Political parties and "lords"

The sooner local elections are, the more obvious becomes a little detail able to blow most of the Romanian political dispute. The "lords" master local elections. All polls so far are proving that those called "lords" by the media, the opposition and even the public opinion have all possible chances to got the support of electors located within their "domains" against candidates with a less medieval base.

In Bacau, the "lord" Sechelariu, the one who celebrated his anniversary in the city park, with sausages and beer for everyone, and for the Easter granted "gifts" from the City Hall during audiences, has on his side most of the population. Candidates of all other parties seem defeated in advance, and their only reason to candidate is to show that their parties do not feel defeated before entering the competition. In Constanta, the "lord" Mazare is absolutely trusted by all inhabitants, no matter his party, religion or facts. In Focsani, one of e most disputed PSD politicians, "lord" Oprisan, has an outstanding electoral position and his electors trust him, no matter what newspapers may write. "The Ban of Craiova", one of the oldest and criticable local "lords", cannot be beaten in elections. Even in Cluj, after eight years of local governance, Funar is the preferred Mayor of all inhabitants, although the big city is likely to go with the PNL-PD Alliance for the general elections.

In Bucuresti, Traian Basescu also is in front of all polls, in spite of the fact that he didn't manage to become a local "lord" and most of his time was lost in battles with the City Council.

Local "lordships" look so solid that the parties themselves seem unable to dislocate them. In most of the large cities we cited here as examples the local "lords" are merely independents of the parties they are supposed to represent. They do not owe their votes to their parties; it is rather vice-versa. Political parties are able to gather more votes if they manage to have the local "lords" on their side.

The PSD, having a good understanding of the situation, endorsed an alliance policy. Instead of fighting Mazare, Bulucea, Simirad and the others to control the cities they already controlled and to impose its own candidates, the PSD decided to make them its own candidates. The results were not even.

As seen from now, the local elections (to be held in two months) will be a victory for the PSD in places where it is rather weak: the big cities. Iasi, Constanta, Craiova, Ploiesti, Bacau, Buzau and others will probably mean victories for the PSD, which has a good opportunity to improve its performance in local elections much over what it was able to get in 2000, making it look like an anticipated winner of the autumn elections. That's the good news for the PSD. But there's a bad one also: pursuing the same "acquisition" policy, the PSD has scarce chances to successfully fight local "lords" belonging to other parties. Its chances to win in Brasov, Cluj, Timisoara or any other city where such "lordships" exist are minimal; it might have the majority in Local Councils, but it cannot win the elections for Mayor.

This is a lesson political parties learnt quicker and better than intellectuals gathered together in NGOs fighting for nominal election. In Romania at least, but also in countries such as the Great Britain, nominal elections generate "lordships". But the same intellectuals dreaming of nominal elections are the greatest fighters against "lords", and this shows that the entire civic movement aiming to modify the electoral system (rejected with unanimity by all political parties) is rather naÎve or unable to set up its objectives. On the other hand, political parties know exactly what they want: they want the minimum possible of "lord" able to live on their own feet, supported by their own electorate and paying no attention to the authority or influence of political leaders.

The opposition also has its "lords". Fewer than the PSD, because the opposition was unable to provide them with enough reasons not to join the PSD. Right now, the opposition is fighting in the Parliament a harsh struggle to impose restrictions to political transfers of "lords" from one political party to another, but its chances are minimal. By the end, local "lords" do not depend on political parties. On the contrary, political parties are depending on "lords" - and the best evidence is the strong reaction the PSD had to face when it punished some of its "lords" and had to fight the resistance of its own organizations. The PSD action against its own "lords" was seen by some analysts as suicidal, taking into account their power. But the PSD is the ruling party and the authority of its leaders on "lords" is at its climax. For the opposition parties, the situation is much more critical. Theodor Stolojan, for example, is the prisoner of local PNL "lords" he used to take over the ruling of the Liberal Party, eliminating the Stoica and Patriciu groups from the party's national leadership.

The PD is probably the only parliamentary party thin enough to have no local "lords". Hence the strange strategy of Traian Basescu, to send national leaders to candidate for Mayors. Seen from a certain perspective, his option is right: the PD attempts to build up his "lords". It is almost certain that he will be the winner for the Bucuresti City Hall, where no other party can provide a real candidate. But there are no other chances for the PD to win - and its very existence as a political party depends on this.

For the coming local elections, the big winners will be the local "lords", either big or small. And the "lordship" system shall survive.