Arma de integrare in masa (RO)

In 1859, Romania moderna a luat fiinta ca stat printr-o mica smecherie. Pentru a ocoli opozitia marilor puteri fata de unirea Moldovei si Tarii Romanesti, solutia gasita a fost punerea lor in fata faptului implinit, prin alegerea aceleiasi persoane - Alexandru Ioan Cuza - ca principe in ambele tari.
Nu a fost foarte elegant, dar a functionat.

Astazi, cand o parte a presei occidentale se ingrijoreaza de integrarea tacuta a Republicii Moldova in UE prin oferirea in masa de pasapoarte romanesti, miza, contrar aparentelor, nu este unirea celor doua tari de limba romana despartite de Prut. Unirea - in sens de unificare statala, politico-administrativa dupa exemplul Germaniei in 1989 - pur si simplu nu este pe agenda politica a nici uneia dintre parti, cel putin deocamdata, si nu are sustinere majoritara in randul populatiei nici de pe malul stang, nici de pe malul drept al Prutului.
Adevarata miza, despre care am mai scris, este extragerea Republicii Moldova din sfera de influenta estica si orientarea ei, stabila si ireversibila, catre occident.

Visul puterii absolute a contaminat PSD (RO)

Am scris de mai multe ori pe acest blog despre himera puterii absolute, care l-a transformat pe Basescu intr-un pericol public si careia ii datoram in buna masura situatia de acum a Romaniei - vezi de exemplu aici si aici.

Se pare, din pacate, ca Basescu nu mai este singurul.

Iata ce declara Victor Ponta, imbatat de altitudinea astronomica pe care a capatat-o PSD in sondaje fara sa faca nimic:

In apararea cotei unice (RO)

Cotei unice de impozitare i se pregateste ceva.

PSD, se stie clar, este pentru revenire la impozitarea progresiva pe venit si isi face deja calcule despre cum va castiga viitoarele alegeri. Nimic suprinzator, in contextul revitalizarii ideologice de stanga initiata in partid de Victor Ponta.
Dar pana una-alta, lovitura mortala impotriva reformei definitorii introduse de alianta de centru dreapta PNL-PD de la 1 ianuarie 2005 (va mai amintiti? a fost chiar prima masura adoptata in prima sedinta a guvernului Tariceanu) ar putea sa vina chiar de la PD-L, partidul pretins de dreapta, tinut cu tot dinadinsul de presedintele Basescu la putere.

Faptul ca, la doua zile dupa ce a lansat bomba renuntarii la cota unica, ministrul de Finante Vladescu este inca pe functie arata ca ceva este putred - si nu numai in Danemarca. Intr-adevar, a fost mustrat de Boc ca a vorbit fara aprobare, dar premierul nu s-a dezis convingator de ideea vehiculata de ministru. Iar Basescu a evitat pana acum sa se pronunte transant (inima i-a ramas, se pare, la reducerea pensiilor).
Demiterea lui Vladescu abia acum n-ar mai rezolva sau lamuri mare lucru. Vorbim, pana la urma, despre guvernul care a hotarat cresterea TVA - o alta taxa de care portocaliii promisesera solemn ca nu se vor atinge - cu 5% intr-o singura zi de week-end.
In decembrie trecut, cand umbla dupa voturile electoratului liberal, presedintele Basescu n-a ezitat sa-si aroge paternitatea cotei unice. Dar n-ar fi prima data cand se intoarce cu 180 de grade intr-o chestiune importanta.

Trecand insa peste aspectul politic, ar trebui totusi discutate implicatiile economice ale unei astfel de masuri.

Competentii care conduc Romania (RO)

Din faptele de vitejie ale guvernului Boc intru salvarea Romaniei:

Retragerea apelor (RO)

In seara aceasta, catre miezul noptii, cand capitanul echipei Spaniei (favorita mea) sau al Olandei va ridica deasupra capului Cupa Mondiala la fotbal, se va incheia probabil ultimul termen de gratie acordat de romani puterii basesciene. Cum bine observa Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, "in timpul unui campionat mondial de fotbal nu este momentul sa cada guverne, nimanui nu ii arde de asta".
Cand vuvuzelele vor amuti, o parte importanta dintre cetatenii Romaniei isi vor aminti ca au probleme serioase si vor incerca sa afle ce fac guvernul si presedintele pentru rezolvarea lor.

Si iata ce vor afla:

What's at stake in Kyrgyzstan (EN)

The slightly outlandish idea to establish a parliamentary republic in Kyrgyzstan has revived the debate about democracy and its chances to eventually take root in Central Asia, a region so far impermeable to political reforms and where monocentric, authoritarian regimes have been in control ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago.

The rigid, pyramidal power structures of the -"stan" countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan) feature an over-dominating executive, with the parliament and the judiciary in a subordinated role. The executive branch is in turn completely controlled by the president. No alternative centre of power is allowed to exist, no independent or autonomous authority. Stability is privileged over reform. Modernization is accepted only to the extent that it is limited to a purely technocratic agenda and does not undermine (and preferably reinforces) the status quo of the power structure.

Not surprisingly, Russia is not pleased with the turn of events. A democratic opening in its backyard is seen by the Kremlin as a recipe for trouble, especially given the highly strategically complex and volatile situation in Central Asia (suffice to say that Kyrgyzstan itself has the rare privilege of hosting both Russian, as well as American bases on its territory; a simple look at the map can speak volumes). Russia's interest is for stability, and stability in the mind of Russian leaders requires a strong hand at the helm; democratic experiments are seen as too big a risk.
And truth be said, Kyrgyzstan has not been a paragon of stability: the ethnic clashes between Kyrgyz and Uzbek populations in the South, which almost derailed the 27 June constitutional referendum, followed shortly after the bloody uprising that toppled the latest strongman, Kurmanbek Bakyiev. Which itself was the second violent regime change in five years, after the "Tulip revolution" that overthrew Askar Akayev.

The new rulers, who initially formed a "provisional government", faced the conundrum of stabilizing the situation and resolving the issue of constitutional legitimacy at the same time. The parliament had been dissolved, the constitutional framework discontinued. Thus, the sense of urgency to proceed with the 27 June referendum, even under very adverse circumstances and notwithstanding the alarm bells sounded by international organizations (e.g. the International Crisis Group urging the government not to press ahead with the referendum in the immediate aftermath of ethnic clashes in the South).

The gamble seems to have paid off, as the referendum went ahead in a smoother way than expected. Incidentally, the country also got the first female president in the sub-region.
But Kyrgyzstan is far from being out of the wood yet. It is still engaged in a high-risk endeavor that could end either with a genuine Central Asian democracy (an oxymoron until very recently), or - admittedly more likely - with a failed state. There are not many options in between.

The stakes are very high not just for the mountainous landlocked country bordering China, but indeed for the West as well, and for the entire region.