It seems that PSD (Social-Democrat Party, now in opposition) has saved, probably forever, a characteristic of a totalitarian-type political conception from curse of the unanimity. It is for the second time consecutively when inside fight for the leading positions took place after many debates and through a mechanism that allowed multiple candidatures, true electoral campaigns and, of course, surprise. The first time, when Geoana, in the position of Iliescu's counter-candidate, won the election of a chairman, One might have invoked - and some really did - the fact that it only was about a temporary option: in had been taken in a crisis moment in PSD. However now, PSD seems to have buried forever the damned rule of unanimity and it may assume, now, truly modern and European party-rules. Well then, if we are to judge from the same perspective, what happens in other parties? From among the numerous comments on the Internet, in relation with my editorial, or with the front-page titles, a reader's embittered remark caught my attention. The day "Pariul pe Mircea Geoana" (The bet on Mircea Geoana) was published, he reproached me I did a false forecasts. He invoked a quite similar title, "Pariul pe Vosganian" (The bet on Vosganian), published prior to Vosganian's having been nominated for a refused candidature of a European commissioner. Even though it is about only one reader and of one of his caustic remarks, I am answering him. The prognosis in Vosganian's case was correct. There were several possible candidates, out of which the Prime Minister had to opt for one. Weighing up different criteria, ZIUA daily came to the conclusion Vosganian would be nominated. What also happened. We didn't meant, under no circumstances, the decision the European Commission was going to take. It was as correct as the prognosis on Mircea Geoana's categorical victory. It was not based on sympathies, or any kind of support, but on logical arguments. It was in relationship with the PSD inside competition, on which we had information, confirmed at the time of election, that the scrutiny would be a democratic one. And it is not just about the position of the party's chairperson, but also, and mainly, of the General Secretariat and body of vice-chairpersons. From this viewpoint, we need to point out the fact that the defeat of the strong Miron Mitrea, - who had organized the Congress and had ran for the position of a general secretary against Titus Corlatean and the respectable way he had assumed the result - still are a demonstration of democracy. Without PSD being torn, or the result of this Congress giving birth to any "platform", we may say that, in this party, in which free elections had been organized, in conditions of competitiveness, all the veterans stepped or were forced to step back. This still doesn't mean that some of them are away forever. Maybe they'll be luckier next time. Other parties that didn't make use or got rid of the unanimity rule are - except PSD - PNL (National Liberal Party) and UDMR (Democratic Union of the Hungarians in Romania). Which are the parties still growing up under the pressure of the damned rule? It's PD (Democratic Party), PRM (Greater Romania Party) and PC (Conservative Party). Two statements need to be done from this point of view. The first one is that, in a democratic system, the parties always organizing their structures in a totalitarian system, based on the unanimity principle - who isn't with us is against us - are losers. The second remark is that this common treat is meant to unite them, as neither PRM, nor PC and the much the less PD do not possess a full capacity of regrouping. They can do it by hazard at most and on a very short term.

Sorin Rosca Stanescu