Good politician bad politician - Assignment for Mr Pavel\'s course PDF

Preview

Summary

Good politician bad politician - Assignment for Mr Pavel's course...

Description

SPE 1 How do we judge what makes a politician ‘bad’ or ‘good’? Goran Hyden and colleagues1 stated that the problem with governance is much more a rhetorical notion than one that can be used to measure differences in governance. Such is the issue with measuring differences in politicians and not in their policies. Djavad Salehi-Isfahani2 wrote that we should evaluate policies and only then politicians. His argumentation was that by the logic of evaluating politicians, then if a politician is ‘bad’ – then every policy he implements must be bad and if a president is ‘good’, he can do no wrong. However, the case is far more complicated and different than that presented by Djavad. It is more difficult to asses the individual governance of politicians than that of their affiliation or organisation, because not every party is as homogenous or organised as some would believe. Assessing the governance of organisations is simpler because it is universal, for example the non-governmental organization Freedom House concepts its own governance measure by collecting data chiefly geared to the analysis of political rights and civil liberties. Its indicators include such fundamentals as the fairness of the electoral process, the degree of political pluralism, the responsiveness of government to civil society, freedom of expression, adherence to the rule of law and freedom from state surveillance. This measure is relatively free of economic indicators, but is nevertheless claimed to be an indicator of governance. In measuring the efficiency of a politician we must avoid immeasurable traits that are in fact regarded most highly by the civil society, ‘peripheral’ criteria such as physical attractiveness, humour, speaking ability, the likeability of a candidate’s family and so on; futhermore, we should avoid the popular generalisation that ‘all politicians are bad’ or other similar affirmations. There is a huge number of criteria one could use in evaluating a politician’s efficiency, some subjective, other objective. In this paper, I will refer only to objective criteria than can establish how ‘good’ a politician is, or how desirable for a certain society. Of course, this criteria may not apply to all societies and all political systems, as criteria is closely related to needs - the needs of a particular given society attracts or requires specific traits in politicians that may not be considered desirable elsewhere. Therefore, the criteria I’ve chosen to evaluate the four politicians I’ve chosen are: experience, activity/passivity (institutional performance), relation with press, relation with the opposition, consistency/coherence, corruption, transparency, roots (party, loyalty to party etc), in the interest of who does he or she work and his or her stand on key issues. 1 Tobias Schmitz (2007). The good, the bad and the governance Governance criteria and political choices . Available: http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/The-good-the-bad-and-the-governance#. Last accessed 16.06.2014. 2 Djavad Salehi-Isfahani (2013). Evaluate policies, then politicians.Available:

http://djavadsalehi.com/2013/07/12/policies-not-politicians/. Last accessed 16.06.2014.

Firstly, experience is an objective and important factor in assessing how good a politician can be for a specific function or how good he is because of the simple reason that if there is no experience, we can’t make that assessment, therefore we can’t make an informed choice in case of an election. And if there is no experience and the politician holds a key, unelected function in politics, he lacks the authority to impose himself. Activity or lack thereof (passivity) refers to the actual, pragmatic actions a politician exerts in his function or not. If the politician is actively passive, how can we regard him as good? He hasn’t done anything worth mentioning, yet he finds himself in a position to make decisions concerning a large number of people (or not). The issue of trust emerges here, as it can with lack of experience- but it is worse, because, an unexperienced politician finds himself at the beginning of his road while a passive politician finds himself in the middle of an empty road. The relation with the press is important because press is supposed to be one of the watch-dogs of democracy. If the politician regards the press as an instrument, how can he be called democratic? If the politician disregards the press completely, how can one know his stand on various issues concerning society? The press acts as an informant, or should do so, and when it is controlled or oppressed, it speaks of the principles of the politician and the sort of system he will try to bring along. The relation with the opposition is very important in assessing how democratic a politician is, even though this criteria may be best applicable to larger organisations. If the politician suppresses the opposition, he is clearly undemocratic and undesirable, if he welcomes it and flourishes from it - best case scenario -, then he or she must be good, applying the logic of J.S.Mill who thought that true ideas flourish from dissent and debate. Opposition is healthy and desirable. Consistency and coherence refers to a certain category of normative ethics that looks at the virtues and traits which guide a politician in his pursuit of external action. Looing at the meaning of virtue ethics, it could be said that any politician should be grounded on ‘living by virtuous example’ this means that and is coherent consistent, that he doesn’t promote principles that he himself doesn’t obey to. Corruption refers to the number of scandals and criminal files the politician has or hasn’t got, which even if unresolved yet, obviously affect the public opinion and the well-functioning of the country. Transparency is linked to this aspect, because the citizen learns of corruption from the press while transparency prevents this and offers a greater degree of confidence in politics - it is also a key issue of democracy. Roots and party loyalties obviously refer to the mobilities of the politician, did he have a complete change of ideologies? Did he double-cross his own party colleagues? Was his party always democratic or did he use to have completely different views and now only acts as a sheep in wolves’ clothes? Of course, the last and most important criteria is the question of ‘in whose interest does the politician work for’? This is the hardest to asses and generally can be only done at a superficial level or, the opposite, can be generally disregarded from the start from the assumption that politicians never work in the interest of the people.

