The syntagm belongs to the former president Emil Constantinescu. He warned that, if the Romanians are to deal with the situation of depositing the head of State now, we might find a fat job after the elections for a 2nd Basescu. And after that, a 3rd Basescu might follow some other time. That is because such a model works. The reason invoked is that, beforehand, Romanians should be made clear how dangerous is the sideslip the current president made himself responsible of and of the consequences this sideslip might lead to. Constantinescu added they might also be informed on the status of some European presidents, as compared to that of some chiefs of State from republics once having belonged to the USSR. That is why he referred to Loukashenko, too. From this standpoint, is the postponement of the suspension truly necessary, as PM Tariceanu asks for, in his appeal?
What is, after all, the biggest evil that those wishing Basescu's deposition may reproach him and who are probably controlling today, through their electoral reservoirs, a majority percentage of the Romanian voters? The initial evil derives from the commitment Basescu had made right in the middle of the electoral campaign that led him to Cotroceni Palace and which he then tried to fulfil. It is about assuming his conduct, that is not the one of an arbiter, as provided by the Constitution he sworn on, but the one of a player. The most legitimated person in the State to mediate disputes among institutions, who is to come down to the arena - and he would have done it several times - to strengthen one of the teams. Divided, as Romania was in 2004, and willing to see an alternation in power accomplished, there is no wonder he did not have a prompt reaction nor crossed Basescu's project in due time. However, he is about to do it now. Even if a bunch a people and personalities posing as the intelligentsia's spokespersons sing praises to the player-president, thus running the risk of being for ever compromised for lack of a basic democratic culture.
Player-presidents, that is political leaders assuming, despite their "job description", duties and tasks covering justice, governing, the secret service community, economic policies, all exceeding the State's fundamental law, do not exist any longer in the European Union, a community we also belong to. Constantinescu, the same as Iliescu, or Gusa are right when they draw attention upon the fact that such accidents only occur in countries with dictatorial manners, some of them quite police-like, autocratic. It's clear crystal that the adventure president Traian Basescu initiated, in which he risks to involve the whole country, can't have but tragic consequences as far as the European integration and the consolidation of democracy are concerned, or at economic level, or that of fight against corruption or of destroying the old structures. The establishing of a police state, entrusted to a single person, and in which the Parliament is humiliated when is not ignored and the contempt towards the political class goes as far as it may turn into curses and even into opening some criminal cases under the authority of an important institution such as the presidential one, obviously has quite opposite effects as compared to the commitments Basescu himself assumed during the elections.
This style, not according to the Constitution, that Basescu assumed, has generated endless crises and tensions. He imposed it in a very short time that is in about two-month electoral campaign. It is true that Basescu has proselytes, too. However, our poor electorate has to learn quickly that "habit cures habit". He may be suspended!