1. The Parliament has passed the law allowing the 2024 presidential elections to be rescheduled, moving them from November to September. Consequently, the first round of voting will take place on September 15 followed by the second round on September 29, 2024.
The vote was possible thanks to the PSD-PNL Governing Coalition. Weakened due to foolish divisiveness, the Opposition failed to effectively challenge the government machinery, even by sneezing.
Unquestionably, democracy permits the extensive utilization of the parliamentary majority to promote any law.
With one condition: that the law does not pass as an expression of an arbitrary will, akin to proclaiming: “We do as we please!”
To avoid this, not only in democracy, but in dictatorship as well, the Power strives to explain and justify that law. It is not necessary for the explanations to be convincing. It’s of core importance though that the Power gives the impression that by promoting and adopting the law, it has done nothing but submit to a requirement of reality. Something like “the Law initiated by us responds to the national interest, the interest of citizens. That’s why we’re promoting it.”
Through the law passed by the government voting machine, the presidential elections have been moved forward by two months. I’m just going to let away the possibility to have two presidents, from September to December 2024, when the mandate of Klaus Iohannis expires: the incumbent in office and the President-elect.
Such a scenario would be a premiere in our post-December history and even in the modern history of the country. The question arises: Is Romania ready to face the undeniable reality of having two presidents? Obviously not. In the absence of a law regulating the status of the President-elect, and given the backdrop of our enduring Romanianism, the three months of a dual Presidency could potentially descend into an awesome bedlam.
But even if Romanians were ready to face the existence of two power poles, the question still remains:
How has the Power explained, motivated and justified the rescheduling of the Presidential elections?
Marcel Ciolacu mumbled something unconvincing about the need for a thorough transition from one president to another (after being cornered by journalists).
Of course, the incumbent President is handing over to newly elected one an entire business. It’s hard to believe that the process requires three months.
And if they were to go together through the files page by page, and if the ex would walk the actual through all the rooms of the Cotroceni Palace, including the restrooms, there still wouldn’t be a need for a three-month period.
It is clear that Marcel Ciolacu answered the question on a whim, so as not to be said that he has no answer to a question.
It would have been reasonable for the Prime Minister to devote time and effort to explain the reasons behind the rescheduling of the presidential elections.
He never did.
The situation arose because the SDP-NLP alliance, unfazed by a feeble opposition, gave the Power the opportunity to proclaim in a heartbeat: We passed the law, may-the-devil-care why.
2. Two former presidents – Ion Iliescu and Traian Băsescu came out in public with advice on what to do and whatnot for today’s politicians.
Both Ion Iliescu and Traian Băsescu left Power leaving behind myriads of lingering questions regarding their regimes.
Ion Iliescu has yet to answer the question: “Who is responsible for the more than a thousand deaths during the diversion with terrorists?”.
Traian Băsescu has not responded to the question of “who is responsible for the incredible abuses committed by the squad Romanian Intelligence Service – National Anticorruption Directorate, and for the serious violations of the Law during his regime?”.
Their public interventions should be devoted to addressing the questions raised by their respective regimes.
The two interviews successfully bypassed the unanswered questions.
Instead, they dispensed advice to politicians.
These insights emanated from the perspective of all-knowing former presidents, who once led a country that thrived under their guidance. Unfortunately, Romanians swiftly recalled the disasters caused by Ion Iliescu and Traian Băsescu. In these circumstances, many wondered what made the dynamic duo pop out of the woodwork at a time when they were expected to keep busy with consuming their pension.
Could it be that certain entities thrust them into the limelight for momentary interests?
3. Taking advantage of a controversy on Facebook, Adrian Cioroianu, the director of the National Library, disclosed that Emilia Șercan is working on denouncing Mircea Geoană’s doctoral thesis as plagiarized.
Mircea Geoană defended his doctoral thesis in 2005.
Since then, nearly two decades have elapsed. In the interim, Mircea Geoană ran for the presidency, served as head of the SDP, and was appointed Secretary General of NATO.
Considering that the work has existed for 20 years, why did Emilia Șercan not think to at least read it, if not check it?
The answer is clear.
Emilia Șercan turned her attention to Mircea Geoană’s thesis because he vexed Marcel Ciolacu by stepping forward as an independent presidential candidate.
According to a Moldovan-Valachian tradition, when a politician stirs up trouble, there are always whistle-blowers who ponder:
“What we uncover about our dear old pal?”
Emilia Șercan’s sudden scrutiny of a thesis submitted 20 years ago is obviously connected to the 2024 elections.
Such a maneuver should have elicited a vehement reaction from candidate Mircea Geoană.
However, when Adrian Cioroianu dropped the bombshell, Mircea Geoană remained silent.
Even the press that supports him has maintained silence, despite the fact that a thorough examination of a candidate’s past should have ignited outrage.
Why does Mircea Geoană remain silent?
Is there something lurking within his PhD thesis?!
