Cav's Place

While there were no events actually organized by the United We Save Community (CUS) this week, some were openly supported or, as the case may be, opposed by known activists. In addition, the tensions between The Romania Initiative (IR) and some of the rest keep worsening as IR continue to meet with state officials, on Monday some of their representatives having an audience with the Minister for Public Consultation and Civic Dialogue. An interview with one who’s apparently one of IR’s leading members made matters worse when it began by saying that so far, besides Nicusor Dan, they consulted with a group of entrepreneurs who seem to have solutions for Bucharest, admitting that the political left isn’t exactly represented among those they work with and therefore only fueling the suspicions that they’re pushing forward a neoliberal agenda despite their claims of transparency and the fact that, at least so far, they do seem to keep focusing on pushing for the same changes to the electoral laws that the rest of us aim for as well.

But to get back to the start of the week, medical students staged a protest at the Cotroceni (Presidential) Palace on Monday, demanding that the President mediate their dispute with the authorities, which he eventually agreed to do. The issue is that, because of how positions are currently allocated, some students who pass their exams are left without one and even directly encouraged to immigrate despite Romania’s huge deficit of medical personnel. Though some questioned the validity of the claim and CUS’ involvement in this, the event was promoted on the group and it would appear that one known activist even helped organize it.

Tuesday came the shepherds’ protest, prompted by a law limiting the number of dogs to one per herd in the plains, two in the hills and three in the mountains and also banning grazing between early December and late April. Interestingly, the number of dogs had been limited since 1993, but so far there were no penalties and therefore the law was not enforced. In addition, while the issue leaves quite a lot of room for debate, as those dogs and the herds can have quite an impact on biodiversity, a major problem is that these changes were introduced at the request of hunters, which include quite a few members of the Parliament.
According to reports, some 4000 people participated in this protest and it quickly escalated when they removed the fences the gendarmes had used to surround the area they were supposed to stay in and pushed through their lines, blocking the road and some even managing to reach the Parliament’s lawn. At that point the gendarmes used tear gas and mounted troops also made an appearance before things calmed down to some extent, a delegation eventually being allowed inside to negotiate. The result, on top of the large fines received by the organizers and some participants, was a promise of changing these laws urgently, and the next day the Government decided to suspend their effects until a long-term solution will be found, next year.
While all of this was taking place, many known activists and protesters expressed their support, some taking the opportunity to say that this is how things get done, with a show of force, and even calling people to join the shepherds. Of course, this would have been a bad idea, as it was a protest about a very specific issue affecting a specific category of people and it’d have been wrong to add anything else to it, so in the end it was only a matter of expressing support, though the more radical elements were definitely unhappy with the decision. A few people did attempt to start a more thoughtful debate about the impact of the dogs and the herds on forests and wildlife, pointing out that some restrictions are definitely necessary from an environmental perspective, though of course under no circumstance for the benefit of hunters, but they were unfortunately drowned out, at least for the moment.

Also on Tuesday, after being added to the day’s list at the last moment, the law banning smoking in closed public spaces was passed, defining such spaces as any that have a roof and at least two walls. It will also apply to spaces meant for children, including outdoor playgrounds, and to any workplace or the interior of any vehicle meant or used for public transportation. There were proposed amendments that would have created exceptions, some of them weakening the law to the point that it’d have become almost entirely optional, but they were rejected. As such, and also since both the Prime Minister and the President expressed their support, there should be no further obstacles and things should change drastically soon enough, even though plenty of people, including some of the known activists, are particularly unhappy with this and keep saying they’re discriminated against if they won’t be allowed to keep forcing others to breathe in their smoke and possibly get sick as a result.

Transporters protested on Thursday, unhappy that mandatory insurance fees are set to skyrocket and also that an additional tax on fuel is to be maintained next year as well, but few activists mentioned this and, though this also includes some public transportation, I’m not keen on paying much attention to the interests of those who burn fossil fuels. So let me quickly move on to the next day, when an NGO that should be part of this group initially formed to take part in the negotiations for the new Electoral Code published a statement against the group’s statement, published on December 10, which said it’s unconstitutional and wrong to keep pushing for changes for next year’s local elections and they’ll only make such demands for 2020, while at the same time throwing accusations at those who choose not to do the same.
The NGO’s statement, which was understandably also published on the page of the United We Achieve Movement (MUR), since the NGO’s president is also one of MUR’s founders, made it clear that, though they’re part of the group, they were not consulted before this ostensibly official position was published, and they firmly disagree with it. A few other activists also discussed the matter once it was posted on CUS’ Facebook group as well, also rejecting such a stance and demanding explanations from those who adopted and published it, as well as reactions from the other organizations that are part of this group. I’m not aware of any replies yet, however, and I’m also wondering whether anyone can say that CUS was consulted either, since our contact with this group is usually Claudiu and he does tend to have some opinions that differ from the rest when it comes to the electoral system.

As for these days, it’s that time of year when there’s a lot of talk of the Revolution and the event that took place today was the yearly Guided Tour of the Revolution, which was promoted by both CUS and the old page. Otherwise, there are plenty of articles and statements on the topic in question, and of course also about how the hopes and dreams of those who fought and died back then were squashed and now we have few choices, and most or all of them rotten and too similar, on election day and the state and the intelligence agencies once again monitor and control more and more. But, of course, that or worse is the situation pretty much anywhere, and just another thing we need to change… Somehow.