Getting People Out of the Pub

The weekly teleconferences organized by the Premier for the prefects represent a diagnosis of the executive’s intentions.
The radiography of the pieces of advice and recommendations offered by the executive reveals the opinion of its members about the way in which citizens are governed and the visible manifestations of the local administration. They contain various principles and promises referred to during the electoral campaign. Due to these teleconferences, the representatives of the government can stay a little bit more relaxed and can be themselves, since they are not forced to resort to censorship because of the journalists. Going beyond the limits imposed by the official atmosphere, the Premier sometimes shows his good spirits or nervousness. Sometimes he tells jokes and other times he warms the disobedient prefects’ ears.
During a very recent administrative application, Adrian Nastase asked the prefects and mayors to mobilize the people from their own "parish" and tell them to participate in the community’s activities, such as cleaning the ditches in the vicinity of the roads, which "look very wretched". In Nastase’s opinion, this "operation" should be performed by "strong people who stay in pubs all day long, setting up all kinds of local reshufflings". The Premier thinks that "the mobilization of this force which is simply wasted could have a positive effect if it were oriented in the right direction".
The pub invoked in this paragraph is the place where we can find the genuine Romanian, a not very serious guy, very talkative and obsessed with politics, ready to invent a plot, a disclosed fact or a scandal. So, as long as the ordinary Romanian stays in the vicinity of this socialization space, which is a metonymy of the secular shortcomings of our nation, he cannot be productive for himself or for the others. Each and every of our rulers has to get this type of Romanian out of this space and offer him creative, utilitarian virtues. This thing can be realized by resorting to two methods.
Romanians can either be told that nobody is going to help them any longer through subventions and all kinds of facilities or they can just be forced to get out of the pub and directed towards the goals established by the state authorities.
Which are the consequences of the second alternative?
Even at a superficial level of analysis, we can notice the ambiguous character of the Premier’s recommendations. Nobody can say what legislation supports Nastase to have such initiatives. The Premier seems to be stimulated by a populist impulse, with no juridical basis. If they were put into practice, such actions would contradict the individual rights and freedom. The reasoning existing behind these recommendations can be analyzed from different perspectives. First, we might speak about the theorization of the maximal state and the differentiation of the public domain from the private one. The topic of such an analysis is the citizen who is useless for his own state and community. Is he guilty of the state of the ditches? Is he guilty because he likes spending his days in a pub? Can he be condemned because he does not use his energy for community-related purposes and because he spends his spare time in an egoistical way, and satisfies his own manias? Of course not. Let’s suppose that the state, by resorting to a series of complicated calculations and manoeuvres, would manage to turn these trumps into people useful for their own communities. Obviously, this hypothesis does not take into account the initiative of the individual, who knows best what is better for him. Otherwise, everything is done contradicts his wishes.
The syntagm "to make people work for a common goal" gained a particular significance during the communist regime, which can be met even today. It designates the state’s arbitrary intervention in the organization of the labor power. But this phrase contains no reference to a certain contract. The ruler doesn’t offer anything in exchange to the citizen. Consequently, this relationship is not a contractual one, but an imposed one.
(Mihai CHIPER)

Publicitate și alte recomandări video