Jurnal de campanie (3) – Alegeri anticipate in landul Renania de Nordwestfalia – update 16.03.2012

Debutul campaniei electorale in landul Renania de Nordwestfalia este marcata prin schimbari spectaculoase la nivelul elitelor politice. Liberalii germani sunt cantonati in sondajele de opinie la 2%. Supusi de realitatea dura din sondaje conducerea liberala a hotarat intr-o sedinta extraordinara desfasurata ieri seara la Düsseldorf la schimbarea liderului filialei din Renania de Nordwestfalia.  Viitorul lider regional va fi Christian Lindner. Lindner, 33 de ani, ofiter in retragere, licentiat in stiinte politice este noul star liberal. In cazul unui succes electoral, ambitiile lui Cristian Lindner nu se vor rezuma la postura unui lider regional.

Alegerea lui Lindner se va desfasura in cadrul unui congres extraordinar in care vor fi desemnati si candidatii pentru parlamentul regional. Lindner va conduce si campania electorala.

Ascensiunea lui Lindner a starnit polemici din partea concurentilor politici. Ecologistii au criticat in termeni duri „rocadele si jocurile de culise liberale”.  Crestindemocratii au salutat in termeni moderati decizia liberala. Liderul crestindemocrat Norbert Röttgen, ministrul protectiei mediului in cabinetul Merkel, a salutat decizia liberala. In opinia lui Röttgen, „liberalii au sanse sa depaseasca actuala criza si sa confirme la urne.” Intrebat daca liberalii sunt un potential partener de coalitie, liderul crestindemocrat a precizat ca „la 13 mai putem avea un parlament regional compus din patru, cinci sau sase partide. Formulele de coalitie sunt practic incalculabile. Noi, crestindemocratii vom purta discutii cu toate formatiuniile parlamentare, mai putin cu Noua Stanga.”



In media germana se discuta aprins varianta unei coalitii crestin-liberal-ecologiste, formula de coalitie care ar deveni viabila in cazul in care Partidul Liberal FDP depaseste pragul electoral de 5%.

Ultimele sondaje indica un parlament format din patru formatiuni: Uniunea Crestindemocrata, Partidul Socialdemocrat, Miscarea Ecologista si Partidul Piratilor. Noua Stanga si Partidul Liberal se afla la 1% fata de pragul electoral de 5%.

YouGov, 14.02.2012 33% 33% 17% 7% 5% 2%
Infratest, 14.03.2012 34% 38% 14% 5% 4% 2%
wahlfieber, 15.03.2012 33,05% 36,98% 14,65% 5,75% 4,80% 2,28%
FGW, 15.03.2012 34% 37% 13% 6% 4% 2%
wahlfieber, 16.03.2012 33% 35,33% 14,50% 5,60% 4,25% 3,95%

Surse informationale sondaje YouGov, Infratest-dimap, FGW: wahlrecht.de

Sursa informationala sondaje operate la bursa sondajelor politice: wahlfieber.at

Sondaj Facebook/Umfrage Facebook:

Wen würden Sie wählen, wenn am kommenden Sonntag Landtagswahl wäre

Rezultate partiale, 17.03.2012, 09.55
Votanti: 2.772 VVE
Nu votez: 139 VVE 5,00%
Voturi valabile: 2.633

Uniunea Crestindemocrata CDU 609 VVE  23,13%
Partidul Liberal FDP 308 VVE 11,70%
Partidul Socialdemocrat SPD 840 VVE 30,75%
Miscarea Ecologista GRÜ 209 VVE 7,94%
Noua Stanga Linke 267 VVE 10,13%
Partidul Piratilor PIRATEN 380 VVE  14,42%
ProNRW Pro 20 VVE 0,76%

