It is no longer a secret to anyone that the conflict between the two has been on for quite a time now. Romanian public opinion is eager about and foreign public opinion is amazed at such mutual attacks, which the head of state started. The end of this war, that is the victory of one or the other protagonist, is still unknown. But the end of stage is drawing near. And this time the loser is Calin Popescu Tariceanu. Sometimes we can grasp a fighter's power or weakness not by judging only the effect of hits on the adversary, but also the report between the energy spent on some moves and effects. One can get tired while the offensive is going on. In such case the fate is sealed before the game is over. This makes me conclude that the tough attitude PNL (the National Liberal Party) has lately taken to support Tariceanu and set limits to the presidential power is actually but the expression of weakness close to panic. And I will explain why, starting with the most interesting counterattack the Liberals plotted by means of a decision by the Liberals' Permanent Delegation: they demanded that secret service chiefs and Ilie Botos should be sacked. It is to be very briefly mentioned that after almost 16 years since the events in December 1989, the lustration law project is not only a utopia, but simply a silly thing. Therefore I will focus on the Liberals' political objective in relation to the presidential institution. It is certain that the sacking of secret service chiefs can be indeed motivated, considering Romania's short democratic tradition. Every time some group has come to power the heads of Romanian secret services have been replaced, along with the Romanian general attorney and the heads of other institutions of local and central public administration. When the Social Democrats were at rule, the fury of such changes was tough too, although this group had various names and tried to give bonus to as many activists and adepts as possible. When coalitions came to power, this fury was also tough, such as with CDR (the Romanian Democratic Convention) and now with the PNL �PD (the Democrat Party) Alliance. In both these cases this fury turned into clientele-based distribution of positions. And such changes have been provided with ideological motivations every time. Agents have always claimed that they must do away with inefficiency or with the hegemony of structures set by the post-totalitarian state. In last autumn's electoral campaign the PNL-PD Alliance in general and Traian Basescu in particular promised to tidy up and of course they invoked political reasons. The only ones who have got away with it this electoral cycle are public administration employees or at least some of them. This is due to a law. As almost one year has elapsed since elections, all this time secret service chiefs have been ok in their positions and have collaborated with the present rulers, which has been profitable to the latter. Rulers have kept on congratulating SRI (the Romanian Secret Service), SIE (the foreign Intelligence Service), DGIA (the Army General Information Department) and more, among which the secret service in the Interior Ministry. But here we can see the Liberals unexpectedly become more determinate, as the conflict between Basescu and Tariceanu is progressing. It is not my intention to frame a theory that would lead to the idea that the replacing of these institutions' chiefs is both a necessary and a fair mission or both an unnecessary and unfair one. Theoretically speaking, I believe that in a consolidated democracy the heads of such institutions and more, such as state-owned television or radio, should maintain their official positions depending on their personal abilities and regardless of the parties coming to power. But what I want to see right now is whether PNL proves power or weakness by expressing such claim. We can only find the right answer if we know whether PNL can manage to accomplish the project or not. The answer is categorical: No, it can't. The Liberals cannot get secret service chiefs sacked, even if they had support from the Democrats, which is most unlikely, the Conservatives and UDMR (the Democrat Union of Hungarians in Romania). As far as some of the secret services are concerned, it is up to CSAT (the Supreme Council for National Defense) to decide and the head of state has got several allies who can vote. As for decision on SRI, there is need of two thirds of PMs votes. Hence such intention turns into mere words. This is the expression of weakness. The weakness of a PM who, in spite of the support from his party, is going through the "autumn offensive", related to both crimes and union's protests. Unions will start to move soon and officials will only manage to stop them if they surrender, at least partly. The end of this war stage is drawing near.

Sorin ROSCA STANESCU