A tragic accident at a Bucharest nightclub resulted in 32 people losing their lives and triggered a series of events that culminated in the resignation of Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta on 4 November. Ponta was already under significant pressure to quit following corruption allegations, but had resisted handing in his resignation until now. Why this change of heart? Dan Brett provides a comprehensive analysis of the situation and points out that, for Ponta, resigning over an accident he could not be blamed for was the easiest way out. Despite Ponta’s resignation, widespread anger at perceived political corruption has ensured protests have continued on the streets of Romanian towns and cities, with even the country’s popular President Klaus Iohannis potentially in the firing line.
Victor Ponta’s resignation as Romania’s Prime Minister on the morning of 4 November, after 20,000 people protested on the streets of Bucharest the day before, came as something of a surprise. Ponta – who had survived protests since becoming Prime Minister, had been accused of plagiarism and corruption, was heavily defeated in the Presidential elections, and was facing court cases for corruption – had so far refused to quit. Now, following the deaths of 32 people in a fire at the Colectiv Club in Bucharest, he has finally resigned.
Despite Ponta’s resignation, more protesters took to the streets on Wednesday night: the newspaper Gândul reported 30,000 people on the streets, with others placing the number as high as 60,000. The protests have not been limited to Bucharest, as is often the case, but have spread to provincial towns and cities including Cluj, Iași, Ploiești, Brașov, Alba Iulia, Miercurea-Ciuc, and Râmnicu-Vâlcea, reflecting the nationwide anger.
The deaths at an unsafe club with no fire protection galvanised the population to take their widespread discontent to the streets. The protests come in the wake of the death of a police motorcyclist in a motorcade for Deputy Prime Minister Gabriel Oprea. Although Oprea was not entitled to a motorcade, he had claimed one anyway, using it for things such as his trips to the hairdresser and restaurants. Following the death, Ponta used his powers of emergency decree to change the law post-factum to entitle Oprea to a motorcade. Oprea has since come under further scrutiny over his military and academic CV.
In the eyes of the population, the tragic accident at the club was the result of corruption, with permits and licenses given out upon receipt of a bribe. Indeed, the recent anti-corruption drive resulted in the Mayor of Bucharest Sorin Oprescu being caught red-handed taking bribes. After the fire, appeals for blood donations and medicine for the victims brought into sharper focus the underfunding of healthcare services and the theft of public money by the elite, who are accused of squandering it on vanity projects.
Corruption and enrichment is such a common feature of Romanian political life that it has become easy to dismiss it as ‘over-stated’ or to say ‘they are all equally corrupt, so why care?’; however, the deaths of 32 people as a direct result of corruption has provoked widespread anger. It is no longer a game played by elite politicians to enrich themselves or their cronies, but rather the cause of the deaths of many innocent people.
Key figures
Ponta came to power on the back of street protests against austerity in 2011-12. Seeing the popular anger, Ponta’s Social Democratic Party (PSD) allied with members of the National Liberal Party (PNL) to form the Social Liberal Union electoral coalition (USL) and positioned themselves as opposed to austerity. In so doing, they successfully captured the sentiments and used them to propel themselves to power. However, once in office Ponta and the USL went back on every promise made. This explains the anger with the system – a political elite that has consistently captured and then betrayed every popular movement from the revolution of 1989.
While Victor Ponta and the allegations against him are relatively well known, his deputy and Interior Minister Gabriel Oprea is less well known. Oprea is a member of the smaller National Union for the Progress of Romania (UNPR) party. The UNPR is in office not because they gained enough votes, but because they agreed to be part of the USL electoral coalition with the PSD, and at the time the PNL, against then President Basescu’s Democratic Liberal Party (PDL).
A part of various governments since the fall of communism, he has frequently switched sides, always claiming that it was ‘in the national interest’. His roots lie in the military and the security apparatus, although his path from waiter in the military restaurant to four-star general has recently come under scrutiny. He is also reported to have threatened critical bloggers by telephone as well. Thus he is seen as a very murky and unpleasant politician.
Cristian Popescu aka Piedone, the mayor of Sector 4 in Bucharest, has also resigned. Bucharest has a mayor, and its 6 districts each have their own mayor as well. Piedone’s sector includes the working class district of Berceni, as well as the southern part of Central Bucharest. Piedone is a member of Oprea’s UNPR, but he had previously been elected as an independent mayor.