Noua Stanga isi va desemna candidatii intr-o sedinta extraordina care se va desfasura sambata, 17 martie 2012. Conform platformei-program Noua Stanga promoveaza modelul economic chinez, al capitalismului de stat. In tabara socialdemocrata pregatiriile pentru campanie sunt practic finalizate. Premierul in exercitiu Hannelore Kraft si-a format echipa de campanie. La finele lunii martie, candidatii socialdemocrati vor fi desemnati in cadrul unui congres extraordinar. Partidul Piratilor, formatiune neparlamentara cotata in sondaje constant la 5%, si-au finalizat in timp record colectarea semnaturilor necesare pentru participarea in alegeri.  Pana in prezent sase formatiuni politice vor participa in alegerile regionale: Uniunea Crestindemocrata, Partidul Socialdemocrat, Miscarea Ecologista, Partidul Liberal, Noua Stanga si Partidul Piratilor.

Geopolitica: Stratfor.com – „The Next Decade”

Text + clipuri + analiza + sursa informationala: Stratfor.com

STRATFOR CEO George Friedman, author of the new book „The Next Decade,” examines the role of the American president in preserving the republic while managing an empire.

Observing the ever-closer ties between Germany and Russia, STRATFOR founder George Friedman, author of the new book „The Next Decade,” discusses the likely impact on Poland – and the rest of Europe

STRATFOR founder George Friedman challenges the widely accepted view of China’s continuing economic growth and increasing influence on the world stage.

STRATFOR founder Dr. George Friedman says the Middle East will preoccupy the United States in the next decade, and Iran will be the center of that preoccupation.

Romania analizata de George Friedman (Stratfor.com)

In school, many of us learned the poem Invictus. It concludes with the line, “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” This is a line that a Victorian gentleman might bequeath to an American businessman. It is not a line that resonates in Romania. Nothing in their history tells Romanians that they rule their fate or dominate their soul. Everything in their history is a lesson in how fate masters them or how their very soul is a captive of history. As a nation, Romanians have modest hopes and expectations tempered by their past.

This sensibility is not alien to me. My parents survived the Nazi death camps, returned to Hungary to try to rebuild their lives and then found themselves fleeing the communists. When they arrived in America, their wishes were extraordinarily modest, as I look back on it. They wanted to be safe, to get up in the morning, to go to work, to get paid — to live. They were never under the impression that they were the masters of their fate.

The problem that Romania has is that the world cares about it. More precisely, empires collide where Romania is. The last iteration was the Cold War. Today, at the moment, things seem easier, or at least less desperate, than before. Still, as I discussed in Borderlands, the great powers are sorting themselves out again and therefore Romania is becoming more important to others. It is not clear to me that the Romanians fully appreciate the shift in the geopolitical winds. They think they can hide in Europe, and perhaps they can. But I suspect that history is reaching for Romania again.

Geopolitics and Self-Mutilation

Begin with geography. The Carpathian Mountains define Romania, but in an odd way. Rather than serving as the border of the country, protecting it, the Carpathians are an arc that divides the country into three parts. To the south of the mountains is the Wallachian Plain, the heart of contemporary Romania, where its capital, Bucharest, and its old oil center, Ploesti, are located. In the east of the Carpathians is the Moldavian Plain. To the northwest of the Carpathians is Transylvania, more rugged, hilly country.

And this is the geopolitical tragedy of Romania. Romania is one nation divided by its geography. None of the three parts is easy to defend. Transylvania came under Hungarian rule in the 11th century, and Hungary came under Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rule. Wallachia came under Ottoman rule, and Moldavia came under Ottoman and Russian rule. About the only time before the late 19th century that Romania was united was when it was completely conquered. And the only time it was completely conquered was when some empire wanted to secure the Carpathians to defend itself.

Some of us experience geopolitics as an opportunity. Most of humanity experiences it as a catastrophe. Romania has been a nation for a long time, but rarely has it been a united nation-state. After becoming a nation-state in the late 19th century, it had a precarious existence, balanced between Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Russia, with Germany a more distant but powerful reality. Romania spent the inter-war years trying to find its balance between monarchy, authoritarianism and fascism, and it never quite found it. It sought safety in an alliance with Hitler and found itself on the front lines in the German invasion of Russia. To understand Romania as an ally one must bear this in mind: When the Soviets began their great counterattack at Stalingrad, they launched it over Romanian (and Hungarian) troops. Romanians maneuvered themselves into the position of fighting and dying for the Germans, and then got their revenge on the Germans by being slaughtered by the Soviets.

