Tomorrow we’ll find out the final results of the presidential elections and for the referendum. You can read about the partial results here.
I believe in democracy. I believe in the power of the vote. I believe during the Revolution there were people who died for that I would have the right to choose who leads the country and who takes decisions that impact my life as a Romanian citizen.
In each election until now, I have voted. I have voted for local elections, referendum, europarliamentary elections and parliamentary elections. Still, I have not voted this month.
Although I spent almost four days this month informing myself on who to choose, it seemed the more I knew, the sicker I felt. It just seems to me, that until this moment, each time I had at least one person to vote. Even an independent, an obscure party which made a coherent statement of policy. My greatest joy was when I elected a parliamentary who won and actually continued his work, which I appreciate. It was my greatest satisfaction as a Romanian citizen.
Why didn’t prince Radu Duda candidate? At least, then I would have had somebody to vote with, as it says quoted on his website.
Searching for some criterion to decide upon who’s worth to be the president of a country falling apart, I have found that all the candidates are far from any decent expectations that I, a citizen, would like to have, even as an illusion.
A survey states the most part of Romanians expect the president to get the country out of the economical crisis. As the Forbes article states, governmental intervention in the economical field will only create another bubble. Therefore, the real impact of this political choice has a large economical stake, especially since the last government introduced a tax directly pointed to those who constitute the large gross of the Romanian economy: the forfetary tax.
Therefore, I started to decide upon criteria for excluding the candidates, one by one., hoping maybe there will be anyone left. And it’s not just the negative vote philosophy. In a principial manner, I do not think I could have a clean conscience by voting for either of them. I would like to present to you the reasons for my judgment.
The first criterion for NOT electing a president is anti-Băsescu and anti-Geoană. From starters. I consider their fight for power the main reason for the actual political crisis, which is deepening the economical crisis. I can find a lot of reasons for this perspective, but I don’t have time to write about them. I don’t even know where to start. One thing I would like to mention is Traian Băsescu’s abuse of democracy through the referendum. This article states very well why and how.
Based on the first criteria, other two candidates fall: Crin Antonescu and Gigi Becali. Why?
As it was expected, considering Crin Antonescu’s vehement anti-Băsescu campaign, that with 20 % or more of the votes intention expressed in his favor, he would support Mircea Geoană. It doesn’t matter, for example, that Crin Antonescu supported the reduction of taxes and the unique level of taxation, and Geoană supported the increase of taxes, or that their parties claim to be left-oriented and right-oriented and one was in the last government and the other in the opposition. After a month ago he was opposed to Mircea Geoană’s association with Klaus Johannis’ name, he now agrees to support Geoană in exchange for supporting Klaus Johannis as a prime minister. Therefore, indirectly, who voted for Antonescu, voted for who Antonescu supports in the second tour elections. That means the vote pro-Antonescu was actually pro-Geoană. After all, for gathering this amount of credibility, you wouldn’t imagine Antonescu would have the ethics of standing aside, not capitalizing on a year’s work?
Another candidate who declared he expected 10 % of the votes and didn’t even get 2 %, Gigi Becali said his intention is not to become president (Why would I vote for somebody who states he doesn’t expect to become president?) but to be the third, who would recommend to his voters for who to choose. Therefore, between Geoană and Băsescu. So, this candidate’s main intention was to transfer his capital of trust to another candidate. Why would I do that? Why wouldn’t I vote directly for Geoană or for Băsescu? I don’t vote for stated puppets such as Antonescu or Becali.
The next criterion is to speak my language. And not only in the literal sense. Two candidates fall from this criterion. Kelemen Hunor (If you have magyar messages in Bucharest posters, it means you don’t talk to me, sorry) and Ovidiu Iane, the representative for The Ecologist Party, which has absorbed PIN and Partidul Verde.
Besides being involved in the Armageddon II scandal (in effect to which he claimed to have forgotten or neglected to who he sent through e-mail an accusing report), all he says is: tourism and agriculture. That’s nice, but is it all? Well, for him, yes. He would probably make an excellent candidate for Minister of Agriculture or Minister of Tourism (hopefully managing better than Elena Udrea in Tourism), but not for president. I don’t know anything about his views considering, for example, tax reduction or budget spending or foreign policy, not to mention there isn’t one specific plan to be found from him on both of those fields. I’ve seen student presentations more consistent than his electoral platform. I don’t know what he’s capable of except sending sensitive documentation without paying attention to who (I can’t vote for such a communicator, although it might have been the closest to who I would have voted with).
Besides that, the alliance between PD-L and Uniunea Ecologistă Română (another ecologist political party) indicates ecology might be used by PD-L as a trojan horse for getting votes in the future.
The last reason and conclusions, tomorrow. At least, on the internet, Băsescu is the winner.
Copyright © Marcus Victor Grant, 2009-present