A populist, activist mayor, Piedone made his name as a health inspector, going to the markets with a television crew in tow and condemning meat that was unsafe. He maintained a visible profile on the streets of Sector 4; in the winter he could be seen outside directing trucks clearing the snow. In a country where politicians do nothing, he was seen as doing something. Thus he had built up a considerable support base among the population in Sector 4, whose general appearance and infrastructure considerably improved while he was mayor, and hence he was someone that national actors appealed to for support.
An arrogant, vain elite
In addition to anger at politicians, anger has become increasingly directed against the Orthodox Church. Criticism has long been levelled against the church for its self-enrichment and exploitation of the poorest members of the population. The church, exempt from paying many taxes, has launched vanity projects such as the Cathedral for the Salvation of the Romanian People, which will cost approximately 500 million euros, and the Romanian Parliament has given 12 million euros of public money to the project. Moreover, it was recently revealed that the Patriarch, like Oprea, has also been using a police motorcade. Satirical journal Times New Roman portrays the Patriarch’s staff as topped with a dollar sign.
At the same time, the accident has shown the acute pressure under which Romanian hospitals operate. The appeals for help in the aftermath of the fire highlighted that the drugs hospitals need are simply unaffordable, and that the hospitals themselves are under-funded and under-staffed. A state of the art burn unit in Bucharest has never opened due to lack of resources and trained staff. The contrast between the Church taking money from the state and the population and the underfunding of key services has caused further tensions.
The Church and many politicians and commentators have shown a tin ear in their response to the tragedy. Some have explained the accident as the result of people invoking Halloween and evil spirits; the Metropolitan of the Banat claimed that the Church had failed to instil the correct moral values in those who died, suggesting that such values would have saved them. Others, like Christian Democratic National Peasants’ Party (PNȚ-CD) leader Aurelian Pavelescu, rejected the national mourning decreed by the President and accused the victims of being uncultured, drug-taking, promiscuous anarchists.
Akin to an alcoholic denying they have a problem with drinking, apologists for the Church claim that it is being unfairly victimised, that there are many ‘good’ priests and only a few give the church a bad name; apologists for the PSD deploy much the same argument. However, in both cases this argument is based upon a denial of the problem and a desire to play the victim. This is not only in exceptionally poor taste, given the circumstances, but reflects the problems of a Romanian elite that thinks only of itself.
The exception to this response has perhaps been Piedone, who, after initially denying any responsibility and turning up with papers absolving him of any liability, accepted moral responsibility in his resignation.
Where are the intellectuals?
It is significant that these protests have come from below and reflect anger not just at the government but the wider elite. While President Iohannis has shown more political deftness than Ponta, this anger is directed at the whole establishment, and there is a widespread view that swapping the PSD for the PNL will not improve anything, as the PNL is just as corrupt as the PSD.
While some intellectuals have criticised others for failing to take an active role, the Romanian intelligentsia as a whole has been deeply ineffective in providing leadership, let alone working with or for the population. Thus something of a vacuum is emerging without any clear leadership or alternative. This has been evidenced in the protests of Tuesday night where rumours spread of agitators from the security services or other unknown groups attempting to disrupt and divide the protesters.
Other roadblocks to reform
At the same time, it is clear that considerable resistance from the Romanian political elite will remain. Despite the protests and calls for reform, on 4 November a collection of politicians from different parties launched an appeal to the Constitutional Court to challenge the recently passed law allowing the diaspora to vote by post. The diaspora, which is seen as a major force demanding change and supporting the reformists, is seen as an enemy to the political elite.
The timing of the move was deliberate: the cut off for changes to the electoral law is 15 November, and, by waiting until now, the challengers ensured that the Constitutional Court will not be able to make a decision until 18 November. Hence, even if the appeal ends up being rejected, the diaspora will still not be able to vote, and the Romanian political elite will more easily achieve its goal of keeping the rule. These political games and displays of power by the political elite go some way toward explaining why anger has now boiled over.
Why resign?
The cynical view expressed by many Romanians is that Ponta is resigning now, when he is not under direct fire, in order to appear as a martyr. He has no direct responsibility for permits for clubs in Bucharest, nor is the incident connected to allegations of corruption against him. If he had resigned when accused of plagiarism or corruption, this would have been seen as an admission of guilt. By resigning over something for which he is not directly responsible, he is trying to make himself look like a ‘good guy’ – the victim of a baying mob.