All of this led to Romania’s occupation by the Soviets, toward whom the Romanians developed a unique strategy. The Hungarians rose up against the Soviets and were crushed, and the Czechoslovaks tried to create a liberal communist regime that was still loyal to the Soviets and were crushed. The Romanians actually achieved a degree of autonomy from the Soviets in foreign affairs. The way the Romanians got the Soviets to tolerate this was by building a regime more rigid and oppressive than even that of the Soviet Union at the time. The Soviets knew NATO wasn’t going to invade, let alone invade through Romania. So long as the Romanian regime kept the people in line, the Russians could tolerate their maneuvers. Romania retained its national identity and an independent foreign policy but at a stunning price in personal freedom and economic well-being.

Contemporary Romania cannot be understood without understanding Nicolae Ceausescu. He called himself the “Genius of the Carpathians.” He may well have been, but if so, the Carpathian definition of genius is idiosyncratic. The Romanian communist government was built around communists who had remained in Romania during World War II, in prison or in hiding. This was unique among the Soviet Union’s Eastern European satellites. Stalin didn’t trust communists who stayed home and resisted. He preferred communists who had fled to Moscow in the 1930s and had proved themselves loyal to Stalin by their betrayal of others. He sent Moscow communists to rule the rest of the newly occupied countries that buffered Russia from the West. Not so in Romania, where native communists ruled. After the death of the founder of communist Romania, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, another Romanian communist who stayed in Romania ultimately took over: Ceausescu. This was a peculiarity of Romanian communism that made it more like Josip Broz Tito’s Yugoslavia in foreign policy, and more like a bad dream in domestic policy.

Ceausescu decided to pay off the national debt. His reason seemed to flow from his foreign policy — he didn’t want Romania to be trapped by any country because of its debt — and he repaid it by selling to other countries nearly everything that was produced in Romania. This left Romania in staggering poverty; electricity and heat were occasional things, and even food was scarce in a country that had a lot of it. The Securitate, a domestic secret police whose efficiency and brutality were impressive, suppressed unrest. Nothing in Romania worked as well as the Securitate.

Herta Muller is a Romanian author who writes in German (she is part of Romania’s ethnic German community) and who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2009. One of her books, The Appointment, takes place in Romania under the communists. It gives an extraordinary sense of a place ruled by the Securitate. It is about a woman who is living her life, working at her job and dealing with an alcoholic husband while constantly preparing for and living in dread of appointments with the secret police. As in Kafka, what they are looking for and what she is hiding are unclear. But the danger is unrelenting and permeates her entire consciousness. When one reads this book, as I did in preparing for this trip, one understands the way in which the Securitate tore apart a citizen’s soul — and remembers that it was not a distant relic of the 1930s but was still in place and sustaining the Romanian regime in 1989.

It was as if the price that Romania had to pay for autonomy was to punch itself in the face continually. Even the fall of communism took a Romanian path. There was no Velvet Revolution here but a bloody one, where the Securitate resisted the anti-communist rising under circumstances and details that are still hotly debated and unclear. In the end, the Ceausescus (Nicolae’s wife Elena was also a piece of work, requiring a psychological genius to unravel) were executed and the Securitate blended into civil society as part of the organized-crime network that was mistaken for liberalization in the former Soviet empire by Western academics and reporters at the time.

Romania emerged from the previous 70 years of ongoing catastrophe by dreaming of simple things and having no illusions that these things were easy to come by or things Romanians could control. As with much of Eastern Europe but perhaps with a greater intensity, Romanians believed their redemption lay with the West’s multilateral organizations. If they were permitted to join NATO and especially the European Union, their national security needs would be taken care of along with their economic needs. Romanians yearned to become European simply because being Romanian was too dangerous.

