Girly glitter comments from www.GirlyTags.com
Monday, September 03, 2007
The Constitution like a boxing ring
No one has dared modify the Constitution substantially because they and their party may at a certain moment take advantage of the flaws not settled or changed just superficially. PM Calin-Popescu Tariceanu has taken action aiming at a radical modification of the Constitution. Behind his initiative there are sure to be political reasons related to the wish to kick Traian Basescu out of the political stage and lead the PD (Democrat Party) to the poor state it was in when the PNL (National Liberal Party) gave it a hand in 2004. But a substantial modification of the Constitution is a matter of principle, regardless of people and circumstances.
The war between Cotroceni Palace and Victoria Palace is but the repeatable consequence of an utterly constitutional flaw: the half-presidential status of our dear republic. As long as the head of state is the beneficiary of executive prerogatives, even if they are the minimum ones, he will devour or at least harass prime-ministers, no matter the names of the protagonists and the parties they come from. If we want to go on like this, we can keep the Constitution unchanged. The PD and the PRM (Greater Romania Party) want it. As for the Social-Democrats, they don't really know what they want any more. In case we want to change things, do away with the reasons for the endless dispute between the President and the PM and acquire European democracy, the fundamental law must be modified.
Since we are careless about constitutional monarchy, then we should choose either a parliamentary republic or a presidential one and give up the hybrid form now in use, involving an unclear status for the President and a PM playing the black sheep. Except for France and Russia (to the extent to which the latter is geographically part of Europe), the European states are either constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics. Such forms of state provide the President with attributions to represent the country at international level. As for the domestic level, he/ she is supposed to be a moral, not a political point of reference, since he/she has got no executive power, which is for the PM only to see to. It is the prime-minister that electors elect. The head of state is either the King or the President elected by the Parliament.
Such a system would make Romanians understand whom they vote for in order to serve them and report to them, not only to speak up against those in charge of governing the country. President Basescu has made use of this constitutional flaw, he has given everyone, from the PM to the caretaker, precious directions and he is very good at pointing to the government. But he has got no responsibility. He may be irresponsible, constitutionally speaking. According to the Constitution in force, the President's only responsibility is to pretend. As for the Democrats, they want things to change, but stay the same ! The only thing they take interest in is to give the President some more executive attributions, so that he may dismiss the PM and dissolve the Parliament. The Democrats actually want the Constitution to specify the President's right to make the pell mell official. They aren't fond of the parliamentary republic. They don't say why, but this is because the inflatable party would thus deflate.
The PNL has pleaded for a parliamentary republic, for specific attributions to be settled for the two Chambers and for the number of MPs to be cut to a half of as many as they are now. Romania needs a parliamentary system. Unless the Constitution is changed to mention precise attributions and rights for the MPs, the uninominal vote will remain just a phrase. The Constitution should also forbid political migration or the migrating politicians should be expelled from the Parliament. The response the Liberal initiative will get will show as clear as daylight who wants to be in Europe and who wants to be in Asia.
Roxana Iordache
Ziua Luni 3 Septembrie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
The war between Cotroceni Palace and Victoria Palace is but the repeatable consequence of an utterly constitutional flaw: the half-presidential status of our dear republic. As long as the head of state is the beneficiary of executive prerogatives, even if they are the minimum ones, he will devour or at least harass prime-ministers, no matter the names of the protagonists and the parties they come from. If we want to go on like this, we can keep the Constitution unchanged. The PD and the PRM (Greater Romania Party) want it. As for the Social-Democrats, they don't really know what they want any more. In case we want to change things, do away with the reasons for the endless dispute between the President and the PM and acquire European democracy, the fundamental law must be modified.
Since we are careless about constitutional monarchy, then we should choose either a parliamentary republic or a presidential one and give up the hybrid form now in use, involving an unclear status for the President and a PM playing the black sheep. Except for France and Russia (to the extent to which the latter is geographically part of Europe), the European states are either constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics. Such forms of state provide the President with attributions to represent the country at international level. As for the domestic level, he/ she is supposed to be a moral, not a political point of reference, since he/she has got no executive power, which is for the PM only to see to. It is the prime-minister that electors elect. The head of state is either the King or the President elected by the Parliament.
Such a system would make Romanians understand whom they vote for in order to serve them and report to them, not only to speak up against those in charge of governing the country. President Basescu has made use of this constitutional flaw, he has given everyone, from the PM to the caretaker, precious directions and he is very good at pointing to the government. But he has got no responsibility. He may be irresponsible, constitutionally speaking. According to the Constitution in force, the President's only responsibility is to pretend. As for the Democrats, they want things to change, but stay the same ! The only thing they take interest in is to give the President some more executive attributions, so that he may dismiss the PM and dissolve the Parliament. The Democrats actually want the Constitution to specify the President's right to make the pell mell official. They aren't fond of the parliamentary republic. They don't say why, but this is because the inflatable party would thus deflate.
The PNL has pleaded for a parliamentary republic, for specific attributions to be settled for the two Chambers and for the number of MPs to be cut to a half of as many as they are now. Romania needs a parliamentary system. Unless the Constitution is changed to mention precise attributions and rights for the MPs, the uninominal vote will remain just a phrase. The Constitution should also forbid political migration or the migrating politicians should be expelled from the Parliament. The response the Liberal initiative will get will show as clear as daylight who wants to be in Europe and who wants to be in Asia.
Roxana Iordache
Ziua Luni 3 Septembrie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Liberals want Parliament to elect President
Romanian Liberals are now pleading that Romania needs to become a parliamentary republic instead of a half-presidential one. They claim this regime is wrong because it is unacceptable that a small group of people or one single person should hold all power. The reform of the constitutional system approached by the Democrat Party these was also reloaded by the National Liberal Party last Saturday, during the Summer School of the Liberal Youth.(...)
Ovidiu Banches, Razvan Gheorghe & D.I.
Ziua Luni 3 Septembrie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
