"Romania Strains to Build True Democracy"
“Learning democracy”: Romanian Political Debates Analyzed in a New York Times’s Opinion Article (2012)
General info
Author: Dan Bilefsky
Newspaper: The New York Times
Publishing date: October 12 2012
Retrieved from: Link
Summary:
The article tackles the theme of internal political battles in Romania, giving a brief outline of major political events that took place in 2012: Victor Ponta’s election in May, the failed attempt to impeach President Traian Basescu in July and their subsequent “uncomfortable cohabitation”. Moreover, the author also mentions the elections in December as a possible solution for settling the conflict, although reservedly.
The “achievements” of the government indicated in the article are: “two dozen emergency decrees”, replacing the ombudsman and Ponta’s accusations of plagiarism. The facts contrast with the prime minister’s reassuring tone, when he explains in an interview that he desires stability and intends to “repair the country’s image”. The European Union officials also express concern and insist on Romania’s need to respect the law.
The article ends with the opinion of the people, marked by disappointment with their leaders and a general impression that these political battles affect the image of Romania internationally.
Analysis:
First of all, the first photograph featured in the article, showing some apartment buildings whose construction was halted by the economic crisis, is an important element. The underlying idea is that the battle between the two most important politicians in the state hampers economic development. Thus, the photo introduces the reader in an atmosphere of abandonment and disillusionment.
The author of the article frames Romania’s political instability by mentioning the geopolitical and historical context: a former Communist country, Romania is compared with Hungary and the Czech Republic, which also fail at being examples of democratic leadership. However, Romania is doubly margilanized: it is part of Eastern Europe (first degree of marginalization), but, apart from being geographically determined, its destiny is also historically determined (second degree of marginalization), as it holds a special position as an Eastern European country. Romania delimitates itself further by having „the most violent of the revolutions”. According to Andaluna Borcila, the Romanian revolution was presented to the American TV public as an exception to the rule in the Communist bloc. Even nowadays, this event is used as an argument to explain what Borcila names Romania’s “resistance to change” (48).
In this context, the role of the European Union seems to be that of a guardian, ready to “scold” the
politicians when needed. Thus, the image of Romania that the article constructs is that of a student trying to “learn” democracy, though without understanding it properly. For this reason, the process of building democracy seems to be so strenuous.