The Redemption of Being European

In thinking of Romania, the phrase “institutionalized prisoner” comes to mind. In the United States it is said that if someone stays in prison long enough, he becomes “institutionalized,” someone who can no longer imagine functioning outside a world where someone else always tells him what to do. For Romania, national sovereignty has always been experienced as the process of accommodating itself to more powerful nations and empires. So after 1991, Romania searched for the “someone else” to which it could subordinate itself. More to the point, Romania imbued these entities with extraordinary redemptive powers. Once in NATO and the European Union, all would be well.

And until recently, all has been well, or well in terms of the modest needs of a historical victim. The problem Romania has is that these sanctuaries are in many ways illusions. It looks to NATO for defense, but NATO is a hollowed-out entity. There is a new and ambitious NATO strategy, which sets a global agenda for the organization. Long discussed, it is an exercise in meaninglessness. Countries like Germany have no military with which to fulfill the strategy, assuming that any agreement to act could be reached. NATO is a consensual organization, and a single member can block any mission. The divergent interests of an expanded NATO guarantee that someone will block everything. NATO is an illusion that comforts the Romanians, but only if they don’t look carefully. The Romanians seem to prefer the comforting illusion.

As for the European Union, there is a deep structural tension in the system. The main European economic power is Germany. It is also the world’s second-largest exporter. Its economy is built around exporting. For a country like Romania, economic development requires that it take advantage of its wage advantage. Lower wages allow developing countries to develop their economy through exports. But Europe is dominated by an export superpower. Unlike the postwar world, where the United States absorbed the imports of Germany and Japan without needing to compete with them, Germany remains an exporting country exporting into Romania and leaving precious little room for Romania to develop its economy.

At this stage of its development, Romania should be running a trade surplus, particularly with Germany, but it is not. In 2007, it exported about $40 billion worth of goods and imported about $70 billion. In 2009, it exported the same $40 billion but cut imports to only $54 billion (still a negative). Forty percent of its trade is with Germany, France and Italy, its major EU partners. But it is Germany where the major problem is. And this problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of Romania’s exports to Germany are from German-owned firms operating in Romania.

During the period of relative prosperity in Europe from 1991 to 2008, the structural reality of the EU was hidden under a rising tide. In 2008 the tide went out, revealing the structural reality. It is not clear when the tide of prosperity will come rolling back in. In the meantime, while the German economy is growing again, Romania’s is not. Because it exists in a system where the main engine is an exporter, and the exporter dominates the process of setting rules, it is difficult to see how Romania can take advantage of its greatest asset — a skilled workforce prepared to work for lower wages.

Add to this the regulatory question. Romania is a developing country. Europe’s regulations are drawn with a focus on the highly developed countries. The laws on employment guarantees mean that Europeans don’t hire workers, they adopt them. That means that entrepreneurship is difficult. Being an entrepreneur, as I well know, means making mistakes and recovering from them fast. Given the guarantees that every worker has in Europe, an entrepreneur cannot quickly recover from his mistakes. In Romania, the agility needed for risk-taking is not readily available under EU rules drawn up for a mature economy.

Romania should be a country of small entrepreneurs, and it is, but there is extensive evasion of Brussels’ — and Bucharest’s — regulations. It is a gray market that creates legal jeopardy and therefore corruption in the sector that Romania needs the most. Imagine if Germany had the regulations it champions today in 1955. Could it possibly have developed into what it is in 2010? There may be a time for these regulations (and that is debatable), but for Romania it is not now.

I met a Romanian entrepreneur who marketed industrial products. In talking to him, I raised the question of the various regulations governing his industry and how he handled them. There was no clear answer or, more precisely, I didn’t realize the answer he had given me until later. There are regulations and there are relationships. The latter mitigate the former. In Germany this might be called corruption. In Romania it is survival. A Romanian entrepreneur rigorously following EU regulations would rapidly go out of business. It may be that Romania is corrupt, but the regulatory structure of the EU imposed on a developing economy makes evasion the only rational strategy. And yet the entrepreneur I talked to was a champion of the European Union. He too hoped for the time when he could be a normal European. As Rousseau said, “I have seen these contradictions and they have not rebuffed me.”

