Brancoveanu Ileana, SPE 2

A comparison between the 1992-1996 and 1996-2

re!imes"

A#ter the #all o# communism, the 1996 electoral moment is considered to be the #irst political cleava!e moment since the communist ta$eover, due to the #act that a#ter the 19%9 revolution, Ion Iliescu the leader o# the &ational Salvation 'ront (which was considered a continuator o# the communist part)* !ain the elections #or two times" +he essa) tries to compare the political re!ime durin! Iliescu and the one durin! ,onstantinescu anal)-in! the chan!es between these two and each one.s e##ectiveness" /e!ardin! this matter the opinions are various but mainl) there are classi#ied in two0 the ones that believe that under President Iliescu /omania was le#t apart on the international scene as a conse1uence o# the lac$ o# pro!ress in implementin! democrac) and mar$et econom)" +he same voices sustain that onl) with the 1996 elections that were won b) the 2emocratic ,onvention and its allies could /omania better its ima!e on an international and domestic scale" 3n the other hand (the other opinion trend* it is thou!ht that the social democrat re!ime was more bene#icial #or /omania than the #ormer mentioned re!ime which was believed to be characteri-ed b) corruption and clientelism and also under which the most dramatic decrease o# the standard o# livin! was re!istered a#ter the #all o# communism" &umerous authors opined that the nature o# a political re!ime in#luences the rh)thm in which the political and economical transition happens" 4ostl), it is considered that the #ormer communist re!imes in #avor o# re#ormisation and democrati-ation handle transitional problems much more eas) and 1uic$ that the re!imes that choose to $eep in their structure some elements o# the communist re!ime" +here#ore, the !overnments that were radicall) dissociated to their communist past are more able to draw and implement the re#ormist politics that are necessar) #or an approach to 5estern societies" +hus, the h)pothesis will be the ri!ht centered re!ime #rom 1992-1996 was more e##ective than its le#t centered predecessor" 'irstl), it is necessar) an evaluation o# the institutional e##icienc) in each one o# the re!imes" Such evaluation is rather hard to be #ound in the recent political studies" Accordin! to the studies o# Ec$stein, 6urr, 4c,lelland, Putnam there have been identi#ied #our criteria o# institutional per#ormance, namel)0 le!itimac), stabilit), decisional e##ectiveness, the e##ectiveness o# solvin! citi-ens. re1uests" I# these #our do not e7ist it is considered that a re!ime or an institution cannot #ul#ill their purposes" In the stud) the wa) in which the #ormer 1

Brancoveanu Ileana, SPE 2 mentioned criteria were accomplished are anal)-ed" +he evaluation o# the per#ormance observes the comparison throu!h time o# as man) as possible activit) areas, there#ore a re!ime is more per#ormant onl) i# it is e##ective to the ma8orit) o# the selected indicators" 3nl) considerin! these indicators to!ether we can appreciate the success o# #ailure o# a re!ime" 5e will #irstl) anal)-e the internal allowance o# power" Accordin! to #ive indicators, as #ollows0 the stabilit) o# the e7ecutive, the de!ree o# bureaucrac), the rotation o# the o##icials at a local level, le!islative or e7ecutive accent, 1uorum, and the time assi!ned to resolvin! or!anisator) problems" +here#ore, re!ardin! the stabilit) o# the e7ecutive it must be said that the Iliescu re!ime had onl) one cabinet with the prime minister &icolae 9acaroiu( :% months o# !overnin!* $nown as an apolitical economist later on a##iliated to the Social 2emocrat Part), while the ,onstantinescu re!ime $new three cabinets, as #ollows0 9ictor ,iorbea (1996-199%; 16 months o# !overnin!*, /adu 9asile(199%-1999; 2 months o# !overnin!*, 4u!ur Isarescu(1999-2 ; 12 months o# !overnin!* , all bein! proposed b) the ,hristian 2emocrats" +here#ore, the 1992-1996 period e7perienced a more stable e7ecutive" A second criteria is the rotation o# the o##icials durin! the two re!imes, especiall) re!ardin! the minister and the secretar) o# state" +he 1uic$er the rotation, the instable and ine##ective the re!ime was" +he o#ten chan!es o# cabinet do not allow the ministers to connect to the departments that the) run, to win the trust o# the bureaucrats, to understand and approach their problems" 4oreover, a #re1uent rotation at this level creates a distrust#ul climate that is less #avorable to adoptin! and implementin! the necessar) strate!ic policies o# the post-communist transition" +he more the number o# the chan!ed ministers and secretaries o# state is, the unstable the re!ime was" +he number o# ministers the 1992-1996 re!ime had was 29, while the 1996-2 re!ime had <6" Also, the number o# secretaries o# state the Iliescu re!ime had was :=, while the ,onstantinescu re!ime had %1" +here#ore, the ,onstantinescu re!ime is a!ain in a less convenient position" A third criteria is the selection o# the cabinet" Accordin! to this criteria, a slow selection o# the cabinet can su!!est internal con#licts within the part) or the coalition that !overns" +his can occur due to con#licts between personalities or due to a political culture that encoura!es the o##ice see$in! parties rather than polic) see$in! ones" Both political re!ime

