Ion Iliescu: politics also means knowing when to give up

The former president of Romania, Ion Iliescu, went public with several interesting statements after a long period of discretion. On the occasion of his birthday (he turned 94), Ion Iliescu had a dialogue with Ionuţ Vulpescu, former Minister of Culture, in his podcast.

Ion Iliescu states that he regrets, looking back, some episodes from the first years after the Revolution, but considers that "what happened was inevitable, what did not happen was impossible": "No one can heal from traumas until they recognize them. And Romania had to recognize them, describe them and educate itself to overcome them. This moral transition was also important for me, not only the economic one. Because a healthy democracy requires forgiveness not forgetting and truth not mystification. In retrospect, I regret certain moments, episodes, situations, events from the first years after the Revolution, but, as someone said, what happened was inevitable, what didn't happen was impossible". The former president believes that the greatest achievement of his presidential terms was related to the modernization of Romania in three steps: "a Constitution suitable for a country that can be integrated and integrated into the EU and NATO": "The challenge, in the first stages of post-December Romania, was to overcome the repression of oppression in forms of social violence and economic non-cooperation. When people pass from a regime in which they do not matter and do not exist to a form of perfectable democracy, the first temptation is to be every man for himself. I I wanted Romania to be reconciled with itself. Therefore, I tried to make the relationship with King Michael a natural one, inviting national reconciliation, I paid tribute to the enormous role that Free Europe had in communism and I established the International Commission for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania, led by Elie Wiesel, for the elaboration of a Final Report".

The former president of Romania says that he has no nostalgia for communism, but he understands the mentality behind this phenomenon that glorifies the former regime, when the lifestyle was "suffering but predictable", and observes a paradox - "in 1989 we won freedom for those who believe that they could do without it": "I know that the Internet is full of videos that glorify the fact that Ceausescu did not read from the pages the 200 words that he kept scrolling and that he is presented as a subtle and patriotic leader. I have no way I live this nostalgia. But I understand the mentality behind it for some individuals who found the former regime a predictable lifestyle. Suffering, but predictable: jobs were distributed, wages were predictable, society seemed intuitive in its evolution. There was no job pressure and wild capitalism, it's true, but the price paid was far too high. (...) A survey conducted in 2021 revealed 63% of the Romanian population as being nostalgic for communism, and of this percentage, the majority of respondents they are people with the same age as the Romanian democracy: a little over 3 decades. It is perfectly explainable: the youth slips into political radicalism because it is not supported and transformed into a social category for which the state must offer protectionism and educational, cultural, healthier policies, and nostalgia for the harsh years of communism can only have those who did not live under the Korean model imported in Ceausianism. It's also paradoxical: in 1989 we won freedom for those who think they could do without it!" Ion Iliescu pointed out that, from the outside, the country looks better than from the inside: "We are subjective and it's natural. Now, the young generations are the ones who were born already belonging to the European political family. They are European citizens. It's very easy to be critical when you don't have access to the times you didn't live and that very few tell about today. Millennials, boomers and any others, people of the present time, do not know - this is the truth - how difficult it was to put Romania on the right track. Normal Romania was not a given and it should not be a privilege: it was, however, a construction, which needed time. I find the harshness of some towards what they do not know and do not want to know problematic. The same with regard to NATO affiliation: in the current geopolitical context, we see that it is the best possible world in which we could be, in this alliance that guarantees Romania's security and otherwise". The former president states that inequalities should set the tone of the public agenda in Romania, pointing out that, although at first glance only economic inequalities matter, social, economic and moral ones derive from them: "Certainly, inequalities are what must set the tone of the public agenda in Romania. At first glance, only economic ones matter, but social, cultural or moral ones derive from them: this is where the complex of "Romania less European" than it should or "less democratic" appears. Even the EU project was thought excessively, from one point on as a market project, when, in fact, it must also be a social project. However, not prioritizing inequalities on the public agenda, the left had difficulties in implementing the value of solidarity in the construction of our society, and the right fell into the trap of the excesses of wild liberalism. Now, any political alphabet teaches you a novice lesson: you cannot generate equality of opportunity until you have regulated the social inequalities that give individuals a fair start in life".

Ion Iliescu identified a "dysfunctionality" at the level of European democracies, namely the fact that success in politics has become the result of the "pessimism" and "skepticism" of voters who "no longer give favorable votes, but only negative votes": "Politics, when I embraced this path, it was not an area of consolation by validating the lesser evil for a society once every four or five years. And if there is anything dysfunctional at the level of contemporary democracies - where the distinction between West and East has eroded - it is the fact that success in politics is the result of these forms of pessimism and skepticism whereby no one gives favorable votes anymore, but only negative votes. It is important to know that you did not win the matches lost by others, that you were elected because others were rejected (...) Politics means the art of convincing majorities, putting the national interest and the state before the well-being of one's own party or team. (...) Politics is the domain of realism. The fact that it has become a source of personal hedonism for some politicians has nothing to do with the school definition, by the book, of politics, but with the error of some political actors to excessively personalize the political environment, which must be treated in order to function normal, impersonal".

In his opinion, politics also means knowing when to give up, and "the stubbornness to stay in power when nobody wants you anymore" is ridiculous.