Furthermore, by resigning now and taking Oprea and Piedone with him, Ponta has removed the main targets of popular anger. He hopes this will draw the sting out of the protests and that no deeper changes will need to be made. Thus, the resignation of the Ponta government may ensure that no real changes are made in the long run. However, the increase in the size of the protests on the evening of 4 November suggest that this may not happen.
Where to now?
The recent anti-corruption drive that led to criminal charges being levelled against Ponta has also swept up Mayor of Bucharest Sorin Oprescu, as well as several district Mayors. Large parts of the administration have thus been gutted, with temporary replacements in charge.
One reason Ponta held on for so long as Prime Minister is because, under the Romanian constitution, his successor has to be nominated by the President. Thus it was likely that any replacement would be from President Klaus Iohannis’s PNL party rather than Ponta’s PSD or their allies. By refusing to resign, and with a sufficient parliamentary majority to ensure that he could not lose a vote of confidence, Ponta was able to brazen his way out. By resigning now, he puts the pressure on Iohannis and Ponta’s replacement as president of the PSD, Liviu Dragnea (a man convicted of electoral fraud and suspected of widespread corruption), to find a replacement and to deal with the aftermath.
Some have suggested that the new government will be technocratic in character; however, this view is being met with suspicion that such a government would equate to more of the same. Names being floated as potential Prime Ministers include the likes of Monica Macovei, the former Justice Minister whose work started the current anti-corruption drive. Alternatively, Iohannis may push for early parliamentary elections to take advantage of the weakened PSD. However, this assumes that his supporters (especially in the diaspora) will vote and have not been alienated by anger with the situation. More significantly, the question remains whether the fire will result in any meaningful change in Romanian political life – whether corruption and the shirking of responsibility will end, or whether the names will change while the system remains the same.
The chant of the protesters of ‘No PNL, No PSD, No USL, all out’ reflects anger at the whole system, and placards warning Iohannis: “you have one chance – no Securitate guys, no Mafia guys, no corruption, otherwise you’ll end up in the garbage of history just like Ponta, Băsescu, Iliescu”, show that, while Iohannis has an opportunity to reshape Romanian politics for good and is still widely trusted, he also has a serious challenge to face. Any failure will result in further alienation and anger with the system.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: PSD / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0).
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1Mewex1
Update 11 November 2015:
The blog Prinţesa Urbană has set up a page with information on the most seriously injured and details of how people wish to donate to their care. Several of the victims have been transported abroad, while others remain in Romania for treatment. Access the page here.
_________________________________
Daniel Brett – Open University
Daniel Brett is an Associate Lecturer at the Open University, he has previously taught at Indiana University and the School of Slavonic and East European Studies. He works on contemporary Romania, rural politics and historical democratisation.
Well.. welcome to Romania, where politicans give laws against the population but they have immunity to them and the church is getting more rich by the day from the money from the poor.
Great article. It explains the current political situation in Romania clearly for everybody to understand.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I believe that this revolution will come to an unfavorable end for us, the people. I’m saying this because we don’t know what to ask for. Indeed, the entire political elite is corrupted, no doubt. But the laws in my country are also poorly written. Or more like, they are written to favor bribery. The law is obscure, difficult to understand and impossible to follow. Even if you have everything according to the law, the law is written in such a matter that it allows the inspectors to decide whether to give you a fee or not. In order not to get a fee, you will bribe the inspector. And so, there you have it.
I don’t blame the owners of Colectiv, the club that burned down. The problem is deep within our law system and our “rulers”.
Dear Georgiana,
… the owners of the club are to be blamed among a lot of other and probably most of the people as all small gesture of bypassing the rules: not accepting safety belts in cars, trying to cheat with constructions regulations, … are a step foward disasters of this type, they are not a fatality. Accident can happen, but security gesture can reduces the probability of disaster by several order of magnitudes.
Best
Andrei
Georgiana, not blaming the owners of the club is part of the problem in our country. We say “it’s not their fault they bribed their way around the law, it’s the officials’ fault for accepting those bribes.” As long as we think that way, nothing is going to change. We have to take responsibility for our actions. It is MY fault for offering a bribe, not the other’s fault for accepting it. It is MY fault for not ensuring my clients are safe. And most importantly: I don’t have to ensure safety measures in my club in order to get a permit, I have to do it out of concern for my customers.
I use this story a lot to illustrate the key problem in how we should be thinking: A friend of mine brought her good American friend to visit Romania. She wanted to experience something that she’s been enjoying here during high-school and college: a train trip to the mountains. The trip was a familiar image for us: the train was packed, they could find no seats and were forced to spend the long hours crammed in a hallway. The American friend was furious. BUT, not because of the conditions he was forced to endure. He was furious on my friend that she accepts to be treated this way. He was furious because she wasn’t revolted by how the train company is treating her. She should be getting what she paid for, she should not accept anything less.