Cristian Boureanu has a background of education in economics and political science; Boureanu’s political career started in 1995, when he joined the Liberal National Party (PNL) because of his explicit desire to join the right. Five years later, working his way to the top, he became the president of the Youth Liberal Party (TNL), a sub-section of PNL. In short time, during 2001-2005, Boureanu became an important figure in the PNL leadership. In 2006, he was excluded from PNL, after a period of heavy criticism on his part on the collaboration of PNL with PSD. During 2000-2001, he was also a counselor for the Presiden of the Economic Comission in the Chamber of Deputees and previously he was counselor for the ministry of finance. Parliamentary speaking, from 2004 and until now he is a deputee and a member of the Commission of Industry and Services in the Chamber of Deputees. The construction of PDL in 2007 and its ulterior fusion with PD were extremely important highlights of his political career. Apart from his political career, Boureanu was and is involved in other domains. Currently, he is a private investor in different segments such as media, economic consultance and constructions. Boureanu’s activity in Parliament is at a very low level. The most significant intervention he had during a parliamentary discussion refered to the state budget and it lasted for a few minutes. He is known for being anti-reform, characteristing integrity criteria reform proposals as ‘proposals characteristic for sovietic communists’. This refers to the proposal that prosecuted members should be excluded from the PDL party. His exact statement on the integrity criteria proposal was: ‘What should we do with a mayor with a history of ten criminal case files filed by the DNA? For example, the mayor of Alba Iulia. Why should I take a precaution when justice has done this for over 2000 years… I wish Ms. Macovei would give me an example of a democratic succesful country that does this. If she points me to the Communist Party – which is the only party that has a comission of this sort – then I’ll reply: Yes, but the Communist Party created an unplesant system, miss Macovei!’. 3 This incoherent and perhaps defensive speech of Mr. Boureanu shows his views on a key-issue – corruption and criminality. While he, himself was involved in a variety of corruption scandals, such as the ‘National Lottery Scandal’ –where, supposedly, he abused of his function 4 and the allegation of electoral bribe 5 , 3 Redactia Hotnews. (2011). Cristian Boureanu despre gruparea Preda-Macovei-Voinescu: Grupul asta de reformisti sovietici. Available: http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-8368877-audio-video-cristian-boureanu-despre-gruparea-preda-macovei-voinescu-grupul-asta-reformisti-sovietici.htm. Last accessed 16.06.2014.

4 Irina Darlea. (2008). Cristian Boureanu a aflat învinuirile care îi sunt aduse în dosarul Loteria Naţională. Avail-

able: http://www.mediafax.ro/justitie/cristian-boureanu-a-aflat-invinuirile-care-ii-sunt-aduse-in-dosarul-loterianationala-2613724. Last accessed 17.06.2014.

5 R.L. Online. (2012). DOSAR PENAL pe numele deputaţilor PDL Cristian Boureanu şi Dan Marian pentru MITĂ

ELECTORALĂ. Parlamentarii neagă acuzaţiile: e un denunţ calomnios!. Available: http://www.romanialibera.ro/ac-

