False virtue

The Permanent Delegation was for PNTCD like a natural disaster. Ion Diaconescu’s party has been tossed about all the illnesses that a party can suffer: splitting-up, lack of leaders, structural organising deficiencies and a disastrous position in polls. And, as the problems proved to be very serious, the solutions preferred by the Permanent Delegation were rather moderate.
From the crisis of the last three years PNTCD learned the most insignificant thing-namely, more discipline needed in the party. The excitement caused by the secessionists Victor Ciorbea and Radu Vasile, by the rebels George Pruteanu and Ticu Dumitrescu, by the corrupted Marin Lutu and Marcel Cornea made the authoritarian Remus Opris shiver. We shouldn’t forget that it was he who entitled Ion Diaconescu to take harsh measures against the lack of discipline considered to be the fundamental issue PNTCD is facing now. The discipline issue in PNTCD is an old one, but as we could see after the harsh measures had been taken against Ticu Dumitrescu and George Pruteanu the party exclusion can’t assure the stability or get rid of the structural problems on organising level: the lack of some forums in PNTCD by which internal tensions should be released, the leading machinery inflexibility, the dialogue between leaders blocking, the small promotion rate of local leaders and the young, the lack of a quick decision making system, the political analysis departments inefficiency etc. The internal use authority is the easiest and most inefficient way to get the problems solved in a party.
The iron hand gives a false inside coherence to an organisation that it doesn’t do anything else but makes the structural things seem supernatural that will come into sight on the next crisis.
Besides, the ongoing crisis is nothing else than the perverted result of the party reorganisation. In 1996, after Corneliu Coposu’s death, though the Ion Diaconescu solution was characterised as having a temporary character, the reorganisation was postponed for the elections were coming.
After winning elections, the leading formula was superstitiously maintained as it had proved to be the winning formula. Now, in 2000, the change in the Peasant Party leadership was almost to be postponed for the same reason and anyway, it didn’t happen in its essential spot: presidency. In Diaconescu, although a personality, is completely unfit for an executive position. He proves to be totally incapable to make from PNTCD an efficient organisation, and his press caricatured image brings the party great damages about.
The provisional state carrying on was fatal to PNTCD. And the Permanent Delegation of the last week wasn’t doing anything but maintaining the provisional state and the half measures. Electing Ion Muresan for the important position of a first vice-president shows the PNTCD state of mind very well. Muresan’s lack of political profile stands for the lack of the party’s vision he belongs. His neutral character is the expression of the party’s hesitation. Muresan is no personality and although he is intelligent enough, he lacks both charisma and authority. The minister of Agriculture doesn’t seem the right person to untie the Gordian knot in PNTCD. He was elected not because he embodies a political project but just because he rouses the smallest apprehensions. His electing is the outcome of the party focusing on the stability and discipline issue and not on the efficiency one. The status changes performed by the Permanent Delegation are the expression of the same approach. To be promoted in leading positions the new status rises the seniority criteria to a higher level than the performance one. The direct result of this is the access blocking to the personalities’ central machinery, that PNTCD is badly in need of. Regarding the leaders, the elections organised by the Permanent Delegation made two significant changes : they enriched the province share (by electing the FPS-the State Property Fund-head, Radu Sirbu from Cluj and Timisoara Mayer, Gheorghe Ciuhandu and Tanase Barde from Constanta as vice-presidents) and refresh the team (the new elected being all young).
But the rate of representation improvement doesn’t imply automatically the efficiency increase. In the Permanent Delegation less was talked about performance and this could be a serious sign of maladjustment.
(Adrian CIOFLANCA)