And THAT is the problem in Romania. We blame everyone else for our problems, but we never blame ourselves for accepting them, for enabling them, for being a part of the problem. We just say “nothing is going to change anyway if I do this” or “the system doesn’t allow you to succeed if you don’t do the same as everyone else.” I’ve heard people say that the club could not have been profitable if they followed the law. That simply is not true. I know people who run 100% legal businesses in Romania, I was one of them too, so I know it is possible. It is very hard. The system fights you every step of the way. But there’s a difference between hard and impossible. People tend to turn that “very hard” into “impossible” because that allows them to escape the blame instead of admitting that they’re just accepting the easy solutions.
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your precise and detailed analysis, which I highly appreciated and consider to be close to the analysis.
However, I think you miss an important point in the analysis of the people and their attitude. Romania will not make a serious step forward unless the people understand that the current gesture will affect the living of tomorrow. In the past they systematically refused serious changes, better men, … and voted for ancient apparachicks, doubtfull bussinessmen, …. which are actually the current governors and their friends, which we all now dislike.
I doubt that the actual street movement is more than a simple protest, …. but fully hope that this grain is going to grow.
Best
Andrei
Dear Daniel, would it be possible to get in touch via email for a possible advise on sources of governance information that would be applicable in Romania? I am in London myself and asked about this by a civil society group in Romania. Thank you. Adina
Partial agreement, except the fact that Iohannis doesn’t have the opportunity to reshape Romanian politics, even if this one of his main discursive promises. In May, for example, the street shown that he cannot be trust, considering the ‘unofficial lobby’ for woodcutting companies (with doubts related to the conformity with the competition policy) and, in September, the populist position on the refugee crisis (surprisingly, there are contrary positions of the two stakeholders – the president and the street – on this matter).
Hi,
I hope to write a follow up article discussing some of these issues soon.
I certainly think that there are a lot of question marks about Iohannis’ ability and willingness to engage in reform. But at the same time, I do think that many people are putting their hopes into him to deliver. This is why I pointed out that if he fails to deliver meaningful reform then the situation could be worse – either a continuation of the status quo, or even more anger spilling over into the streets.
The scale of the task is huge – while Ponta, Oprea and Piedone have gone, the parliament remains untouched, the party machinery remains untouched (so fresh elections are unlikely to produce much change), the corrupt local and national officials remain in place (how many other dangerous clubs and buildings are there in Romania that could cause another disaster like Colectiv).
At the same time, the streets are speaking but there are deep divisions between different groups. whether they can work together is also a question. Those who have tried to work with Iohannis have been accused of selling out, while Oana Zavoranu is not everyone’s cup of tea, her desire to stick her head above the parapet and call for a new party was immediately met with derision (and a lot of sexism). So not only are people battling the old guard in front but they are also battling those behind. It is little wonder that people are unwilling to offer themselves as an alternative – and in turn this explains why many still have hopes in Iohannis, because if not Iohannis then what or who else is there?
I do think that the old guard will try to play a long game and string it out, hoping that the protesters will either get bored and go home, or divide among themselves.
The key task is deep and meaningful change in Romanian politics and society. Whether that will happen and how it will happen I am uncertain.
So sorry this happened… we wish the victims and families in Romania a lot of love and strength from the Netherlands.
New update regarding the victims, straight from Romania:
There are 41 deaths now…
A couple of points here.
1. Your claim “the deaths of 32 people as a direct result of corruption” is perhaps overreach. Certainly corruption enables the sort of disregard for health and safety regulations – and law more broadly – that can lead to such tragedy but direct result in this case? (I may have missed something in the coverage that does demonstrate clear attribution).
2. Corruption has two sides. Placing blame on the government and elite denies agency on the part of those paying the bribes. It also misses the point that the culture of customer service/care in Romania retains a communist mentality i.e. it is wholly lacking. The owners of businesses all to often have no regard for their patrons. This can mean over-occupancy or other cutting of corners – exactly the sort of thing that makes such a tragedy more likely. (I do note this is addressed in a subsequent comment).
This second point also urges skepticism of simplistic narratives about the protests “The Street”. There is obvious cause for anger about the elite, about corruption, about many other things, but an outward expression of pent up rage that latches on to a specific instance serves as an escape valve that allows a pointing of fingers outwards rather than reflection about complicity.
