IOANA LUPEA: “Unsatisfied, even mocked, the great expectations from 2004 have converted into skepticism and cynicism.”
Ilfov achieved the performance of surpassing by a long range the country’s average for ballot presence, leaving behind counties with traditional discipline like Harghita and Covasna. At the opposite side was, at 17.00, sector 3 from Bucharest led by the PDL super-mayor Liviu Negoita, with an insignificant presence of under 20%. The surprises of these local elections come less from their results, announced for the pre-electoral sociological surveys. We must study and comment the voters and absent profiles, and the motivations of the two groups. It’s important to know on who and what is the Romanian democracy relying on, now and in the future.
Who came at the ballots? Mainly electors from the rural environment and from the counties from the vicinity of Bucharest came to vote. Not because their civic sense woke them up early in the morning. The rural electorate is voting by reflex, is easier to mobilize mostly by stimulants in nature and promises from the political parties. Another hypothesis could be that in the last four years the rural voter was one of the small beneficiaries of the wealth redistribution, a situation that aroused their hopes and expectations. The farmers pensions have grown, and the villages started to use European funds. The economical stake explains the presence rate in Ilfov, Giurgiu and Dambovita. Land business and large real estate projects around Bucharest have raised he pot for the political parties for these elections. To be mayor in Stefanesti Ilfov is equivalent with – keeping the proportions – being mayor in Chicago at the start of the industrial age. It’s not impossible for us to find out in the following days how much was paid by the main competitors from Stefanesti, PSD and PNG, for a vote. According to evaluations made by civic organizations, the reward raised to 1.000 euro. Conscientious voters from the cities were mainly pensioners, devoted to some parties or rational electors, who gave a vote to democracy and less for a candidate or a party.
Who didn’t come to the ballots? To accuse the absents of lack of civic sense, of insensitiveness and to ignore their signals would be a lack of judgment of the Romanian political class, in the conditions in which the West is studying the absenteeism and the ways to fight it, in order to protect democracy. At the local elections was absent the urban, young, active, informed and rational elector, who sanctioned the parties for the poor quality of the candidates, corrupt and the former Securitatea members or without vision or the same ones. The more informed and educated he is, the more he is disillusioned and more tempted not to go the ballot. The promises of moral reform and a more professional political class made in 2004, especially by the right wing parties, created huge expectations in the urban environment. Unsatisfied, even mocked, the great expectations from 2004 have converted into skepticism and cynicism. The fact that the political parties couldn’t or didn’t wanted to find some competitors for Liviu Negoita (sector 3 Bucharest), Emil Boc (Cluj), Gheorghe Ciuhandu (Timisoara) or Klaus Johannis (Sibiu) was harshly punished by the voters, by absence at the ballots. The absence of electoral competition leads as it is seen to the lack of representation of the elected mayors.
Recomandările noastre