Brancoveanu Ileana, SPE 2 were late with the settlement o# the !overnment, but as problematic as the 9acaroiu !overnment was #ormed, the one that #ollowed was even more problematic" +he de!ree o# bureaucrac) re#ers to the ministerial port#olios that re#lect the socio economic pro!ram o# the Prime 4inister" 6enerall), the cabinets in the post-communist countries included re#orm port#olios, privati-ation and reor!ani-ation which do not resemble with an) o# those #rom the 5estern societies, there#ore East European cabinets include more members than in 5est European cabinets althou!h there is no member limit, and the) can be e7tended accordin! to the socio-economical priorities o# the countr)" In our case, both o# the re!imes arti#iciall) e7tended the cabinets due to clientelar reasons, thus the re!ime with most cabinet members will be considered less e##ective" +he 9acaroiu cabined had 22 members, while the ones that #ollowed had 2: (the media* startin! with 2% while ,iorbea and !oin! down to 2 while Isarescu" +he 9asile cabinet had 2> members" +here#ore, #rom this point o# view also, the Iliescu re!ime was more e##ective" A #i#th criteria is the rotation o# the pre#ects" As in one o# the #ormer criteria, the 1uic$er the rotation, the unstable the re!ime was" +he rapidit) with which the pre#ect positions are ne!otiated re#lects the level o# the e7istent consensus and the stabilit) o# the !overnment" As the ministers, the pre#ects that $eep their positions #or a lon!er period o# time can, at least theoreticall), approach the problems o# the districts the) are in char!e o#" 5ithin 1992-1996, %: persons occupied the :1 positions o# pre#ects while other == occupied the vice pre#ect ones" Amon! these, ver) #ew $ept their positions #or #our )ears" In the latter !overnment there were 91 pre#ects and =: vice pre#ects with onl) 1< pre#ects and 2 vice pre#ects that $ept their positions #or the whole mandate" +here#ore, the ,onstantinescu re!ime chan!ed more pre#ects and vice pre#ects as it also chan!ed more ministers and secretaries o# state" A notable di##erence between the two re!imes is the wa) in which the le!islation was adopted b) each one o# them, namel) the emer!enc) decrees issued b) the !overnment, due to the #act that these do not allow the opposition a ver) bi! amount o# in#luence over the proposed laws" +he more emer!enc) decrees, the more pronounced the e7ecutive character o# the re!ime would be, which leads to limited in#luence o# the opposition and #inall) to low e##ectiveness" 'rom 1992 to 1996 onl) 2 such decrees were issued compared to 6%: within 1996 and 2 " +hus, the ,onstantinescu re!ime was o# a more e7ecutive character than the Iliescu one" 5e reach the same conclusion when the number o# decrees is compared to the

