RSS
Shock of 2016 locals: Did Romania vote corruption?
Romania voted corruption- this partially true headline could be seen on TV channels, news sites and international news agencies. The same Romania voted Nicusor Dan and Clotilde Armand with their anti-system speeches meant to denounce corruption as the emblem of big parties.
How can this apparent paradox be explained?
Here are mayors with penal problems elected on Sunday (partial results):
* Baia Mare. Catalin Chereches (backed by UNPR) got 70.1% votes from a presence of 38.6%. He is in preventive arrest for bribery.
* Craiova. Olguta Vasilescu (PSD-UNPR) obtained 58.4% out of a presence of 38.6%. She is investigated for bribery.
* Ramnicu Valcea. Mircia Gutau (PER) got 42.3% out of a presence of 41.8%. He was sentenced for corruption.
* Brasov. George Scripcaru (independent) obtained 52.5% out of a presence of 37.2%. He is tried for several crimes including bribery.
* Targu Mures. Dorin Florea (independent backed by PNL) got 42.9% from a presence of 51.2%. He is investigated by DNA for bribery.
* Bucharest, District 3. Robert Negoita (PSD) obtained 60.3% from a presence of 31.6%. He is accused by DNA for fiscal evasion.
* Bucharest, District 6. Gabriel Mutu (PSD) got 36.8% out of a presence of 34.3%. He is investigated by DIICOT in a case on the activity of an organized crime group.
All these candidates were voted from a low voting presence. In towns where they were voted, the voting presence was below the country average of 48.4%. We can say that a low percentage from a low polling presence decided the vote.
Corruption is not backed by majority votes, but on minority because the election system in a single round makes it possible that a minority from a minority can decide. Electors with higher political standards stayed at home for lack of solutions without realizing that their absence from the democratic game risks to legitimate corruption which they loathe so much.
The anomaly can be explained: for instance electors from Baia Mare, Brasov or Ramnicu Valcea voted pragmatically. They elected a good mayor who, even if suspected of corruption, for lack of a better alternative. Then the acceptance of corruption as a way of living in a certain segment of the population is obvious.
There are other possible explanations too: the people is tired, the anti-corruption discourse has lost its seduction capacity, few people believe that Romania will be ever cleansed when for the last ten years prosecutors have been arresting politicians who continue to steal as much as before.
There is another important majority segment of people who are either silent or did not vote those candidates. This majority, which is the same who declare confident in justice ( 60 percent according to opinion surveys made during the last two years) , did not vote or were fewer at polling stations.
Certainly, the fact that 5-6 candidates under investigation received the vote of a small part of electors generated emotion, but their election did not show the general will of society or a tendency. In the opinion of sociologist Mircea Kivu, people motivate their gesture saying that “those people stole but they also did things for us,” which represents a distortion of values.
On the other hand, psychologist Daniel David has another explanation for the fact that people voted mayors with problems with the law. He says that Romanian society has a collective structure. In his opinion it is not a distortion of values, but the fact that Romanians have other values than those seen in the West: “In a western society, confidence in state institutions is very high; in a society like ours, confidence in institutions of the state is low. This does not mean we do not have values. We have different values, which are not similar to those of the western world, at least concerning attitude towards state institutions”, the psychologist explained.