Emergency Call for Romania's Democracy

In front of the government's building in Bucharest protesters light up phones,
demanding the replacing of the existing
opportunistic, cynical and egoistic political leaders, June 2018
(Photo: Alexandru Busuioceanu)

The Romanian ruling coalition is undermining the rule of law at the moment when Romania is preparing to take over for the first time the presidency of the European Council.

“The Romanian democracy is experiencing a regression due to the lack of democratic commitment of the ruling PSD-ALDE coalition”, says Smaranda Enache, Co-Chair of the Pro Europe League, a Romanian NGO advocating for European values, pluralist democracy and respect for human rights. But it seems to be a negative trend present in almost all Central-East European EU member states, she adds. After acceding to NATO and the EU, these states almost stopped their internal reforms, and their conversion towards functional pluralist societies was abandoned. “The new elites seemed more interested in preserving their power, in populism and authoritarianism, than in deepening and fulfilling the reformation process of the former communist states”, believes Enache. In the specific case of Romania, many leaders of the governing coalition are themselves prosecuted in high corruption cases, and they are cynically undermining the anti-corruption campaign in their personal interest. On the other hand, historically speaking, democracy is rather new in these post-totalitarian countries, and the society at large does not identify yet with an authentic democratic culture.

Smaranda Enache – Co-Chair of the Pro Europe League
(Photo: Stefan Szobotka) 

Indeed, “the future looks gloomy, as we face an unprecedented attack on the rule of law in Romania, to date the most powerful counter-reaction to the implementation of the European requirements in the field of justice”, says Adrian Baboi-Stroe, Deputy Executive Director of the RO100 Platform. A London School of Economics graduate in public policy, Baboi-Stroe served as Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice in the Cioloș “technocratic” government, in 2016, when he was in charge of the anti-corruption strategy, judicial performance assessment, and institutional transparency. According to Baboi-Stroe, the fundamentals of the existing judicial system, put in place in 2004, before Romania’s accession to the European Union, included the elimination of the political influence on the judicial system exerted through the Minister of Justice, anti-corruption measures, and other measures in accordance with the EU requirements. All that is under threat of being reversed now.

The first signs of a counter-reaction became visible some five-six years ago, says Baboi-Stroe. Back in December 2013, it was on the “Black Tuesday” that the Parliament tried to change the Criminal Code, offering to the MPs immunity against investigations by anti-corruption bodies, such as the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA). That attempt failed, but the victors in the December 2016 elections were more determined than ever to complete their counter-reaction. “It was something we were expecting, because there was a strong political will to hamper the judiciary”, says Baboi-Stroe.

Romania has taken serious backward steps over the last two years. “As a result”, says Baboi-Stroe, “Romania finds itself isolated in Europe". The November 2018 European Parliament resolution on the rule of law in Romania, as well as the recent reports of the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) and of the Venice Commission are highly critical of the changes made to the Judicial Laws, to the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code. 

Adrian Baboi-Stroe – Deputy Executive Director, RO100 Platform
(Photo: Steluța Popescu) 

The independence of the judicial system is challenged for the first time since the ‘90s 

“It is the first time since the pre-accession period that the independence of the judicial system in Romania is openly put into question”, says Baboi-Stroe.

Ironically, this counter-reform occurred after a positive report of the special Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, released in January 2017 by the European Commission. The report looked at the last 10 years since the introduction of the CVM, acknowledging the good track record of the DNA, and endorsing the new National Anti-Corruption Strategy. Only a few pending issues remained to be addressed. A responsible government would have solved these pending issues in maximum one year, believes Baboi-Stroe. In 2016, the Cioloș Government asked for a “smart phasing-up” of the CVM - a gradual process of closure based on achieving a number of specific targets. The EC addressed this proposal in the CVM report of January 2017, in the form of a list of 12 specific recommendations (such as an Ethic Code for the Members of Parliament). “We left an extremely clear roadmap with simple steps to follow,” says the former Secretary of State.

