Between two, there is no lesser evil

According to Romania’s Central Election Bureau, the referendum on President Traian Basescu’s impeachment, which was over till late at night on July 30, was deemed void due to a low turnout. Thus, Basescu keeps his office. The official data show that the turnout reached 45.92 percent, while at least half of the 18-million electorate is necessary to validate the vote.

Formally, Romania’s political crisis, in which the center-right president was opposed by the relatively leftist cabinet of Victor Ponta, can be now dismissed. Neither of the parties in the conflict gets anything for their pains. At this stage, the political game ended in a draw. However, this will hardly give Romania the public peace, which the country needs so badly at the moment.

Basescu has got nothing much to celebrate. Exit polls show that more than 80 percent of voters backed impeachment. So although the “coup,” mentioned by the Basescu, did not happen, it was hardly due to public support for his policies or his actions as president.

It is quite probable that had it not been for anomalous heat wave, which had surged across the country, the turnout would have been higher, and then the president’s opponents would be triumphant now. Nevertheless, it looks as if the causes for such results were much deeper than unfavorable weather.

It should be mentioned that it was not the first time that Basescu had faced impeachment. He was already impeached by the Romanian parliament in April, 2007. The leftist opposition MPs had accused Basescu of violating the constitution, “propensity to totalitarianism,” abuse of power (including illegal tapping of government ministers), corruption, and tarnishing Romania’s international image. However, all this did not prevent him from winning the presidential election in December, 2009, albeit with a minimum majority of 0.7 percent.

Since then, the economic and financial crisis has struck Romania badly. President Basescu had to resort to very unpopular measures in order to stabilize the situation and ensure the necessary financial aid from the European Union. His public support has waned correspondingly, and his leftist political rivals jumped at the chance.

The accusations were anything but new: the violation of the constitution, infringement on citizens’ rights, and obstructing the government. Basescu had apparently been trying to transform Romania into a presidential republic, contrary to the constitution. Reports of the president’s unbecomingly high revenues, luxurious property, and corruption connections mushroomed in the media. Should only this be the case, the referendum would have turned out differently.

The thing is that the president’s rivals were none the better. Suffice it to recall a scandal in the academic community around prime minister Ponta’s doctoral thesis. A National Committee, charged with validating academic titles, found that 85 pages out of 432 (i.e., one-fifth) of his thesis on International Criminal Court, defended in 2003, was a copy and paste plagiarism, that is, direct borrowing of others’ works without any references. Immediately, there were talks of resignation. However, the prime minister said, “Resignation is out of the question. You must be aware that it is but a landmark in the political war between president Basescu and myself, in which each of us is fighting with whatever weapons are available.” One might think that it was Basescu who copy-and-pasted the ill-starred thesis.

Naturally, the series of scandals in both camps annoyed the voters, who became disillusioned and lost any trust for Romanian politicians. Many preferred to withhold from voting in the referendum of July 30 not only due to the oppressively hot weather, but also because they thought the cause desperate. In fact, there was nothing to choose from.

We would like to remind our readers that the European Union had categorically objected to manipulations with the referendum legislation and the threat of rigged vote. The suspicions were well-grounded. The prime minister was even made to make a solemn promise to observe the norms of democracy and ensure a transparent vote. Nevertheless, Basescu called on his supporters to boycott the referendum due to the risk of rigging.

Romania’s parliamentary election is scheduled for November. This is when the leftist coalition hopes to consolidate its foothold, which will enable it to resume attacks against the president.

Ukraine’s opposition, which so presumptuously showers the voters with promises of the president’s impeachment in the event of its victory in October’s parliamentary election, should look up to Romania for example. In Bucharest, the opposition holds the majority of seats. Nevertheless, this did not help it to remove the president.

Ukraine’s opposition’s chances to win the majority in this election are virtually zero. The best they can hope for is to weaken the advantage of the incumbent party and its Red footmen. Secondly, it will take not only the changing of legislation, but the amending of the constitution, which is a very complicated and time-consuming process, which might well delay till the next election. The very process of impeachment, too, takes up a lot of time. In other words, the promise to sack Ukraine’s incumbent president is nothing more than an empty threat.

Does the opposition indeed consider the Ukrainian voter as stupid as to buy those empty promises? The knowledge of elementary arithmetic is sufficient to see the hopelessness of any aspirations to impeach Yanukovych after the October election.

If this is how the opposition wants to gain popularity, it has miscalculated. Everyone is sick and tired of empty words and unfeasible promises. And now last, but not least: if the opposition holds the voter in such contempt, how different is it from those already in power? It appears that the opposition is none the better. So why vote for it?

This is probably what Romanian voters thought as they preferred to stay home on a hot summer day and withhold their vote. Between two evils it is not worth choosing. There is no lesser evil.

COMMENTARY

Oana POPESCU, director, Center for Conflict Prevention and Early Warning, Bucharest:

“I think it can well be said that this referendum was a failure for all, for the Social-Liberal Alliance (SLA) and Traian Basescu. Basescu survived the referendum with such a low level of legitimacy that it indeed can be seen as vote of no confidence. SLA lost the battle it had initiated, and is also tarnished by the plagiarism case and international scandals, so today the coalition’s image is worse than it has been before.

“Why did the referendum fail? Because it was scheduled too early, in the middle of the summer, when people are on holiday. Other reasons were an insufficiently short organization period and the obscurity of rules, which demobilized voters. It should be noted that Basescu and his Democratic Liberal Party’s rating plummeted before and after the local election. However, SLA’s attempts to alter the rules of the game and accomplish a large-scale institutional shift using dubious methods induced some people with a strong anti-presidential stand to believe that Romania’s political class is largely made up by the same sort of individuals. So why vote for changes which will never become reality.

“However, another crucial reason is a very low turnout (due to frustration with politics, too many elections, which are held too often, etc.), especially in this referendum. So the result does not surprise me at all. If there was no turnout limit, the referendum would not have failed. In fact, the turnout was perfect, considering how few people took part in the vote.

“Basescu will get a new impulse after the referendum. However, one should not expect that he will somehow respond to the vote of no confidence which he got from the electorate. He has already declared himself winner. Also, Basescu has used the EU scandal against the Romanian government, and the scandals in which Ponta was implicated, as arguments against SLA.

“On the other hand, Ponta also announced his victory. He will use the vote in this referendum to demonstrate Basescu’s illegitimacy as president, and also as an argument to prove popular support to SLA. So the strife will only intensify and become fiercer, which may result in the paralysis of state institutions.

“Ideally the president and the government should reconcile, or else they both will lose, which will hinder administration. Yet I doubt that they will settle for reconciliation.

“Brussels hates instability. Of course they dislike the strife going on between Romania’s less than legitimate president and discredited government, especially in times of crisis. I think Brussels will put considerable effort in their reconciliation. Romania will remain under close supervision, and it is very likely to fall out of favor with the EU for some time.”

By Ihor SAMOKYSH, The Day