Boureanu does have a rather ‘shady’ conjunction of business, as independent investigative journalists from RISE pointed out 6, his present activity is more tabloidal than political. These allegations reduce both his public credibility, his good-faith and most importantly, adresses the issue of transparency. While transparency is difficult to apply to individual persons, the network of undeclared and unadressed businesses Boureanu is involved is certainly doesn’t help in providing a clear image of his intentions and relations 7. In relation to the opposition, Boureanu has a rather aggressive approach 8 towards his ideological counterpart, accusing it of undemocratic behaviour, but he is also open to collaboration with similar orientation parties : he welcomed the fusion of PDL and PNL, wishing for a bigger and more united right wing party 9. Therefore, not being able to adress completely all the criteria and the issues since Boureanu’s political activity is not very vast, similar to his rather limited experience, I don’t think we can assume in terms of ‘bad’ or ‘good’ politician, but instead, he is a more passive character in the political scene. Certainly he is not an example, due to various scandals he was and is involed in regarding corruption and lack of transparency and constitutionality, Boureanu is more of a tabloid figure than a political one. Marian Vanghelie emerged into politics in 1992, when he joined the Convention of Social Solidarity, the sindicalist party later transformed into the Social Solidarity Party. With the fusion of 1995, he ended up in PDSR. He finished his education at the brink of the age of 30, the same year he won the seat as mayor of area 5 of Bucharest. From then, he won 4 more mandates on behalf of PSD and became mayor simply because ‘he had money’, as he stated. 10 In 2004, Vanghelie was replaced by the leadership of PSD with Catalin Stoichita, but as it turned out, Vanghelie could afford the mayorship campaign while Stoichita could not. Vanghelie was involved in several public scandals regarding corruption and false declaractions11, but he was never convicted and most allegations proved tualitate/eveniment/dosar-penal-pe-numele-deputatilor-pdl-cristian-boureanu-si-dan-marian-pentru-mita-electorala--parlamentarii-neaga-acuzatiile--e-un-denunt-calomnios--2. Last accessed 18.06.2014. 6 Daniel Bojin. (2012). Teroristii irakieni, afaceri în cafeneaua unui fiu de senator. Available: http://www.riseproject.ro/articol/teoristii-irakieni-afaceri-in-cafeneaua-unui-fiu-de-senator/. Last accessed 18.06.2014.

7 RISE Project. (2012). Cristian Boureanu. Available: http://www.riseproject.ro/persoana/cristian-boureanu/. Last accessed 18.06.2014.

8 Irina Cojocaru. (2009). Boureanu si diversiunea: PSD strange CNP-uri in numele lui Traian Basescu!. Available:

http://www.bitpress.ro/articole/administratie/4623/boureanu-si-diversiunea-psd-strange-cnp-uri-in-numele-luitraian-basescu.html. Last accessed 18.06.2014.

9 b1tv. (2013). Cristian Boureanu își dorește fuziunea dintre PNL și PDL: „Aș vrea să avem un mare partid de dreapta”. Available: http://www.b1.ro/stiri/politica/cristian-boureanu-i-i-dore-te-fuziunea-dintre-pnl-i-pdl-avrea-sa-avem-un-mare-partid-de-dreapta-51572.html. Last accessed 18.06.2014.

10 Adrian Pelerin, Catalin Bulat . (2005). Adrian Vanghelie, un primar de nota 5. Available: http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-arhiva-1238294-vanghelie-primar-nota-5.htm. Last accessed 18.06.2014.

11 libertatea. (2012). Agenţia de Integritate acuză politicieni cu greutate | Dosare penale pentru Stolojan, Vanghelie şi Iohannis Mai mult: http://www.libertatea.ro/detalii/articol/agentia-integritate-acuza-politicieni-gr. Available: http://www.libertatea.ro/detalii/articol/agentia-integritate-acuza-politicieni-greutate-dosare-penale-pentru-stolojan-vanghelie-iohannis-444739.html. Last accessed 18.06.2014.