But the roadmap of the technocratic government squarely conflicted with the objectives of the new parliamentary majority, issued from the December 2016 elections, whose sole agenda was a vast undermining of the judiciary and of the anti-corruption policies. Instead of the fine-tuning needed to close the CVM, changes of great magnitude followed. A first attempt was the Government’s controversial Emergency Ordinance (OUG) No. 13 from February 2017, which aimed to change the Criminal Code, and to decriminalise corruption-related offences. It was a kind of a “surgical” intervention to save the decision-makers under criminal investigation, says Baboi-Stroe.

Protesters in Bucharest, in February 2017,
asking for "Solidarity", and "Social Justice. Down Privileges!"
(Photo: Andreea Iorga-Curpăn)

But the society reacted by organising protests in Bucharest and other cities in Romania, of which the biggest took place in the Capital on the 5th of February 2017, bringing together more than 250,000 people, while other over 250,000 protesters took to the streets on the same day in Cluj-Napoca, Iași, Sibiu, Timișoara, and other cities. Under the pressure of the protests in favour of the rule of law, respect for the independence of the judiciary, respect for fundamental freedoms, known as the #rezist protests, the OUG No. 13 was repealed by the Government.

Without the civic protests, Romania would have become an even more authoritarian and isolationist state

According to Enache, these civic protests were the expression of the frustration of the young generation confronted with an anti-democratic, corrupted and populist Government. The protests played a major role in preventing the current Government coalition from brutally suspending overnight the independence of judiciary and the anti-corruption process. Without the protests, Romania would have become an even more authoritarian and more isolationist state, further distanced from its European commitments. Enache believes that the protests of the Romanian young pro-European and pro-democratic generation are an inspiring example in the region, and we can see that in Hungary and Poland similar waves of protests are opposing the increasingly nationalist and populist Governments policies.

Thousands of people protested against OUG No. 13, in Iași, in February 2017
(Photo: Diana Mărgărit)

The real extent of the changes envisaged by the ruling PSD-ALDE coalition became visible only in August-September 2017, says Baboi-Stroe, when it became clear that there will be a complete change of the Judicial Laws, not only of some points. There was an in-depth plan, carefully prepared in advance, although the actual laws were quickly adopted. In the same time, the action was supported by an intense pro-government media campaign, as well as by a powerful external lobby - “experts for hire”, as Baboi-Stroe calls them - writing reports on demand, financed from obscure sources connected to prosecuted or convicted politicians and business people.

Should they come into force, the new laws will take Romania back to the political dependency of the judiciary that existed in the ‘90s, says Baboi-Stroe. The anti-corruption policies are also under a big threat, not only by giving the Minister of Justice the possibility to easily dismiss high ranking prosecutors - such as the DNA chief-prosecutor, revoked in July 2018 at the request of the Minister, but also by introducing a hierarchical control on substantive issues, in addition to the control of the legality aspects, as it was till now, opening therefore the way for the blocking of sensitive files.

We are now in a state of vulnerability in front of the EU, believes Baboi-Stroe, as all the European political parties have agreed on the resolution on the rule of law condemning Romania for the changes to the Judicial and Criminal legislation, as well as for the brutal intervention of the Gendarmerie on peaceful demonstrators in Bucharest, in August 2018. The European Commission has understood that it must react quickly, because the events in Romania unfold at a fast pace. If the EC doesn’t act quickly, its response might prove useless, which may be dangerous for the EU itself, because it risks being considered irrelevant. It may be possible that the EC will try to experiment on this issue. Triggering Article 7 could be a way to act, but it is unpractical, and uncertain as result. It is clear that the power in Romania acts swiftly and brutally, and doesn’t fear a political shaming at European level, says Baboi-Stroe. The EC could take Romania to the Court of Justice of the EU, where if Romania loses, it will be obliged to bring changes to its legislation. But it is an unusual way to solve this kind of problems, adds Baboi-Stroe, as there is no Directive for justice or fight against corruption. Provisions of the Treaty will have to be invoked.