It is difficult to for an outsider to see the specific benefits of NATO and EU membership for Romania. But for the Romanians, membership goes beyond the specifics.

Romania’s Choice

August and September are bad months in Europe. It is when wars and crises strike. August and September 2008 were bad months. That August, Russia struck Georgia. In September, the financial crisis burst wide open. In the first, Russia delivered a message to the region: This is what American guarantees are worth. In the European handling of the financial crisis in Eastern Europe, the Germans delivered a message on the limits of German responsibility. Both NATO and the European Union went from being guarantors of Romanian interests to being enormous question marks.

In my conversations with Romanians, at all levels and almost universally, I have found the same answer. First, there is no doubt that NATO and the European Union did not work in Romania’s favor at the moment. Second, there is no question of rethinking Romania’s commitment to either. There are those Romanians, particularly on the far right, who dislike the European Union in particular, but Romania has no strategic alternative.

As for the vast majority, they cannot and will not conceive of a Romania outside the confines of NATO and the European Union. The mere fact that neither is working well for Romania does not mean that they do not do something important: NATO and the European Union keep the anti-democratic demons of the Romanian soul at bay. Being part of Europe is not simply a matter of strategic or economic benefits. It represents a transitional point in Romanian history. With membership in the European Union and NATO, Romania has affirmed its modernity and its democratic institutions. These twin amulets have redeemed Romania’s soul. Given this, I suppose, an unfavorable trade balance and the absence of genuine security guarantees is a small price to pay. I am not Romanian, so I can’t feel their ineffable belief in Brussels.

Romanians do acknowledge, again almost universally, the return of Russia to the historical stage, and it worries them. Of particular concern is Moldova, a region to the east that was historically Romanian, taken by the Soviets in a treaty with Hitler and the rest of which was seized after World War II. Moldova became an independent country in 1991 (a country I will be visiting next). For much of the post-Cold War period it had a communist government that fell a few years ago. An election will be held on Nov. 28, and it appears that the communists might return. The feeling is that if the communists return this time, the Russians will return with them and, in the coming years, Russian troops will be on Romania’s borders.

Romanian officials are actively engaged in discussions with NATO officials about the Russians, but the Germans want a more active involvement of Russia in NATO and not tension between NATO and Russia. The Western Europeans are not about to be drawn into Eastern European paranoia fed by nostalgic American strategists wanting to relive the Cold War, as they think of it.

I raised two strategic alternatives with Romanian officials and the media. One was the Intermarium — an alliance, perhaps in NATO, perhaps not — of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. (To readers who asked why I did not go to Bulgaria on this trip, it was simply a matter of time. I will go there as soon as I can.) Very interestingly, one official pointed out substantial levels of cooperation on military planning between Hungary and Romania and discussions between Romania and Poland. How serious this is and whether it will go beyond the NATO context is unclear to me. Perhaps I can get a better sense in Warsaw.

But military planning is one thing; the wherewithal to execute military plans is quite another. The Romanians are now caught in a crisis over buying fighter planes. There are three choices: the Swedish Gripen, the Eurofighter and used American F-16s. The problem is that the Romanians don’t have the money for any of these aircraft, nor does it seem to me that these are the defense measures they really need. The Americans can provide air cover in a number of ways, and while 24 F-16s would have value, they would not solve Romania’s most pressing military problem. From where I sit, creating an effective mobile force to secure their eastern frontier is what is needed. The alternative I’ve heard was buying naval vessels to block a very real Russian naval buildup in the Black Sea. But if Romania has trouble buying 24 fighters, naval vessels are out of the question.

The Romanians are approaching defense planning from a NATO perspective — one used for planning, not implementation, and one that always leads to sophisticated systems while leaving the basics uncovered. This may seem like an unnecessary level of detail for this essay, but the Romanians are deep in this discussion, and questions like this are the critical details of strategies growing out of geopolitics. It is the difference between planning papers drawn up by think tanks and the ability to defend a nation.