Point #1 I disagree with. The evidence is pretty obvious that critical standards of safety were not followed (proper exits, fire extinguishers, over-crowding). And it IS corruption that allows businsses such as this to operate without basic fire safety standards. While I too share the opinion that in many cases Romanian laws are hyper-technical, nonsensical and absurd, when it comes to fire safety and food safety I happen to agree that laws (even Romanian ones) have validity, and a situation that enables companies to operate outside this legal framework is at its root caused by corruption.
If by expressing doubt that we can ever know for sure that the tragedy was a “direct” result of corruption you simply mean a critique of the term “corruption” as the Romaninan population/protestors use it (as merely a top-down problem rather than recognizing their own complicity), then I whole-heartedly agree with you.
Your Point #2 is extremely shrewd and possibly the most honest analysis I read all day, from anyone. I agree with you completely. Those doing the finger pointing are as guilty as those they are pointing to. I might even argue they are more guilty. Because how can we expect clean politicians from a corrupt population? If you’re selecting individuals from a sample pool that is already crooked.. well then it’s simple mathematics and rules of probability: you have 100% chance of crooked politicians. No other possibility exists. The politicians merely have more access to power and wealth, enabling them to steal on a grander scale, but they are just perpetuating habits they picked up years ago, in society at large. More specifically, Romanians (in their collective deceit) are colluding in their own suffering, and they wont even acknowledge this is the bigger problem. But I could go on and on about the Romanian fetish for self-victimization and scape-goating… with politicians, gypsies, Jews.
Finally, I’d make a Point #3. Getting rid of ALL politicians (as some protesters demand) borders on delusional utopianism. Even Mandela knew better than to do that, and he kept in power individuals that were responsible for his 27 years of imprisonment and torture. Until we change ourselves, and change the cultural makeup of the very pool from which politicians are selected we have changed nothing. Everybody demands change but nobody wants to change. As Pogo said: We have met the enemy — and he is us.
Dan,
I am also a journalist. A Romanian journalist. I’ve been closely following the events for the last 10-11 years. Your article is very biased and lacks accuracy. I could not read it all. I don’t know who gave you the info, nor do I know whether you’ve bothered to check them.
First off: just an update – 44 dead by now. Not your fault. Unfortunately, no one can keep track with the number of victims for now. Let’s hope no further updates will be needed.
Second: you mention that PM Ponta was accused of corruption twice in the same phrase. It’s like I suspect you of bias, lack of research, lack of research and bias. On the other hand, you are right: he was accused of corruption by his opponents’ friendly media, then by his opponents, then by the prosecutors. However, we should wait for – and hope for – the trial. I can accuse you of corruption then go add a phrase to the Dan Brett Wikipedia page. Sorry, to the “accused-of-corruption-Dan-Brett”. Yes, Ponta is going to trial, but it’s not his opponents or media or prosecutors to decide if he’s guilty or not. And neither are you.
Third: VPM Oprea WAS entitled to a motorcade, by a Government ordinance issued a few days before the unfortunate accident of the policeman. It’s not that we like his face or personality or not: it was legit by Romanian laws at that moment.
Fourth: You treat PM Ponta’s resignation as a reaction to the protests, but his accession as “coming to power on the back of the street”, street which was used to “propel” himself and his partners. So, the protests against him were legitimate and no one used them to out him. But his coming to power was just a trick. He shamelessly surfed his way up.
Fifth: “However, once in office Ponta and the USL went back on every promise made. This explains the anger with the system – a political elite that has consistently captured and then betrayed every popular movement from the revolution of 1989.” This is outrageous misinformation for two reasons.
1. If you try do some homework, you will be surprised to learn that Mr. Ponta’s team promised were partially fulfilled and that he never back off from what he promised, although the USL coalition broke off mid-term.
His former main partner PNL (National Liberal Party) decided to leave the coalition so, obviously, Mr. Ponta’s PSD (Social Democratic Party) had to try fulfill the common promises against their former partners, who are now applauding his resignation. I won’t enter into more details because it would be too technical.
2. Speculating on why the people took it to the streets without having interviewed them is “sofa journalism” a.k.a. arrogance. There is anger, of course, as there has been anger throughout the last 25 years. Suggesting that a Government that lasted for 3 years is to blame for the frustrations of a whole generation is speculative and unprofessional.
Really, I could not read further. If you need some professional advice drop me a line and I will do my best to help.
