Many political analysts are amazed at the bizarre shift to the left of the Coalition at rule in Romania. I don't mean the excessively populist messages of president Traian Basescu for two reasons. Firstly because they are the effect of electoral wanderings the head of state is still bound to and secondly because after a year since he was elected president he is still perceived as the daddy of PD (the Democrat Party) and the latter is also perceived as presidential party. This is one more reason to analyze the right, but not left tendency of parties at rule, ignoring the Cotroceni. Rulers took some measures to handle some social matters. But there is also implacable pressure from the citizens who wants to improve their lives and will continue to press the Executive to make some sacrifice, which would have negative effects on the rhythm of development. In the end it will also effect in real welfare in some reasonable time. In case present rulers take this left corner indeed, then the opposition and mainly PSD (the Social-Democrat Party) can but counterattack the Coalition from a perspective that is not actually theirs: the right. In order to picture the issue in all complexity, we need to add one more detail: as long as it was at rule, PSD had to show its true ideology in many ways, by initiating and implementing right-oriented projects, under pressure from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the World Bank and EU accession chapters to be closed. I will elaborate on this seemingly paradoxical issue. If we get to grasp what is going on, we will be able to take a better guess at what is to come next. Despite Ion Iliescu's frequent fits in his last presidential mandate, under the rule of Nastase and his government, PSD was actually the first to provide a faster rhythm of healthy economic growth in the last decades. Iliescu's keenness on the left was constant, which was typical of a socialist leader. From time to time he would burst into fits, when he thought sacrifices required from citizens were too big or when he saw that PSD political leaders known as central or local barons were unwilling to participate themselves in the national efforts taken in 2000-2004. Sometimes he would see such barons turning into profiteers of economic growth. As far as this is concerned, apart from a whole series of demagogic and populist attitudes, Iliescu was right and there is nothing we can reproach him for. PSD was not a simple beneficiary of some right-oriented measures taken by CDR (the Romanian Democrat Convention), some of them having dramatic social and electoral consequences. The truth is that while Nastase ruled Romania, the engines of Romanian economy worked and led to constant growth. Had PSD tried to carry out the social mandate at the same time, the mandate due to which it had won elections, the economy engine would have been slower or it could have broken. When D.A. ("Truth and Justice") Alliance went for elections, although they chose to call themselves a right-oriented group and even elaborated an economic program to fit this definition, both PNL (the National Liberal Party) and PD were actually the targets of substantial social dissatisfaction with the PSD government's activity. This is why they said the Alliance took advantage of substantial negative vote. Despite it, it only got a parity score as compared to PSD. Traian Basescu made the Alliance come to power artificially, by coalition with the Humanist Party, which turned into the Conservative Party later on, and with UDMR (the Democrat Union of Hungarians in Romania). Because of this Traian Basescu took a huge risk on behalf of himself and of D.A. Alliance too. What did present rulers inherit? An economy that, even if not at all blooming, as some PSD leaders claimed, was healthily growing anyway. They also inherited a class of businessmen and small and medium size company owners that were leading their companies to prosperity. And of course they inherited corruption that had spread in the last 15 years. This was the active inheritance. As for the passive one, it consisted in the lives of various social layers. PSD went on and insisted on a speedy rhythm of growth, thus neglecting the retired, along with schoolchildren, students, education employees and many more. But some categories of employees on budgeted wages were also given pay raise and other advantages under Nastase's rule. The "croissant and milk" program was just a simulacrum that helped them cause the postponement of today' protests of education staff. As days go by, the Coalition at rule has to pay the social bill PSD didn't pay. If the Coalition does it because it has got no choice and because of pressure from Basescu, from the opposition and citizens too, then we will notice something bizarre when seeking for conclusions: that Tariceanu's government was a left one. The whole confusion that has seized Romanian society and the political class might originate in this very unavoidable political shift from the left to the right.

Sorin ROSCA STANESCU