The Black Sea is a critical part of Romania’s reality, and the rise of Turkey makes the system of relationships interesting. Turkey is Romania’s fourth largest export target, and one of the few major trading partners that imports more from Romania than it exports. I pointed out to Romanians that it is the great good fortune of Turkey that it was not admitted to the European Union. Turkey’s economy grew by an annualized rate of 12 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and has been surging for years.

Turkey is becoming a regional economic engine and, unlike Germany, France and Italy, it offers compatibilities and synergies for Romania. In addition, Turkey is a serious military force and, while not seeking confrontation with Russia, it is not subservient to it. Turkey has adopted a “360 degree” strategy of engagement with all countries. And since Turkey is a NATO member, as are Hungary, Slovakia and Poland, there is no incompatibility with a dual strategy of the Intermarium and the Black Sea. For now, they fit. And the irony of Romania reaching out to the heir to the Ottomans is simply that and no more. This is the neighborhood that Romania inhabits. These are the options it has.

What doesn’t fit for Romania is the NATO/EU system alone. Perhaps this is part of a rational mix, but it cannot be all of it. For Romania, the problem is to move beyond the psychological comfort of Europe to a strategic and economic understanding that accepts that the post-Cold War world is over. More important, it would be a move toward accepting that Romania is free, responsible for its future and capable of managing it.

It is this last step that is the hardest for Romania and many of the former Soviet satellites — which were also bound up with World War I and Hitler’s disaster — to come to terms with. There is a connection between buying more expensive German cars than you can afford, and more of them than you need, and the novels of Herta Muller. The appointment can be permanently cancelled, but the fear of the interrogation is always with you. In this region, the fear of the past dominates and oppresses while the confident, American-style military planning and economic restructuring I suggested is alien and frightening.

The Romanians emerged from a world of horror, some of it of their own making. They fear themselves perhaps more than they fear others. For them, becoming European is both a form of therapy and something that will restrain the demons within and without. When you live with bad memories, you live with the shadows of reality. For the Romanians, illusory solutions to haunting memories make a great deal of sense.

It makes sense until war comes, and in this part of the world, the coming of war has been the one certainty since before the Romans. It is only a question of when, with whom and what your own fate will be when it arrives. The Romanians believe with religious fervor that these things will be left behind if they become part of Europe. I am more skeptical. I had thought that Romania’s problem was that it was part of Europe, a weak power surrounded by stronger ones. They seem to believe that their solution is to be part of Europe, a weak power surrounded by stronger ones.

I leave Romania confused. The Romanians hear things that I am deaf to. It is even at a pitch my Hungarian part can’t hear. I leave now for another nation, Moldova, which has been even more exposed to history, one even stranger and more brutal than Romania’s.

China comunista noul lider al capitalismului global

Alegerile parlamentare din Olanda, Belgia si Slovacia

La numai o saptamina de la publicarea analizei https://aliantadreptei.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/se-scutura-portocalele-alegerile-parlamentare-din-cehia/ blogul Alianta Dreptei analizeaza alegerile legislative din Olanda, Belgia si Slovacia.

Alegeri parlamentare Olanda

VVD (liberali-conservatori) 1.926.551 VVE, 20.5%, 31 mandate

PvdA (socialdemocrati) 1.846.776 VVE, 19,6%, 30 mandate

PVV (nationalisti-identitari) 1.453.944 VVE, 15,5%, 24 mandate

CDA (crestindemocrati) 1.281.137 VVE, 13,6%, 21 mandate

PS (socialisti) 924.977 VVE, 9,8%, 15 mandate

D’66 (sociali-liberali) 653.265 VVE, 6,9%, 10 mandate

GL (social-ecologisti) 627.912 VVE, 6,7%, 10 mandate

CU (sociali-conservatori) 305.628 VVE, 3,3%, 5 mandate

SGP (conservatori) 163.512 VVE, 1,7%, 2 mandate

PvdD (protectia animaelor) 122.257 VVE, 1,3%, 2 mandate
Regatul Tarilor de Jos va fi guvernata de catre un premier liberal. In prezent se negociaza o coaliatie social-liberal-ecologista formata din patru partide: PvdA, VVD, D66, GL. Esecul crestindemocratiilor este semnificativ pentru decaderea continua al acestui curent politic. Nationalistii identitari grupati in formatiunea „Partidul Libertatii” castiga in voturi valabil exprimate, dar nu vor participa la guvernare.