For the sake of the written word and out of respect for your readers, please do your research from at least two sources (if not three by the book or as many as needed, by the unwritten laws) before you push the “publish” button on any issue related to my country.
The disclaimer at the end of the article clearly states that this article gives the views of the author. That means it’s not meant as a piece of objective reporting (that’s after all the difference between a blog and a newspaper). But the value of this article is clear in the fact that the views of the author are in line with the views of most people who took to the streets. It gives an accurate image of what drove those people to protest in such great numbers. Whether the public opinion is right or wrong won’t change the course of events.
The man is not a journalist, you arrogant twat
Your second point is valid. I will look for you and buy you a beer if the trial will be resolved before he gets old while it is still relevant. The problem is we might die of thirst until then.
Stating that “Third: VPM Oprea WAS entitled to a motorcade, by a Government ordinance issued a few days before the unfortunate accident of the policeman. It’s not that we like his face or personality or not: it was legit by Romanian laws at that moment.” is like stating that if I am entitled to own a gun I should also kill someone if I am getting annoyed.
Being legally entitled to something also involve that you have the decency not to abuse it and that it will be used for a good cause. In this particular case it was no rush no good cause. It was just ” ’cause I can, like a boss”.
“Fourth: You treat PM Pon…” maybe I missed it but the author states pretty much the same as you do.
etc
In my opinion this article highlights our situation quite well to someone who has no knowledge, from a blogpost. If the author would write the post in the way that you describe it would end up in a “tl;dr” post because our situation is quite entangled I might say.
The article describes and summarizes very well the current situation in Romania. I don’t agree with some of the reactions, but at the end everybody is entitled to an own opinion.
People are wondering how to change the system, probably forgetting that system is created and maintained by us, all of us. Thus, we can change the system but this also requires changing our own mentality. Let’s take for example the attitude in traffic: why to walk instead of leaving the car in front of the shop, blocking the flow of the traffic; why to respect the other drivers, when we can simply overpass everybody on the tram line; why to allow somebody to enter the traffic, we just want to be first.
Changing mentality means in my opinion requesting respect and delivering the same respect, regardless the situation and circumstances: when doing shopping, when registering a request with whatever institution, when bringing the children to school, and the examples can continue. Although we tend to think that one gesture will not change the world, I believe that a grain of sand will attract others, forming a see of sand which finally will move the ground.
The same holds good for the corruption. We maintain the corruption because we offer the bribe. Why to blame others for accepting it, instead of blaming ourselves for giving it? We should take a good look inside us and take the responsibility for what we see. And if we don’t like what we see, then the change may start, and the system may change as well.
Brad, I am puzzled. Ponta never went back on his promises? And he has never been accused of corruption? I’ll be damn, I must be living in a reality alternative to yours. I am also puzzled by a few other aspects of your post above, but pointing out just these two, I believe, will suffice.
Aside from the number of victims, I am not sure I see any glaring inaccuracies in Daniel’s article. Au contraire, I think it hits the nail on the head in many respects, and Daniel has a grasp of the current situation in Romania in a way many Romanians don’t. Just because his POV is different than yours does not warrant the acid language you’re using, and the pile of brown matter you decided to publicly hurl at him in your response. That’s what people do in a sandbox when they are 3, or when their pay cheque is signed by Antena 3.
Might it be possible that the inaccurate number of victims in the article was not inaccurate at the time this article went to press? Uh, oh, I am seeing 2015/11/05 in the link above. Any self respecting journalist – I’m hearing you are one – would check sources and facts before making accusations. Just saying.
Respectfully,
Raluca
Mea culpa with regards to Brad’s comment re: number of victims. I got caught up in the rest of the vitriol and missed the “not your fault” part. Just for the record.
Such a burning hatred for everything the Orthodox church stands for. i have tried for decades to understand it and the role it played during the traumatic transition of the 90s. I have no desire to excuse it anymore. At the risk of appearing to be an anti traditionalist/antipatriot Westernised pariah, we must unite against it and deplete it of its obscene amount of money
Maybe Ponta isn’t perfect,but compared to the other politicians,he’s the only one who made a positive change in Romania.While he was prime minister,the country was actually safe and has evolved.The technocrats are willing to introduce austerity,even though that’s NOT necessary,bcs the situation in Romania is better than ever(due to the fact that while Traian Basescu was president,the situation was quite bad).
What happened in the “Colectiv” is such a good excuse for removing Ponta,in order fot the others to do what they want in this country.