Not quite two years before local elections, one and a half years before parliamen-tary elections and two years before presidential elections, Romania seems to be standing at a crossroads. Thus, the ruling post-communists, the Romanian Social Democrats (PSD) of prime-minister and PSD party leader Adrian Nãstase have to decide on how to continue the required political, social and economic transforma-tion process. Can they afford social unrest due to required reforms of the eco-nomic and social system just one year before local elections, which in turn would lead to the country’s accession to the European Union on January 1, 2007? Or should they keep delaying the reform process, thus making sure that the PSD gets reelected? 13 years since the downfall of communism, Romania is faced with yet another question, that of whether or not the country has undergone a socializa-tion process comparable to the other former Eastern bloc states. Does the Roma-nian population show any interest whatsoever in taking an active part in the fu-ture political, social and economic development of the country? Or do Romanians put up with the corrupti

By contrast, the government and the PSD construed the speeches much to their own liking. On the first day of the conference, the minister of justice, Rodica Stanoiu, re-plied that she took the address of the US Ambassador as an encouragement rather than as criticism. The then minister for public information, Vasile Dâncu, stated later on, that rumors on businesses turning their backs on Romania because of the existing cor-ruption were unfounded.

The strength of the PNL on the right wing of the political spectrum is also a result of the rapid downfall of the former Christian-democratic government party PNÞCD (Par-tidul Naþional Tãrãnesc Creºtin Democrat) under the leadership of the former prime-minister Victor Ciorbea, who held this office between 1996 and 1998. As a former majority party in the civil ruling coalition with the PNL and the PD between 1996 and 2000, the PNÞCD was not only voted out, but also clearly missed out on winning any seats in Parliament.

Thus, the Romanian foreign policy has produced some positive results, as for instance the lifting of the visa requirement for Romanians traveling to the European Union since January 1, 2002, the invitation received last year in Prague to join the Nato and the visit of the US president George W. Bush to Bucharest on November 23, 2002. Furthermore, the Romanian Government has skillfully played its cards close to its chest in as far as comments on last year’s strained political circumstances in the Re-public of Moldavia are concerned, whose communist government had repeatedly ac-cused Romania of interfering in its internal affairs. When the presidents of Romania and the Republic of Moldavia, Ioan Iliescu and respectively Vladimir Voronim met on the Prut on August 1, 2003 for the festivities organized in connection with the inaugu-ration of the dam in Stânca-Costeºti (vor 25 Jahren???????), of the two presidents, Ili-escu seemed to bet the one more concerned about seeking conciliation. Moreover, the relations to Hungary, which, after the introduction in 2001 of the so-called “Status-Act” regarding Hungarians living abroad, were temporarily subject to particular strain have, again, become more relaxed. Thus, in October 2002, the Hungarian president Ferenc Madl was the first Hungarian head of state to be visiting Romania after the breakdown of the communist Eastern bloc. A few days ago during a meeting with the Romanian Diaspora on the Black Sea coast, the Romanian prime-minister Nãstase even referred to the „Status-Act“ as a model to be used in drafting a corresponding Romanian regulation.

Despite all this, prime-minister Nãstase and the ruling party PSD continue to meet with the approval of a large majority, even though its popularity was on a falling trend ever since the parliamentary elections: from 58,8 percent early in December 2002 to 45 percent in April 2003 , percentage which has come down to 43% at the beginning of August . The opposition can be ruled out as a democratic counterbalance. Not only is it too week, but it also much too preoccupied with its own internal problems to be able to put some pressure on the Nãstase government by offering a reasonable alterna-tive. As the Romanian political scientist and journalist Stelian Tãnase stated in a dis-cussion in the spring of 2003, the opposition, even two years after the last parliamen-tary elections, stays away from all important debates because it holds no alternative propositions that could be implemented under the circumstances.

At present, Hildegard Puwak the minister in charge of EU-integration and a close col-laborator of Iliescu’s is under considerable political pressure in connection with the law against corruption and the distribution of EU-grants under the „Leonardo da Vinci“ program. In her declaration of property, Minister Puwak has failed to disclose that she was officially registered as administrator of one of her spouse’s companies. On top of that, two of

Some topics in this essay:
Festival Salzburg, September Seen, Minister Puwak, Ambassador Guest, NATO-decision Prague, Union January, PSD PSD, Bãsescu Mayor, MP’s PSD, PD PNL, ruling party, fight corruption, european commission, european union, romanian government, party leader, january 1, union january 1, governing party, report european, prime-minister nãstase, european union january, january 1 2007, report european commission, progress report european,