Acest site utilizează fișiere de tip cookie pentru a vă oferi o experiență cât mai plăcută și personalizată. Îți aducem la cunoștință faptul că ne-am actualizat politicile pentru a ne conforma cu modificările propuse aduse de Directiva (UE) 2002/58/EC ("Directiva E-Privacy") si de Regulamentul (UE) 2016/679 privind protectia persoanelor fizice in ceea ce priveste prelucrarea datelor cu caracter personal si privind libera circulatie a acestor date si de abrogare a Directivei 95/46/CE ("Regulamentul GDPR").
Înainte de a continua navigarea pe www.jurnalul.ro, te rugăm să citești și să înțelegi conținutul Politicii de Cookie și Politica de Confidențialitate.
Prin continuarea navigării pe www.jurnalul.ro confirmi acceptarea utilizării fișierelor de tip cookie. Poți modifica în orice moment setările acestor fișiere cookie urmând instrucțiunile din Politica de Cookie.
More votes, less democracy
The Chamber of Deputies, while exercising the powers that all parliaments have in the democratic countries, has decided not to approve the start of prosecution against two of its members.
The Chamber of Deputies, while exercising the powers that all parliaments have in the democratic countries, has decided not to approve the start of prosecution against two of its members. For this decision, the deputies have taken political responsibility. If they were wrong, the electorate will be able to penalize them with the votes. Until then, they are all innocent until proven wrong. In other words, it is the task of those who accuse them to probe their bad faith.
That decision was political undoubtedly. This is the most one could expect from such a political forum. The members of the Parliament couldn’t probe the legality of the prosecutors’ requests regarding the dignitaries. As politicians, they could and had to ascertain whether the initiative of the prosecutors was somewhat political. If so, a moral and licit political decision had to end an attempt to political abuse.
What followed was a choir of reproaches against the Chamber of Deputies on the ground that it would have stopped the course of justice, that it would have covered corruption and have taken the blame away from the corrupt people. There couldn’t have been too many talks on the guiltiness of the accused ones in the Parliament. However, everyone blames the parliamentarians for something they obviously have not done.
Meanwhile, only a series of collective mistakes may explain why one thinks the spirit of justice is better served by prosecutors appointed by politicians than the ones appointed by the Executive Members elected directly by citizens. How did the Romanians reach to have greater confidence in the political options of the Minister of Justice than in their own political options expressed in the elections? Why is the “course of justice” stopped by a political decision aimed to halt the political diversion of that course from its edge, and not by making the act of justice political? In reality, the one that brings politics into discussion is the one that stops the course of justice!
However, none of the main critics of the decision of the Parliament says that the actions of the prosecutors have any serious or convincing grounds. On the contrary, they all seem to know that those records are "fakes". Therefore, the Parliament is punished by public opinion in the absence of clear evidence. The same logic is the base of the assertion that the judges are corrupt if they don’t send the defendants to prison. Because the people have already been sentenced by the public perception and the institutions are only required to pronounce the convictions. When they insist for the defendants to give up voluntarily on their immunity, although this means in fact a fraud, they only want the execution.
The electors do not seem pleased that the Deputies have decided according to their own beliefs. They would be happy if the politicians would behave otherwise than they believe. The politicians for whom the number of votes is more important than democracy have understood this message fast and well. Several heads thrown away to the crowd don’t matter. It is the same with the democratic institutions.
The parliamentary immunity, the integrity of the judges, the prosecutors’ autonomy, the protection of the opposition in the fight against the power and some other things were also unanimous conquests of the anti-totalitarian revolution. The abusive misuse of these institutions, but especially the equality temptations at the mass level and the populist skid at the political elite level have amputated the democracy piece by piece in exchange for increasing the number of votes obtained. Parliamentarians no longer decide as they think, but as they “are believed to”. They want equality between the one that expresses a vote (the elector) and the one that is the expression of thousands of votes (the elected). Freedom doesn’t mean hierarchy, order, institutional responsibility, participation, control, it means the law of jungle. The juridical equality protects economic inequality. People no longer judge based on the leaders’ reports, but on the lies of the agents of communication. To meet the expectations of those who do not understand the institutionalization of freedom and the civilization of inequality, the judgment-less politicians promise the comeback to the popular equality and democracy. The one who believes that democracy can be given in exchange for votes will get dictatorship! Or, it is better in the opposition than in dictatorship!