Romania would like an „à la carte” EU membership: receiving funds, but rejecting obligations 

Enache says there is no surprise that Romania is now on the „black list”, and potentially risks sanctions from the EC. “The Romanian Prime Minister, Mrs. Viorica Dancilă, in her recent intervention in the European Parliament, did not give any sign of the fact that her Government takes seriously into consideration the repeated warnings coming from the European Commission”, says Enache. “On the contrary, it was clear that the tactic of the current Romanian Government is to cheat on the fulfilment of our obligations as members of the Union”, she adds. Like in other new member states, the ruling political elites would like an „à la carte” EU membership: accepting funds and benefices of the membership, and in exchange, rejecting values and obligations assumed at the accession moment. Such an attitude does not undermine only Romanian’s functioning democracy, but also the EU as whole. “The current Romanian Government and Parliamentary majority”, concludes Enache, “does its best to qualify Romania for sanctions from the EC”. On the other hand, Romania will take over from the 1st of January 2019 the Presidency of European Council with a challenging agenda (Brexit, cohesion policies). According to the Co-Chair of the Pro Europe League, sanctions will be postponed until the end of the Romanian EC Presidency, but if the current Government coalition will continue to undermine the rule of law, the sanctions could occur at an earlier stage.

In country there is not much more that can be done. The reaction of civil society has been extraordinary, says Baboi-Stroe. The NGOs have filed complaints to the Presidency, the Parliament, the Venice Commission. The largest popular protests since the years ’90 were staged in Bucharest and in the whole country. Small victories were won, but it became clear that the fight is unequal. “Without a parliamentary representation, one has no voice”, says the former Secretary of State. The positive side is that people are looking for new ways to act: they start thinking of getting involved in politics. They no longer consider politics as something dirty.

There is a need for new parties, for new political elites to replace the existing opportunistic, cynical and egoistic leaders

Enache too believes that protests alone cannot solve the endemic problems of the postponed deep reforms of our states. There is a need for the creation of new parties, there is a need for new political elites, able to replace those in power now, whose leaders are opportunistic, cynical and egoistic, able at any moment not only to change laws, but even to risk Romania’s geo-strategic orientation, if their personal interests are in danger.

“Everybody talks about the poor quality of politics”, says Diana Mărgărit, spokesperson of Demos, a new political party, registered in September 2018. “In order to raise the bar, we decided to get involved”, she adds. There are many “new” parties, but with “old” politicians. However, Demos is genuinely new, as all its members are coming from NGOs, having a long experience of public protests. This can be a double edge sword, agrees Mărgărit: on one hand the members of Demos may be inexperienced in politics, but on the other hand they are fresh, open to new ideas, impossible to blackmail, far from any illicit activities.

Diana Mărgărit - Spokesperson, Demos
(Photo: Al.-R. Săvulescu)

The political orientation of Demos is towards social programmes. “The Government speaks about a high economical growth. But if life is so good in Romania, why have almost five million people left the country to work abroad?” asks Mărgărit. Actually, the level of poverty is increasing. According to the 2018 report of the EP, the level of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Romania is 38.8% - almost double compared to the European average of 23.5%.

Today’s politicians introduce changes in all aspects of life, but even if they could draft good laws (justice, anti-corruption, administration), which they don’t, problems would still persist, says Mărgărit.  People will still lack access to education, to health services, to infrastructure - not only roads, but also water and sanitation, and even electricity. Why are people offering informal payments in hospitals? Because of the precarity of the health system. If you punish bribery, that doesn’t solve the precarity of the system. Therefore, says Mărgărit, we need a coherent political programme, which Demos is able to offer.

But there are serious barriers raised by the political establishment in order to discourage new political parties. "For example", says Mărgărit, "we will need 200,000 signatures to be able to participate to European Parliament elections in 2019. This is a huge challenge. In Hungary, you only need 50,000".

However, even if Demos, as well as other new parties, such as USR (The Union Save Romania), already in the Parliament since December 2016, or RO+ (The Romania Together Movement), struggling for the last six months without success to register because of bureaucratic and legal challenges, will win the future elections, the task of these parties will be of monumental proportions when the time will come to undo the PSD-ALDE legacy, says Baboi-Stroe. These are lost years of wasted energies, and we still don’t realise the real magnitude and ramifications of the changes that were made, he adds. In addition to the Judicial and Criminal Laws, other massive changes have been hastily brought to the Administrative Code. As of now, nobody can fully estimate the future implications of all the changes that were made. At this point we only see the tip of the iceberg, but probably its ramifications are considerably deeper, and they will only be discovered in time by the practitioners - judges, lawyers, public servants, believes Baboi-Stroe.

