The fact that the level of the Parliament has plummeted abysmally from all points of view is not news. So the biting and scratching that occurred in the Chamber of Deputies should not necessarily surprise us.
It might be surprising that for the first time in an episode of physical aggression, especially in one of the most violent, AUR is not involved. Not such a big surprise if we look at the profile of the two involved in the fight in Parliament, Roman and Vîlceanu, two useless ribbon-wearers, not even Caragiale-like, because they lack a certain charm.
And the confrontation between the two wasn't even on any vital issue, on any essential, fundamental decision. It was a ridiculous scandal, just like the protagonists, starting from the physical seat occupied by one of the deputies in a bench, and continued with lamentable statements. One complained that he was cannibalized, the other shamelessly lied against very clear recordings.
Truly surprising, however, was the reaction of a large part of the public on Facebook: a lot of fun, laughter, and widespread satisfaction - "Florin Roman was asking for it." Some warmly congratulated Vîlceanu for "shaking him up" and pointed out the next target, also from the Parliament.
That's because Roman is from the enemies, and Vîlceanu, a former socialist (for the amnesiacs), was reassessed after, left without a ministerial portfolio and power, he discovered democracy and played at being a dissident.
Seeing these reactions, we can ask ourselves what would they have been if it happened here what happened in Slovakia. Still satisfaction, congratulations, indications regarding the next target?
The biggest problem is not even the state of the Parliament, but the state of society. A society largely favorable to violence, largely friendly with the aggressive ones, as long as they are likable to us.
To say that a man hit with a knee in the face, with fists on the head, and bitten, no matter what his name is, no matter how antipathetic and annoying he is, deserves violence is no different in essence from saying that a woman with a skirt too short, with a neckline too deep, makeup too garish, or simply a prostitute deserves to be raped. It's what she's asking for, so to speak.
Evil, the unacceptable become relative, depending on the identity of the victim and the aggressor, depending on sympathies or antipathies.
A former minister promotes violence, and a part of society joyfully validates it. So why does AUR bother you? Why do you wrinkle your nose at Șoșoacă?
When, a few years ago, Mirel Palada punched Mihai Goțiu, an act for which he was convicted, the reaction was different. Just because Palada was unlikable?
And from there to what happened in Slovakia, how long is the distance? Fundamentally, what is the difference between what happened in Parliament and the deadly fight in Crângași? Social status, the length of the stick?
As long as violence is not universally condemned, regardless of the identity of the victim and the aggressor, simply as a principle, anything becomes possible.
Marcel Ciolacu says that the scene was a "laughable stunt". Interesting that Mr. Prime Minister had fun, along with the stadium-like laughter on Facebook, right?
It's a tearful stunt because this sinister spectacle has spread throughout society. Some, like Mr. Ciolacu, had fun validating violence. Others, hopefully in the majority, though silent, were disgusted and maybe received another reason not to go to vote.