The declaring of the state of emergency was a possibility that President Traian Basescu rejected categorically because of the losses at the political level and in terms of image that they might have triggered for Romania. One of the most serious reasons for which the chief of State did not declare the state of emergency, as sources inside the Liberal-Democrat Alliance state, was that Romania would have received the stigma of a dictatorship since the state of emergency imposes a drastic restraint of the fundamental rights and liberties. Declaring the state of emergency also involves a series of time-killing procedures while waters have almost withdrawn. According to the above quoted sources, Basescu's refuse to make this step had nothing to do with the impossibility of launching anticipated election (they might be organized only in October), but they had to do with the simple fact that the losses for Romania on the political level would have been higher than the potential gains on the level of the financial support. Traian Basescu insisted, on Friday - after a visit in the counties hit by the floods - that the state of emergency was specific to the situations dangerous to the national security, when the rule of law or institutions of the State are put to danger, when there are serious disturbances in the democratic system. Referring to Ion Iliescu's request, the chief of State mentioned that the Romanian legislation did not contain the term of "state of emergency" so "persistently invoked by some politicians". The PSD (Social Democratic Party) spokesman Cristian Diaconescu admitted yesterday, in a program broadcast by Realitatea TV, that his party is not so keen any longer in asking the President to declare the state of emergency.