Sinteza: Curentul liberal-conservator castiga atat in voturi valabil exprimate, cat si in mandate.

Alegeri parlamentare Belgia

NV-A (regionalisti) 1.135.617 VVE, 17,40%, 27 mandate

PS (socialisti francofoni) 894.543 VVE, 13,71%, 26 mandate

CDA (crestindemocrati valoni) 707.986 VVE, 10,85%, 17 mandate

MR (liberali francofoni) 695,617 VVE, 9,28%, 18 mandate

PS-A (socialisti valoni) 602.867 VVE, 9,24%, 13 mandate

OpenVLD (liberali valoni) 563.873 VVE, 8,64%, 13 mandate

VB (valoni nationalisti) 506.607 VVE, 7,76%, 12 mandate

CDH (centristi-umanisti) 360.441 VVE, 5,53%, 9 mandate

Ecolo (ecologisti francofoni) 313.047 VVE, 4,80%, 8 mandate

Green! (ecologisti valoni) 285.989 VVE, 4,38%, 5 mandate

Lista Dedecker (nationalisti valoni) 150.157 VVE, 2,31%, 1 mandat

PP (populari conservatori) 84.005 VVE, 1,29%, 1 mandat


Liberalii belgieni pierd atat in voturi valabil exprimate, cat si in mandate. Viitorul guvern de coalitie va fi format din liberali, socialist, crestindemocrati si regionalisti valoni. Piata de incercare ramina insa solutionarea problemelor administrative intre valoni si francofoni.

Alegeri parlamentare Slovacia

Socialdemocrati,  880.111 VVE, 34,79%, 62 mandate

Uniunea Crestindemocrata Slovaca, 390.042 VVE, 15,42%, 28 mandate

Solidaritate si Prosperitate (liberali-conservatori), 307.287 VVE, 12,14%, 22 mandate

Miscarea Crestindemocrata, 215.755 VVE, 8,25%, 15 mandate

MOST – Minoritatea ungara, 205.538 VVE, 8,12%, 14 mandate

Partidul Nationalist Slovac, 128.490 VVE, 5,07%, 9 mandate


Alegerile parlamentare au fost castigate de catre formatiuniile de centru-dreapta. In prezent se negociaza o formula guvernamentala crestin-liberala la care va participa si minoritatea ungara. Liberalii slovaci revin pe scena politica dupa o absenta de 12 ani.

Sinteza generala:
Curentul liberal-conservator castiga toate alegerile parlamentare ale anului 2010. Cu exceptia Belgiei, liberalii castiga alegeriile parlamentare si devin partid guvernamental in Marea Britanie, Olanda, Belgia, Slovacia si Cehia.

Media europeana al curentului liberal-conservator este de 20%.


Federatia de partide ELDR se improspateaza cu formatiuni de dreapta: TOP’09 si SaS.  Toate partidele au un profil liberal-conservator, combina si muleaza elemente liberale si setul de valori conservatoare.

Gabriel Savulescu


Citeste la Dreapta!

Citeste http://AliantaDreptei.wordpress.com

Piata Universitatii de Dreapta – trecut, prezent si realpolitik

10 iunie – Conferinţa „Mineriada din 13-15 iunie 1990, după douăzeci de ani: punctul nostru de vedere”
– Sala Senatului Universitatii din Bucuresti – intre orele 10:00 si 13:00 – Masa Rotunda.
– Sala Consiliului Facultatii de Istorie – intre orele 16:00 si 20:00 – Atelier.

