Romania’s electoral disaster is already unfolding regardless of the election outcome. Because things cannot go well, and the blame lies not only with the political class but also with society and the media.
We have the weakest lineup of presidential candidates since 1989. From a distance. In the realm of those with real chances of making it to the second round, there is effectively nothing to choose based on minimal criteria for suitability for the position. It’s a contest of populism, blunders, and platitudes. Disheartening.
About the parliamentary elections, which are much more important than the presidential ones in our political system, because they determine the majority that forms the government, they are hardly discussed.
Why have we ended up in this pit at the end of the cycle, when changing the president should mean a new energy and a new vision for Romania, especially when we are in such a complex regional and global moment? When, on the other hand, there are so many opportunities to be seized?
The causes are probably intertwined
But the premise we must start from is that politics is also a market with products, demand, and supply. Balance is at their meeting point. The supply will not improve if the demand does not exert pressure on it. If society's standards are low, if we accept rotten tomatoes and moldy cucumbers, content with cursing and complaining, that's all we will get.
If society rejects this merchandise not only at the polls but especially between elections, if it makes its voice heard through surveys, on the streets, the political sphere, forced, will adapt. What I observe, however, is not an increase in standards, but, on the contrary, an extension of laxity, a loss of criteria in subjectivity. And then the frustration that the small evil becomes great.
Why is society so passive?
It is also an effect of the good. Good doesn't mean that Romania is flowing with milk and honey, but we are a EU country, with great opportunities, with a Capital city competing in income with the major cities of the EU. Individualism has grown, a certain type of civic and political laziness, everyone minds their own business, and when they are no longer satisfied, they leave the country.
On the other hand, it is the effect of a chronic lack of education, including political education. An uneducated people are easily manipulated. A people that doesn't actually know why they choose their president, what his duties are, is easily led by populist tricks.
Then there is also a tendency towards conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter what I vote, others will choose our leaders anyway. No one has been able to develop and explain coherently who exactly and, especially, how others choose for us. No one has been able to say that along with him, an unseen hand was in the voting booth, pointing a gun at his head to vote one way or another.
Not even the most stringent election monitoring NGOs have identified systemic irregularities capable of altering the final result. But shifting responsibility to an unseen occult force absolves one of responsibility for their own choices, so it's convenient.
The media's fault
And last but not least, for the above reasons, the press bears a huge responsibility. In this election campaign, all sorts of nonsense were discussed, the most deafening questions were asked.
By far, at the top of my personal list is the question posed to the prime minister on DigiFM, if he has ever slept without underwear on.
I fail to understand the relevance of asking the prime minister, a favorite candidate for the presidency, if he sleeps in underwear. Will he be a better or worse president if he sleeps naked?
Does it put him in difficulty? Not at all! Candidates adore these irrelevant questions because they cannot go wrong, and they do not test their preparedness. What is difficult for them are the relevant questions.
And the important things are not being discussed. About the president's duties, about what he can and should actually do for society.
So why ask something like that? Because you want virality at any cost. And yes, such facile subjects spread easily and set a toxic standard for the mind and decisions.
This is how a person running for office, invited to my show on Europa FM, made a long face when I told him that we would only talk about the president's duties. "But we will get bored," he said.
Yes, the audience gets bored hearing about important things when they are continuously served with trivial matters. A child will not choose soup and salad when they have chips and ice cream in front of them. Then we wonder why they are obese, diabetic, and hypertensive. Just as we wonder why people no longer have correct criteria for choice and are no longer attentive to what is important.
In these conditions, there is not even a need for any elaborate plans for George Simion to make it to the second round. Some will have an extra reason to vote for him, most will stay home minding their own business. And thus, the future of Romania will be decided.