. The electoral mathematics and the parliamentary mathematics resulting after the parliamentary elections of December 3, 2024 forced the four parties to reach such an agreement, in the difficult context we are going through”, explains George Jiglău.
The two “bubbles” of Romania
Delayed reforms and internal disputes are the side effects of the narrowing of the traditional political spectrum. Jiglău observes a regrouping of the established forces (PNL, PSD, USR, UDMR) in a defensive camp, while AUR dominates the contestation space.
“The old party system now works like a bubble, next to which another bubble has appeared, represented by the AUR and its allies, which is growing. The space of the four parties has narrowed and regrouped in the coalition. We see this in society as well. One part closely follows what is happening in the coalition and discusses Bolojan, Grindeanu and the other leaders. Another part exclusively follows the messages coming from the AUR and its area of influence. The two spaces they communicate very little and face each other especially in the elections”, emphasizes the political scientist.
The Bolojan model and the limit of prime ministerial power
Regarding the way in which Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan managed the negotiations, Jiglău notes a strategy of assumption that encountered resistance, especially from the PSD.
“Ilie Bolojan tried to a good extent to do this (ed. – to take decisions as prime minister) and I think he partially succeeded. He is criticized for this. (…) The model resembles that of Traian Băsescu: “I consulted you, now I decide”. This is how Bolojan also proceeded. The meetings between the coalition leaders have, in fact, become the space where difficult decisions are negotiated. That is where conflicts are resolved so that things can move forward. Now the PSD is more assertive and delays some decisions. In a coalition, the consensus is natural. There cannot be a prime minister who decides alone.” says Jiglău.
Why the breakup of the Coalition is out of the question
Even if the reform of the administration was four months late, and the tensions are visible, the scenario of early elections or leaving the government is considered suicidal by George Jiglău. The fear of political isolation in the face of the rise of AUR maintains the unity of the four parties.
“The anticipations would be a catastrophe for all the parties in the coalition. PSD leaving the government would, in my opinion, be a catastrophic decision for the PSD. To give up participation in the government, with the prospect of taking over the position of prime minister by rotation, to end up in a scenario where you could be a secondary partner in a possible government dominated by the AUR, would be an extremely risky choice. There is, rationally speaking, a better scenario for any of the four parties than this imperfect scenario,” concludes George Jiglău.
Finally, the fact that this unwieldy political structure continues to produce decisions, albeit belatedly, is a success in itself, given the fragile context, the political scientist believes.
“As a conclusion, the fact that this coalition, born out of difficulty and out of necessity, is moving forward despite the many setbacks is remarkable. It is probably a credit to each of the four leaders that they manage to maintain this fragile balance. This does not mean that every decision is good. The measures adopted can be discussed and criticized. But strictly from the perspective of functionality, I have a rather positive assessment, given the overall context.”George Jiglău concluded.