The December 2016 elections had a very low turnout, of under 40%. They were won by PSD (Social Democratic Party), which formed an alliance with ALDE (The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats) to obtain a Parliamentary majority, and form the Government. This coalition is also supported by UDMR (The Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania).

Messing with Trash Can Be Expensive

Minority members of the Romanian Parliament are struggling to promote dialogue with civil society on critical environmental issues, such as protected areas, silviculture, and waste management at a time when the majority in power exerts pressures to emasculate environmental legislation in order to open the way for abstruse economic interests.   

One field of particular interest is waste management.

Uncontrolled waste landfill (Photo: USR pentru mediu)

This is why Allen Coliban, President of the Environmental Commission of the Senate, the upper chamber of the Parliament, initiated a parliamentary inquiry commission to look into serious issues, such as the infringements of the European Union against Romania, the repeated environmental and safety events at several landfills around the country - Măldărești, Pata Rât, Glina, Brașov, Tecuci, Lipova, Bacău - as well as to the large number of public complaints about the quality of environment, including fear of heavy metal pollution and unbearable smells in densely populated areas close to landfills, among others.

The inquiry commission conducted a series of field visits between 2017-2018, and made public a report, called “The State of Waste in Romania”, in April 2018. It paints a grim and dim picture of the national waste management system, tainted with mismanagement, incompetence, corruption, and lack of transparency, resulting in high risks for human health and the environment.  

Mistrust and lack of dialogue are some of the main concerns of the inquiry commission 

“I live in Chiajna, a commune practically connected to Bucharest in the north-western part of the capital, where we have an incinerator for dangerous waste - Stericycle, that recycles medical wastes from hospitals in and around Bucharest”, says Cornel Zainea, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, the lower chamber of the Romanian Parliament, and an enthusiast supporter of the Senate’s inquiry commission. “The official data shows very low mercury air emissions, but we have reasons to fear that in reality they are much higher. The incinerator is connected to the Iridex landfill in Rudeni-Chiajna, which we believe to be the source of another problem: obnoxious smells. According to the operator of the landfill, the hydrogen sulphyde levels for the compound are zero or close to zero, but independent measurements, including some done by myself, indicate levels exceeding 100 times the legal limit”.  

Cornel Zainea – Member of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies (Photo: Al.-R. Săvulescu)

Toxic substances in excess are also emitted when accidental fires occur at landfills points out the report. The most dangerous are dioxins and furans, which are carcinogenic - but in addition to cancer, they can also lead to diabete, loss of fertility, skin rashes, changes in kids behavioral development, etc. 

Some landfills account for tens of open fires annually

The landfills often take fire due to the high percentage of organic matter. Only at Pata Rât (the landfill for Cluj county) more than 30 open fires have been accounted in 2017, according to media reports. The source of the fires is probably deep, where waste burns continually, and cannot be delt with. According to the parliamentary report,  the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations has neither procedures, nor technology or specialized personnel to extinguishing deep seated landfill fires. They can only deal with open fires. 

But extinguishing an open fire creates another problem, a special kind of leachate, which together with the common leachate due to the high humidity of waste, already very toxic because expired drugs or batteries also reach the landfill instead of being stored separately, puts surface and phreatic waters around the landfills at continuous risk.

In theory, waste management should have been practically solved already in Romania with massive European funding in the last decades. But in reality, points out the parliamentary report, only 2 of the 32 finalised or ongoing Integrated Waste Management Systems projects co-financed by the EU are functional, and only partly - in Bistrița and Argeș counties.

According to the European Commission (EC), Romania was obliged to close and rehabilitate by 2009 its 109 “uncontrolled landfills”, but it still had a number of 68 non-compliant landfills by the  end of 2016. 

