September 09, 2005
Iliescu, still
Ion Iliescu is still around.
Back in May, I blogged a bit about how Iliescu was getting on in the aftermath of last year's election.
Not a lot has changed since then. Iliescu is still out there. He's still in the paper or on TV almost every day, and according to some polls he's more popular than ever. He's still locked in a complex relationship with PSD: they don't want him in charge, but they can't do without him.
One new development: Iliescu announced recently that he's forming a new "center-left social platform", in alliance with -- among others -- former Prime Minister Petre Roman.
(This is a bit amusing, because Iliescu and Roman were political allies in the original National Salvation Front -- the government that took power after Ceausescu, in December 1989. That alliance was short-lived, as Iliescu sacked Roman in 1991. But now they're friends again. This has caused some wits to say that the new movement is a National Re-Salvation Front.)
Now, notice that this isn't a new party. Nonono. It's a new "social platform". What exactly does that mean? Well, probably it means that Iliescu is strengthening his position vis-a-vis the disrespectful young whippersnappers in the PSD. If they don't bow down and start licking, then in a year or two he'll turn the platform into a party, instantly sucking away tens of thousands of loyal Iliescu voters. And quite possibly, hundreds of senior PSD leaders too... a lot of them are still loyal to Granny.
What's he after? That's easy. Power. He can't be President any more, no. But he can still be the grey eminence, the power behind the scenes.
Why? Why won't he go away?
One, he's an old Communist. Those guys never go away. Unless utterly and totally discredited -- like, thrown in jail for a while -- Communist leaders of the old school keep coming back until they die. They don't think of power as something you walk away from.
Two, he's firmly identified with a particular ideology. While many politicians are seen as opportunist (Nastase) or as driven by personality (Basescu), Iliescu is seen as a true believer in socialism.
Three, he's still really popular. There are a number of reasons for this, but here's a key one: he's never made himself rich. Oh, he presided over years of massive corruption, and his close friends and allies found wealth beyond the dreams of avarice... but Iliescu himself has always lived rather modestly.
Which leads to Four: Iliescu only cares about power, getting and holding it. This gives him a major advantage over politicians who are interested in power as a means to an end -- making themselves rich, or serving the national interest, or whatever.
And Five, he still has deep links to the security services. It's widely believed that he has dirt of some sort on pretty much every major player in Romanian politics and business. Whether that's true or not, the belief itself has a significant effect.
In sum, Romania is going to have Ion Iliescu around for as long as his health allows. Iliescu is seventy-five years old, and has had at least one heart attack. On the other hand, Romanian Orthodox Patriarch Teoctist is 90, and he's still going strong. So who knows.
Posted by douglas at September 9, 2005 05:10 PMHmm... ntz ...
Sorry pal, but only reading from the press doesn't make you a truly watcher of the political scene...
"If they don't bow down and start licking" I really doubt that kind of relationship Iliescu expects ... hear this from a media insider: that would rather fit Basescu, not Iliescu. You have no idea what bad feelings Basescu's behaviour towards the press have ignited (through his speeches), starting from the hostages in Iraq, the massive floodings 'til the recent conflict with the director from ZIUA. He still thinks he is the captain of the ship.
While Iliescu was president, if he only said that the press maginifies the flooding's effects, he would have been eaten alive by the journalists. I mean, even for ridiculous minor reasons he was really slammed by the press in those years (the famous Rolex watch on his hand).
Basescu instead seems not to be able to hold his mouth, I mean: saying that: "especially the press maginifed the floodings effects, along with some TV ladies with too much lipstick and makeup on their faces" is something unacceptable for a president. And many of the editorialists start to accuse more and more the fact that Basescu is actually discrediting the press, when he sees that he isn't able to control it somehow. So bow and lick, right?
"One, he's an old Communist. Those guys never go away...They don't think of power as something you walk away from."
Now... really? Let me refresh your memory: while still being president, he was bombarded by the press with the same question:" Will you come back to PSD?Maybe as a leader?" He always gave this type of answer: "Well, I don't think so, maybe if the colleagues need my help, I'll be waiting for a official letter from the party.. who knows, I'm not sure" ... Even as partymembers said they want him back in PSD, he didn't gve any answer, only when he received that letter. So, and most important, he came back, but not as president. Later on he was convinced by people to run for PSD presidency (and that's another story, not linked to his comeback to PSD)
Really communist? Hm? In those years, EVERYBODY had to be a communist. By god, even my parents, everybody. I was surprised when reading after the elections a Reuters comment on the event: there, without any explanation at all, Nastase was named communist, and Basescu pro-western ..hmm, the fact that the author was a romanian explained a lot, he was really pro-D.A. (bleah...and they call themselves Reuters). So let us see: compare the 2 men: they have aprox the same age, but while Nastase was 'til '89 a jurist and a economy teacher, Basescu had major functions as captain of 3 romanian heavy oil tankers and he was also the NAVROM office chief in Antwerp. So, who had higher rankings in the Comm. Party? Remember, those tanker brought a lot of money for romania, Ceausescu had reports on a regular basis about them ... so who was deeper involved in the Comm apparatus? Nastase or Basescu? Logic proves that Basescu was a real communist... so calling the other a commie and him a pro-western, doesn't it seem to be at least hilareous?
So calling someone a communist isn't very easy and many times one might be wrong... and sometimes is quite the opposite.
Try talking with press people, with insider, and you will find that the truth really differs from what some agencies present to the public. Reuters really dissapointed me here..
Um... since I didn't say a word about Basescu, I'm not sure why you want to write a long comment about how bad he really is. Story for another time.
Iliescu: I should have been more clear. When I said, "Iliescu is an old Communist", I don't mean he's just a Communist. No. Millions of people were Communists. But Iliescu was old school... son of a Communist himself, raised in the Party, marked for greatness from an early age. In 1956, at the age of 26, he was in charge of repressing Hungarian unrest in Transylvania. He wasn't just another Party member; he was the real deal.
And when you're talking about the old school... power is just not something they walk away from.
Again: Iliescu will be a player until halted by either poor health or the grave. Nothing else is going to stop him.
Doug M.
Doug is 100% right here.
Iliescu is the perfect party secretary general… His personal “tragedy” (and ours implicitly :)) is that he came in power at least 10 years later. He would have been the perfect replacement for Ceausescu in the 80’s