<

Brancoveanu Ileana, SPE 2 one o# laws, the three cabinets durin! 1996-2 laws" +here#ore, the latter period is a!ain in loss" +he 1uorum is a!ain important #or decidin! the e##ectiveness o# the two re!imes" +he Parliament, as a deliberative or!an, must have 1uorum #or a proper and e##icient wor$, i# not the laws either won.t be adopted or be adopted but with considerable dela)s" It is estimated that the #irst le!islature had 1uorum in = ? percent o# the meetin!s, while the second one hand 1uorum onl) 2:? o# the meetin!s" 3btainin! and maintainin! 1uorum was one o# the most serious problems o# the /omanian Parliament durin! 1992 and 2 1992-1996 re!ime has shown more e##ectiveness that the latter" But the situation chan!es in the case o# in#ormational and statistics services" As in the most post communist countries the #ormer mentioned are new, but the two re!imes are still di##erent" In the #irst re!ime little importance was !iven to data collectin!, report ma$in!, sociolo!ical studies re!ardin! the economical situation o# the countr) and presentin! the in#ormation in public" +he ,onstantinescu re!ime tried to remed) this situation b) allowin! access to parliamentar) meetin!s, collectin! detailed in#ormation re!ardin! the condition o# the civic societ) and o# commercial #irms, disseminatin! on the Internet o# reports that re!ard the !overnmental activit)" 2ue to the number o# publications and the detailin! and anal)-in! o# the in#ormation, the ,onstantinescu re!ime was more e##ective #rom this point o# view" As an aspirin! to be democratic countr), /omania should have a !overnment that has the obli!ation o# answerin! in #ront o# the citi-ens and o##erin! essential in#ormation with re!ard to its activities and the situation within the countr) and last but not least the !overnment should not i!nore its electorate" +he ,onstantinescu re!ime o##ered more in#ormation on its activit) and on the componence o# state structures and responded to the calls o# the citi-ens more 1uic$ than the precedent re!ime" Also, a#ter 1996, the local !overnment and the local administration be!an o##erin! in#ormation on internet and the administrators and bureaucrats could be contacted not onl) durin! the audiences but also throu!h phone and e-mail" Althou!h, !enerall) in /omania the contact with the citi-ens is wea$ related to other countries, important pro!ress has been made a#ter 1996" An e##ective re!ime is not one that promises a lot, but one that accomplishes with the promises that have been made" 3ne o# the most important dut) o# the Parliament is adoptin! the bud!et" +he #re1uent ad8ournment o# adoptin! the bud!et re#lects the ine##icacit) o# the re!ime" In /omania, between 1992 and 2 the national bud!et was adopted mainl) at the but then a!ain, the !overnin! throu!h decrees than throu!h