false.12However, in terms of public scandals, he is most known for his illiteracy and colloquial and incoherent language, which ultimately ridiculised him to the point where he completely lost his public credibility, and in lack of this, he can’t be regarded as a serious politician, in spite of his strong incentive. He is very active in political matters, on a regional and very limited level. He attracted the sympathy of many by organising his famous New Year’s eve parties with accesible prices for people with modest incomes and various other activities, but they regard little serious political consideration – as Nastase stated ironically: ‘‘We risk giving the impression that we want to do a sort of political ‘vanghelion’ and this is going to cost us very much”. On the matter of the opposition, Vanghelie holds on to his typical unelegant and undiplomatic manner. In 2004, when the PNL-PD Alliance won the majority, its representatives were threatened by the PSD ‘guerrilas’, with Vanghelie as the frontliner. For example, in a meeting of the Town Hall Council of area 5, Ovidiu Grecea did not set the agenda for the election of the vice-mayor. In the council were two relatively equal sides – on one hand 12 DA counselors, 2 PUR conselors and on the other hand 9 PSD and 4 PRM couselors. The election was delayed but it happened, and when it did so by calling for a urgent meeting, Vanghelie threatened the counselors of the alliance that he will call council meeting in ‘Ferentari’. “Let’s see then how you vote, with gypsies on your backs. The people will see what how the Alliance will vote”. This is a very minor example. Another example of his clumsy counterattack is a recent one, when Vanghelie declared on a televised show that there are some ‘nice and nervous little girls’ in PDL who yell ‘corruption, corruption’, reffering to Sufina Barbu, Roberta Anatase and Andreea Paul, and he mentioned that these ‘little girls’ were very corrup themselves. To the men in PDL, he transmitted: ‘Boys, let’s go fight it outside. Who ends up ruffled, goes home’. As far as his relation to the press is concerned, he seems to welcome any kind of publicity made to his name, negative or not. The institute for public policies revealed that Marian Vanghelie spent almost 120,000 $ alone for publicity in the written press. There isn’t much conclusive information to this matter, but it is clear that Vanghelie uses the media as an instrument for personal elevation. Thus, with little political experience, moderate and limited activity, absolutely no coherence and/or consistency, a bully approach to the opposition, no mention of key issues, loyalty and consistency in party choice, bad publicity and ridiculous bravade, it can be said that Vanghelie is not a bad politician because he doesn’t do much politics, but he is certainly not a role model for aspiring politicians. With a background of education in law (Cluj, 1938) and economics (Cambridge, 1943), Ion Ratiu emerged in politics when he was named counselor in the Romanian Legation in London under Viorel V. Tilea’s ministery. When king Carol II left Romania, Ratiu quit the External Services division and asked for political 12 Revista Presei. (2006). Vanghelie s-a ales ieri cu un nou dosar penal.Available: http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revistapresei/Actualitate/31609/Vanghelie-s-a-ales-de-ieri-cu-un-nou-dosar-penal.html. Last accessed 18.06.2014.

asylum in the United Kingdom. When the Communists took over Romania, Ratiu remained exiled in London and in the beginning of World War II, he joined the fight versus Totalitarianism and helped organise student societies in Central Europe (‘The Central European Student and Youth Society’). In 1950, he published a weekly news bulletin ‘Free Romanian Press’, and contributed to the Romanian service of BBC at Free Europe Radio and Voice of America. Seven years later, Ratiu published his successful critique of the Western attitudes against the Soviet Union and against Communism, namely ‘Policy for the West’. In 1976 he published ‘Contemporary Romania’ and dedicated his life to the aim of a free Romania. He also played a key role in the World Union of Free Romanians, as president. He returned to Romania in 1990 and helped re-create PNT(PNTCD) alongside Corneliu Coposu, the party leader. He unsuccesfully ran in the 1990 elections against Iliescu. He was elected deputee in the Chamber of deputees and acted as ambassador and negotiator for Romania’s integration in NATO. In 1991, he re-founded the publication ‘Cotidianul’. Ion Ratu was heavily persecuted by the opposition and despise because he ‘was guilty’ of ‘not eating soy sausauge’ during Communism like everybody and for ‘making a fortune’ away from his home-country. 13 During the 1990 elections, the electoral campaign of the democratic opposition was heavily persecuted by FSN.Ratiu and Radu Campeanu brought this to the public’s attention on the only television channel of the time and revealed a part of the abuses commited by FSN. Ratiu said: ‘The truth is that my wife and I were personally abused by the Front. Even at our party headquarters we have evidence of about 60 specific abuses from the Front’. 14 He welcomed opposition because his success was dependent on its existence, as he himself stated: ‘the reborn of PCR is an important historical moment. For it to be truly defeated, it must exist formally and legally.’15 However, the greco-catholic politician’s affinity to the opposition is still debatable in certain aspects. Before the governmental reshuffle in ’90, PNL avoided entering the Roman cabinet, while PNTCD categorically refused participating to any governmental formula dominated by FSN. Adrian Severin’s testimony brings up some questions: ‘Alone, Mr. Ratiu accepted to be minister – but, in the last moment, sent a letter in which he announces respectfully that he is obliged to decline the honour of participating by offering a governmental portfolio, because he is stopped to do so by the ‘regretble resistance of his party colleagues’. 16 Ratiu fought for the true instatement of democracy in Romania. As he famously stated in an interview by Emanuel Valeriu for the Romanian Television during his electoral campaign and during the first democratic elections held in post-communist Romania: ‘I will fight to the blood so the citizen can have the right to disagree with me’. He always supported reform in Romania and the a...