The EC took Romania to the Court of Justice of the EU

In an effort to urge Romania to speed up the process, the EC took in 2017 Romania to the Court of Justice of the EU, “for failing to review and adopt its national waste management plan and waste prevention programme, in line with the objectives of EU Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) and the circular economy”. 

Romania is also under infringement by the EC for non-compliance with other four waste Directives: consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags; packaging and packaging waste; end-of-life vehicles; waste from extractive industries.

According to Adrian Moraru, Director of The Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank based in Bucharest, 16 completed EU municipal waste projects were supposed to be functional by 31 March 2018. “The goal was not only to acquire infrastructure through these projects”, says Moraru, “but also to properly use it. If not, Romania could be obliged to repay up to 1.2 billion Euros to the European Union”. 

Adrian Moraru – Director, Institute for Public Policy (Photo: Al.-R. Săvulescu)

“Of course, the purpose of the EU is not to make us pay”, says Coliban. “We could have been fined since 2014. Moreover, starting from the year 2020 we can be fined up to 200,000 Euros a day is we don’t reach the 50% recycling target for municipal waste. But what the EU really wants at this stage is to wake us up.”

A potential fine will however be uneffective, as it will be paid by the state, says Moraru, while the possible solutions rest at a community level.

Romania’s rate of recycled and composted municipal waste stands officially at 13% (latest official data available for year 2014). “But”, says Moraru, “the real figures are probably closer to 3-5%, and moreover, they are stagnating”.

While Romania has also reported a 57% rate for recycling of packaging waste (latest official available data for 2014), the figures proved overinflated. As a result, in 2015 the so-called Transfer of Responsibility Organizations were fined with 19 million Euros for false reporting, says Moraru. Commercial companies affiliated to these organizations were also considered responsible for the false reporting, as they endorsed it without checking.

But, says Coliban, the official data is also unreliable. He gives as an example Brașov county, where there are still six uncontrolled landfills in addition to the authorized one. Some 20,000 tonnes of municipal waste, aproximatelly 10% of the total waste generated per annum, if not more, are completely unaccounted for, simply being thrown into fields or rivers.    

Circular economy - a solution

A solution suggested by the parliamentary report is to appeal to the so-called circular economy, i.e. to change the paradigm from “use-dispose” to “reduce-reuse-recover”. According to estimates, in this way over 180,000 workplaces could be created in Romania till 2030, in addition to a decrease of 10-40% of raw materials consumption. 

MPs Allen Coliban and Cornel Zainea presenting in April 2018 three legislative
proposals for solving the waste management problem (Photo: USR pentru mediu)

This is very important, says Moraru, because now most of the waste companies are simply waste carriers. The general understanding is that waste has no value in Romania, he adds. There are some recycling companies, as well as some “cherry pickers” (for valuable waste, mainly scrap metal). But not for the other waste.  

Romania is home to the largest recycling facility in Eastern Europe - Green Group Buzău, the main European supplier of synthetic fibre, but has to import PETs, because locally generated waste is deposited mixed into landfills, plastic included.

The main actors - local authorities, waste companies, citizens, and the state - are blaming each other for the unefficiency of the system, says Moraru. 

While separate collection of waste is mostly unpractised despite the existing infrastructure, local authorities have recently come with a new ideea: building waste incinerators. One such proposal for Bucharest estimates a cost of approximately 1.3 million Euros for one incinerator.  

This would be an expensive error, says the parliamentary report. To make economical sense, such an incinerator must be operated for a very long period of time (30 years). But even if it proves economically feasible, it will heavily pollute air with dioxins, furans and microparticles; and it will burn recyclable wastes, sabotaging the circular economy.

While the inquiry report on waste was endorsed by the Senate Commission, it was rejected by the Parliament plenary. Coliban intends to resubmit it for approval, because he firmly believes that solutions to the difficult environmental challenges faced by the Romanian waste management system can only be found through dialogue and consensus.

Pensiile speciale ale parlamentarilor, un exemplu tipic de conflict de interese

Votul de ieri al Senatului și Camerei Deputaților pentru pensiile speciale ale parlamentarilor ridică multe semne de întrebare. Cea mai serioasă dintre ele este însă una de principiu. Oare nu avem de-a face în acest caz cu cel mai tipic exemplu de confict de interese posibil? Este oare normal să fii în același timp jucător și arbitru? Nu știu cine ar trebui să decidă în problema aceasta, poate președinția, poate o comisie specială, dar cert este că nu cineva care să fie chiar viitorul beneficiar al legii.        