Brancoveanu Ileana, SPE 2 end o# sprin! or the be!innin! o# summer, there#ore there are onl) sli!ht di##erences between the two re!imes re!ardin! this matter" But in /omania, the bud!et is adopted late a#ter the be!innin! o# the )ear, #act that causes con#usion within the local administrations which are dependent on the national bud!et" +he structure o# the bud!et is also important, namel) how the special #unds are allocated" Because i# the percenta!e o# the bud!et that is directed towards special interest !roups whose cooperation the !overnment is tr)in! to obtain is bi!!er, then the rest o# the bud!et which should be #or satis#)in! the needs o# the electorate is lower" @nder the Iliescu re!ime, the special #unds varied #rom %,1? to 16,:? o# the national bud!et with a medium percenta!e o# 11,>? which under the ,onstantinescu re!ime !rew to 19,<?" 5hile under Iliescu the percenta!e lowered #rom )ear to )ear, under ,onstantinescu this percenta!e !rew, allocatin! more and more mone) to decreasin! number o# small !roups" 5hat also matters is the percenta!e o# the national bud!et allocated to investments" +he more this percenta!e is, the more the decisional e##ectiveness o# the re!ime wor$s" A!ain, under the Iliescu re!ime, /omania mana!ed to invest 1<? o# its bud!ed, compared to onl) =,9? under the ,onstantinescu re!ime" Both re!imes have declared the economic re#orm as a priorit) o# their pro!ram, but the) didn.t understand the concept o# Are#ormB in the same wa)" 5hile the /omanian Social 2emocrat Part) adopted an economic model based on increasement and re8ected the postcommunist, neo-liberal, transitional model and the necessit) o# immediate implementation o# all its components, all the cabinets durin! the 1996-2 radical economical re#orms as 1uic$ as possible" /e!ardin! the privati-ation, a #irst evaluation can be made havin! in view the number o# laws, decrees and !overnment decisions about privati-ation, that were adopted" A re!ime that is not interested in the #ield would not #ind necessar) to #ormulate and adopt a le!islation with re!ard to this" +he ,onstantinescu re!ime adopted more laws, more decrees and !overnment decisions than the precedent one which points out a hi!h de!ree o# interest towards acceleratin! privati-ation" 3n the other hand, the Iliescu re!ime that wanted to oppose the pressure o# en!a!in! in privati-ation did not reach its purpose, but also privati-ed more than wished" Also, the ,onstantinescu re!ime did not mana!e to privati-e all the state enterprises and o# closin! the 'und o# State Propert) in 199%" +he Iliescu re!ime adopted a le!islation encoura!in! privati-ation, at the be!innin! o# its mandate, there#ore abandoned its re!ime were willin! to implement

>

Brancoveanu Ileana, SPE 2 purpose o# resistin! the process but the ,onstantinescu re!ime doin! the same thin! accomplished its electoral promises more 1uic$" Both re!imes adopted the ma8orit) o# the le!islation re!ardin! privati-ation, in the second hal# o# their mandates" +he two re!imes were not much di##erent re!ardin! anti corruption campai!ns or e7ternal polic) issues" In contradiction with the initial h)pothesis, the Iliescu re!ime turns out to be more e##ective that the 1996-2 one due to the anal)sis re!ardin! the internal allocation o# power, decisional e##icac) but has been le#t behind re!ardin! the usa!e o# statistic and in#ormational services and o# the promptitude with which it has responded to the people.s call" Even thou!h the Iliescu re!ime e7ceeded its successor, #rom the point o# view o# institutional per#ormance, this re!ime does not compare with the or!ani-ational level o# 5estern re!imes" +he contacts between the !overnin! part) and the electorate were sporadic and in#luenced b) a mentalit) o# absolute ruler which shall not !ive an) e7planation to nobod) ( pointed out b) its in#ectivit) re!ardin! in#ormational services*, instead o# bein! public servants the /omanian politicians treatin! their electorate as ones" +here#ore, we #ace the impossibilit) o# a real democrac) as lon! as this mentalit) persists" 3nce /omania passed #rom initiatin! the democratic s)stem to its consolidation, the rapprochement basis o# the !overnments and re!imes that are at its rule must be chan!ed" As in other societies, the !overn ants must be evaluated accordin! to the concrete policies the) #ormulate and the e##icac) with which the) adopt the necessar) decisions #or !overnin!" In the end I could add that the ,onstantinescu re!ime still represents a bi! chan!e #or the /omanian post 2ecembrist political li#e, throu!h the e)es o# chan!e and throu!h the voice o# the civil societ)"

Brancoveanu Ileana, SPE 2

Biblio!raph)0 ASistemul Politic /omanesc, @n Sistem EntropicCB DAl" /adu, 6h" /adu, Ioana Porumb, Ed" +ehnica, Bucuresti 199> A&u Putem /eusi 2ecat Impreuna" 3 Istorie Analitica A ,onventiei 2emocratice 19%9-2 B D2an Pavel, Iulia Euiu, Ed" Polirom, Iasi 2 < , AIliescu vs" ,onstantinescuB, p! >-1=, Gavinia Stan AS#era PoliticiiB, anul F, nr" 1