The Bolojan case, yesterday an angel, today a demon for a part of the electorate that does not forgive his voting preference and reasoned demolition of the illusion that he would become the miracle prime minister, can be, when we cool down after the elections, a case study on the capacity for self-deception, double standards, and weak understanding of constitutional political mechanisms.
Interim President Ilie Bolojan expressed his voting preference for a candidate. The candidate he officially proposed to the governing coalition, the candidate whose name appears in the coalition’s post-election operating protocol signed by PNL President Ilie Bolojan.
When Ilie Bolojan became interim president and took the first measures amidst applause, when he was urged in every way to run to save the country, the above were very well known. Those who did not like the candidate had all the reasons and the right to be upset from that moment. But they weren't. Why?
Because his now disappointed supporters were convinced that Mr. Bolojan lied when he signed. That's what they expected from him, to lie, to signal right and turn left, to be like the rest of the politicians, but in a convenient interest.
Otherwise, I don't understand where the disappointment comes from. The man had spoken, had signed for a candidate from his party. What was expected of an honest man? To support another candidate?
Disappointment, some say, lies in the public expression of the voting preference. That is, to have remained silent while almost all candidates were draining his trust capital by announcing him as their favorite prime minister, if not outright as a tandem colleague.
Another kind of lie, in other words, but by omission. A lie for those who believed in his signature on the protocol, a lie for those who are led to believe that Ilie Bolojan could become prime minister after the presidential elections.
Would it have been a profitable lie for Ilie Bolojan? Certainly! Ambiguity is convenient, winking at everyone is advantageous.
Did he have the right to make statements supporting a candidate? Yes, ruled the Constitutional Court in 2014, when Traian Băsescu campaigned for Elena Udrea. The one who reported him, in a constitutional conflict, was then Prime Minister Victor Ponta.
In the negative opinion on the proposal to suspend President Băsescu in 2007, the Constitutional Court stated that the president is entitled to political opinions. And yet, many of those disappointed in Mr. Bolojan for his political preferences are former supporters of Traian Băsescu.
Those who were very upset are also those who rejoiced when Klaus Iohannis, before the 2016 local elections, welcomed him to Cotroceni and took a cordial photo with the PNL candidate for the Mayor of the Capital city. PSD complained at the Electoral Bureau about this implicit, but clear declaration of electoral preference.
Actually, the disappointment is not of a constitutional nature, but exclusively related to the content of the announced preference. If the preference was different, the Constitutional Court decisions would have applied and all would have been well. If he had remained silent at least, the illusions could have been conveniently manipulated.
Mr. Bolojan did not want, as I was saying, to let down those convinced by multiple candidates and, even more intensely, their supporters that he would be appointed prime minister.
"You asked me before if I did not violate the Constitution by supporting a candidate. But those who use my name in the campaign, proposing me as prime minister, both now and five months ago, in the other campaign, are they not breaking a rule, if not constitutional, at least of decency? By the second round, you were already abandoned, because it is clear what the situation is.
See, this is not a problem, but only if you have a correct and fair-play option and you respect some agreements, it may seem like a problem. Again, we must be very honest with Romanians. No political party has more than 25% in Parliament. The political party with the highest weight in this coalition, but also in Parliament, is PSD. PNL has a weight of 15%, let's say, right? Do we think it is feasible to have a prime minister whose party has a weight of 15%?", stated the interim president, on Prima TV.
Clearer than this explanation, I don't think it can be formulated. Politics is done based on mandates and majorities. It is against nature for the smaller party of the coalition to provide the prime minister. The larger party accepts such a thing if it needs a sacrificial prime minister. Like Nicolae Ciucă was only good to have all the common failures thrown at him by PSD or like Dacian Cioloș in 2016.
PSD has no reason to give up the prime minister position. Maybe Marcel Ciolacu, under certain conditions. But giving up the government leadership, never, especially from the position of the largest party in Parliament and the only one without which a majority cannot be formed.
This is not even a strategy or an option anymore. It's simple arithmetic. And Mr. Bolojan is both a mathematician and an experienced politician.
So, in the end, maybe we decide what we want: to be conveniently lied to or told the truth, bubbles of illusion or honest arithmetic, politicians who lie and deceive or politicians who tell the truth and keep their word? Regardless of what suits us at one moment or another.