Secetă prelungită, ori ploaie și furtuni?

După căldura de ieri, frigul și umezeala din această dimineață m-au făcut să-mi amintesc de știrile contradictorii transmise ieri la radio. Mai întâi erau citate autoritățile care anticipau o secetă gravă (până la două luni fără ploaie deloc), apoi era transmis un avertisment de ploi și furtuni puternice în zilele următoare. Oare autoritățile și/sau redactorii care concep/transmit aceste știri contradictorii nu-și dau seama de penibilul situației?

Aferim! – un film istoric „nefardat”

Câteva idei despre cea mai discutată producție cinematografică românească a momentului – Aferim!, în regia lui Radu Jude.

Este un film ambițios, nu numai pentru că-și propune o abordare istoric „nefardată”, ci și pentru emoția pe care o transmite. Am ieșit răvășit de la film. E o peliculă care merită văzută și revăzută!

Este bine realizat, deși în mare parte relativ static. Foarte discursiv (cu multe dialoguri livrești, în pilde și vorbe meșteșugite – de notat că dialogurile sunt extrase din textele vremii de Constanța Vintilă-Ghițulescu). Cu două momente cinematografice de intensitate maximă, primul capturarea celor doi robi fugari, în gospodăria unui țăran meșteșugar, și al doilea răzbunarea sălbatică a boierului, după ce robul adulter îi este înapoiat.

Interesantă filmarea în alb-negru, care amplifică intensitatea emoțională (deși imaginile cele mai interesante au puțină legătură cu tema principală a filmului, fiind mai degrabă cele de natură, de reținut aici numele operatorului Marius Panduru). Interesantă și muzica, în special cea din han, care încearcă să reconstituie atmosfera greco-otomană din Țara Românească (greu de aflat cine cântă, e o informație pe care realizatorii filmului au uitat să o dea, mi-a plăcut însă taraful, și mai ales lăutarul vârstnic, cu adevărat autentic). Interesantă și utilizarea limbii țigănești și turcești (în secvențe scurte, fără traducere).

Peisaje foarte bine găsite (deși unele m-au dus cu gândul la Dobrogea, nu la Țara Românească), interesantă și cula oltenească, deși în imaginația mea proprietarul unei asemenea case fortificate ar fi fost mai degrabă un simplu boier de țară, iar nu unul cu giubea și cu ișlic.

Unele secvențe (mai mult sau mai puțin bine creionate) din film încearcă să definească atmosfera mai profundă a epocii: întâlnirea zapciului cu șatra de nomazi, călugărul supărat pe viață, și care predică împotriva evreilor, încercarea grupului de țigani, la târg, de a-și găsi singuri cumpărător, vânzarea ilegală de către zapciu a robului copil fugit de la stăpân, intervenția călătorului străin din han, femeia (țiitoare?) a cărei voce se aude printr-o deschizătură din zidul culei, și pe care boierul o scuipă.

Poate cel mai interesant lucru din întreg filmul în ce privește psihologia personajelor rămâne modul cum țăranii și robii moșiei îl ajută pe stăpân să-și ducă la îndeplinire sălbatica răzbunare. Nu numai că boierul nu trebuie să facă nici un efort ca să-și nenorocească robul, și ca să-și umilească și să-și chinuie în același timp soția, ci chiar i se ușurează sarcina.

PS De notat că din punct de vedere tehnic, sonorul nu este atât de bun pe cât ar fi trebuit pentru a putea urmări fără probleme lungile dialoguri ale filmului. Poate nici dicția actorilor nu este întotdeauna cea mai bună (cu excepția lui Rebengiuc și Dabija, amândoi excepționali în rolurile lor scurte, episodice, dar fundamentale în economia filmului).

PS2 Poate cea mai mare notă din tot ce ține de realizarea tehnică a acestei pelicule ar trebui să o primească costumele, realizate de Dana Păpăruz! O adevărată încântare!

