Great president or small president ?

All means accepted by the Fundamental law to remove from office the head of state are legitimate since Traian Basescu hasn't met by far the obligations conferred by the Constitution, on the contrary, he has done everything possible to block the reform in Romania. However, this is politicians' business and it will be the citizens' too when they have the occasion to decide, under circumstances different from those of the referendum. If we analyze the PNL (National Liberal Party) proposition aiming at a major change of a constitutional nature relating to the president's status, we must leave aside the person Traian Basescu. The fundamental law cannot be changed on account of the fact that we like a person or not or because a person is harmful or beneficial. There are different reasons that should prevail. That is why, starting the reality we have, for establishing a limit line between presidential attributions and the Executive's, and a bad Constitution that generates, as we've seen, tensions and crises between the Palaces, we must opt without prejudices for the best structure which it should be turned into. We do not need a semi-presidential republic, that's clear. But what is it better to have ? Is it good for us to have in the future a parliamentary republic or a presidential republic ?
Any of the solutions is, for certain, better than the semi-presidential republic. That's because in any of the two options, the war of fundamental state institutions can be avoided, to their benefit and, eventually, to the citizen's benefit. The citizen's sick of quarrels, scandals, plots leading nowhere or crisis blocking the reform and delay development. So, if we talk about the reform of the political class, let's do it starting from the top.
If we are to have a presidential republic, before making an option, we might have to look carefully towards the United States, as they surely have the most functional presidential republic. How are things organized there ? The elected president of the United States is the chief of Executive as well. Therefore, if things go well, he is the one winning laurels. If things go bad, it's him again to catch it hot. You will never hear an American president cursing the Government. Never ! Things are the same the other way round: no Government would attack its president. In the most frequently met hypothesis among the Western democracies, that of a parliamentary republic, the situation is, again, relatively simple, as far as attribution delimitation is concerned. That's because in this scenario, the president has no executive attributions. Consequently, he has no right to interfere in the governing relating matters, or to comment them, from his quality of a head of state. He has a rather representative role. In a parliamentary republic, the political class installs the president and, when he becomes undesirable, the political class is again the one that removes him. This is done, as a rule, by the agency of the most important democratic institution, the Parliament.
As far as I am concerned, I opt for the formula of a parliamentary republic. That is because I do not consider Traian Basescu a dangerous individual, doing more bad that good, but simply because I'm terribly afraid of the effects the absence of a long democratic tradition might have in Romania. One's temptation, no matter who the individual is, to use power for himself and in the citizens' interest is huge and ubiquitous. Moreover, the citizen himself, illiterate in matters of politics and somehow tipsy, is tempted to label as week a Democrat president and to unconsciously throw himself into the arms of a father, perceived as a providential someone.
So, a president elected by the Parliament would be good.

Sorin Rosca Stanescu
Ziua Marti 4 Septembrie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english