I have closely followed the first public appearances of Mr. Nicușor Dan in his new role as a candidate for the presidency of Romania to understand his vision regarding the presidential function and its responsibilities.
Undoubtedly, he has become a skilled politician, has understood the political landscape he hastened to occupy, and, especially, the target electorate, meaning an audience seeking what it seeks and the audience of Călin Georgescu, but, of course, with a different orientation, Western, and of a different authentic intellectual quality.
However, fundamentally, the expectation remains messianic, of the necessary savior through his mere existence rather than through what he realistically can do. I observe, with a dose of concern, in ND's supporters what I have seen in Călin Georgescu's supporters as well, namely, a sometimes aggressively impermeable attitude towards argument and doubt, a total disinterest in any information or facts whose clarification was vehemently demanded in the case of other political actors, not just an adherence, but a downright need for axiomatic slogans.
Because ND's announcements about reforming the state, the administration, and the judiciary are not based on any legislative or constitutional argument, on any specific presidential attribute, but rather on the projection of a messianic power to part the waters.
Let's take them one by one.
1. "I believe that Bucharest stands to gain if the administrative reform that people are waiting for and that is so needed in Romania is carried out, regardless of who the mayor will be. In short, I believe that Bucharest will fare better with me as president than with me as mayor (…) it is, in my opinion, a great opportunity to change the way Romania functions administratively," stated Nicușor Dan on Europa FM.
Therefore, ND announces that he will trigger administrative reform in Romania, but does not specify how, what presidential attributions can achieve this objective. And he doesn't really have a way, as long as there is no direct attribution. The only way he can do this is through a parliamentary majority he can control. How an independent president can do that, we do not know.
And as long as we do not know, administrative reform is the sale of an illusion.
2. When asked on Europa FM how he specifically envisions Justice reform and the fight against corruption, ND first talked about the Judicial Inspection that "should sanction the 3-5% of judges whom all the lawyers you ask will tell you are not suitable for the justice system."
First of all, ND does not know what he wants to reform, namely the functioning of institutions, although this is one of his alleged strengths, as he claims. The Judicial Inspection does not sanction anyone, just as prosecutors do not convict. The Judicial Inspection conducts disciplinary investigations and can propose a sanction to be applied or not by the CSM as a court, after which the High Court of Cassation and Justice rules on the appeal filed by the dissatisfied party against the CSM's judgment.
But here, it's more than just ignorance, I fear; it's also a mindset issue. ND does not demand fair investigations, but rather direct sanctions, thus establishing guilt based on hearsay.
What about the lawyers who believe he should have lost the case with the National Integrity Agency? What about the lawyers of convicted criminals who nightly vilified judges and the NIA?
In fact, later on Digi TV, it seemed that even the work of Ms. Kovesi did not sit well with ND because people were being escorted out of the DNA in handcuffs, which, according to him, meant that anti-corruption had gained too much momentum.
Cătălin Striblea was insistent on finding out how Mr. Dan would boost both the CSM and the Judicial Inspection, given that he has no decision-making power in the magistrates' forum. The long pause before answering suggests that ND had not thought about it.
"Through individual discussions and then in official CSM meetings, the president can lead the justice sector where citizens want it, so that the justice act is as fair as possible." This is a slogan, not a viable plan unless we start from the premise that all that was missing in the CSM was the voice to illuminate the right path.
In fact, the necessary Justice reform involves correcting the Justice Laws, something that only a parliamentary majority can do, as the president does not even have the right to legislative initiative. It involves a Minister of Justice making meritocratic proposals for the heads of the prosecution offices, but he is neither proposed nor appointed by the president, but by the ruling parties.
3. That Matei Păun has been very close to ND since 2016 is a fact acknowledged by him. Mr. Dan states that he made the decision to run for president after consulting with Matei Păun. It is also a fact that Mr. Păun has pro-Russian sympathies according to some public statements, even though he later deleted them from social media. It is also a fact that Mr. Păun is the founder of an investment bank that operates in Minsk, an area predominantly dominated by the Kremlin.
"I have been a public figure for over 15 years. So, I believe that any kind of positioning, in my opinion, should be related to me and my 15-year public activity. We should not go and see who I shook hands with, what the respective person believes," ND says.
Yes, the candidate's own profile is essential, but we also remember about ND the Pungești episode, which led to an increased dependence of Romania on Russian gas, and the praises from Sputnik for his stance on Black Sea gas, and the evasion of taking a firm position on the issue of Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
Just as anywhere in the world, the president's entourage, with whom he shakes hands, represents an essential criterion for evaluation. As was recently the case with Mr. Geoană.
4. Although he talks a lot about honesty, ND refuses to take a stand on intensely debated issues in the recent electoral campaign. For example, the issue of same-sex couples adopting children. Given the fairly well-known ideological orientation of Mr. Dan, it is highly likely that he is against it, but regardless of his stance, honesty would require taking a position. It has electoral costs, and only an old-fashioned politician refuses to take them. The catch-all strategy is neither honest nor guaranteed to be successful.
All of this does not mean that ND should not be voted for. It just means that the evaluation and expectations should be realistic, that slogans cannot substitute for a viable plan, that everything suspicious about one should be considered the same for another, and that pro-Western messianism is not better than extremist nationalism.