Despre Cortázar, în desene animate

„Povești cu cronopi și glorii” este un film cu totul și cu totul special. A fost alegerea personală a ambasadorului argentinian C. Pérez Paladino pentru a deschide ciclul Cortázar de la Instituto Cervantes de Bucarest - poate fiindcă unul dintre capitolele cărții/filmului se referă la o revoluție provocată de introducerea obligatorie a limbii... române în locul spaniolei? Sau poate pentru că acest film foarte recent (2014) a și început să fie premiat la festivaluri - Havana, Erevan?

Grafica filmului este extrem de diferită de-alungul filmului, fiecare capitol al cărții fiind ilustrat de un alt grafician/pictor prieten de-al lui Julio Cortazar. Unitatea este păstrată însă datorită regiei, animației și muzicii. Interesante referințele cinematografice/fotografice ale regizorului Julio Ludueña (și el prieten cu Cortázar) - cum ar fi „Crucișătorul Potemkin” al lui S. Eisenstein, sau emblematicele imagini foto cu un alt argentinian celebru, Che Guevara.

Un film de la care pleci un alt om, dacă-mi este permis să o parafrazez pe directoarea institutului, R. Moro de Andrés, care în cuvântul său introductiv a spus că „Șotron” (capodopera lui Cortázar) a schimbat-o definitiv. Un cald cuvânt de apreciere și pentru frumoasa și inspirata prezentare făcută de ambasadorul Pérez Paladino marelui scriitor argentinian autoexilat la Paris.

Iohannis: puterea unei scuze

Și totuși, solidaritatea între români, solidaritatea adevărată, dezinteresată, întru democrație, există!

Le sunt recunoscător celor din diaspora, care pe 16 noiembrie 2014 mi-au adus aminte de asta. Am privit și eu, ca mulți alții, cu emoție imaginile din marile capitale ale Europei, cu cozi interminabile de oameni de toate vârstele și din toate categoriile sociale, veniți uneori de la sute de kilometri distanță, pentru a sta răbdători cu orele în frig și ploaie, cu speranța că vor putea vota (imagine altminteri halucinantă în Europa secolului al XXI-lea, deși întrutotul corespunzătoare capacității administrative a actualului Guvern de la București).

N-am mai împărtășit acest sentiment de solidaritate din zilele de după răsturnarea lui Ceaușescu din 1989, când oamenii își zâmbeau unii altora, și reîncepuseră să vorbească cu vă rog și mulțumesc, în ciuda nenumăratelor greutăți cu care se confruntau.

Printre ciudățeniile alegerilor prezidențiale din 2014, este de reținut că Iohannis a câștigat în Dobrogea, Bucovina, Transilvania, Banat, Crișana și Maramureș, plus Basarabia (Moldova de peste Prut), ca să nu mai menționez și diaspora, în timp ce Ponta a fost preferat în Muntenia, Oltenia, și Moldova (de până la Prut). Să fie oare această suprapunere aproape perfectă între regiunile istorice și preferința de vot doar o coincidență?

Interesantă intervenția lui M.-R. Ungureanu în limba maghiară, făcută înainte de turul al doilea al alegerilor în sprijinul lui Iohannis. Nu știu să fi existat prea mulți politicieni români care să mai fi avut capacitatea/dorința să se adreseze în maghiară electoratului, de la marele patriot și luptător pentru democrație Iuliu Maniu - toute proportion gardée.

La final, o întrebare pentru mine însumi: a existat un moment când am căpătat certitudinea victoriei lui Iohannis? Și un răspuns: da, am știut că va câștiga atunci când, la prima confruntare televizată, Iohannis a fost singurul care și-a cerut scuze, deși nu greșise cu nimic.

PS Interesantă și paradigma acestor alegeri, foarte diferită de tot ce a existat până acum în România - cu intelectuali de marcă profund implicați (l-aș cita aici doar pe Cărtărescu, dar lista e lungă), și cu variate surse de informare alternative (rețele de socializare, etc.) care au făcut caducă propaganda televiziunilor.