12 iunie – In Piaţa Universităţii din Bucureşti, Tineretul National Liberal va organiza un miting ce va avea ca mesaj central : „Dreapta autentică se uneşte pentru România/Un nou început după 20 de ani”.
Participanţi: membrii PNL şi PNŢCD şi reprezentanţi ai societăţii civile.
Ora: 18:00
Invitaţi/vorbitori: lideri ai PNL şi ai PNŢCD, Doina Cornea, surorile Coposu, Zoe Petre, Victor Rebengiuc, Lucia Hossu-Longin ş.a
Prezentator (amfitrion): Victor Rebengiuc/Mircea Diaconu.

In perioada 13-15 iunie nu s-au obtinut autorizatii pentru mitinguri. Doar Asociatia Victimelor Mineriadelor a primit autorizatie pentru o expozitie foto (fara sonor) pe tema: „20 de ani de la represiunea din iunie 1990 – Mineriada”, autorizatie pe care o puteti verifica aici: http://avmr.ro/aprobare-13-15-iunie-in-pasajul-universitii.html

Conferinţa „Mineriada din 13-15 iunie 1990, după douăzeci de ani: punctul nostru de vedere”

10 iunie 2010

– teme de dezbatere pentru masa rotundă şi atelier –

Piaţa Universității și construcția societății civile din România
Piața Universității ca fenomen social
Organizații și organizatori ai Pieței Universităţii
Balconul Facultatii de Geologie, tribună a democraţiei
Ecoul internațional al manifestației din Piața Universității
Manipularea prin TVR şi ziarele FSN-iste asupra Pieţei Universităţii
Presa democratică anticomunistă şi anti FSN-istă
Pregătirea represiunii Pieţei Universităţii
Rolul preşedintelui, Guvernului şi FSN-ului
Implicarea serviciilor secrete în pregătirea şi organizarea represiunii
Preliminarii la atacul minerilor: invadarea Institutului de Arhitectură de către gărzile FSN-iste de la IMGB
Diversiunile din 13 iunie: incendierea autobuzelor de către Poliţie, autoincendierea sediului Poliţiei, invadarea televizată a TVR
Chemarea minerilor pentru restabilirea ordinii
Intervenţia trupelor de ordine şi omorârea unor civili nevinovaţi
Transportul şi sosirea minerilor în Bucureşti
Atacul minerilor şi falşilor mineri, organizaţi şi conduşi de agenţii serviciilor secrete, asupra sediilor partidelor şi asociaţiilor civice
Arestarea ilegală, torturarea şi anchetarea participanţilor la Piaţa Universităţii, în unităţile militare de la Măgurele şi Băneasa
Pogromul asupra rromilor din cartierele de la periferia Bucureştiului
Ecoul internaţional al respresiunii şi daunele produse României în plan politic, economic şi social
Exodul tinerei generaţii în Occident
Rolul Poliţiei, Armatei şi Procuraturii în mineriada din 13-15 iunie
Blocarea anchetelor asupra evenimentelor din 13-15 iunie de către Poliţie şi Procuratură, în perioadele 1990-1997 şi 2001-2004
Manipularea mediatică a adevărului istoric asupra evenimentelor din 13-15 iunie

Autor: Lilick

Material: Fundatia Romana pentru Democratie

Despre fenomenul politic Piata Universitatii la Cluj cititi mai jos:

In primavara lui 1990, prea mic fiind pentru a participa activ la eveniment, urmaream totusi cu sufletul la gura ce se intampla in legatura cu fenomenul “Piata Universitatii”. Dupa scoala fugeama casa sa-mi fac cat mai repede temele, pentru a asculta pe urma la radio (Europa Libera sau BBC) ce s-a mai intamplat in Bucuresti, TVR-ul nu imi inspira multa incredere.

Putina lume stie ca si Clujul a avut o “piata a Universitatii”: piata Libertatii din centrul orasului, dominata de biserica gotica si statuia lui Matei Corvin.

Am gasit cateva materiale interesante despre acea perioada:

Un interviu cu doamna Doina Cornea despre primavara clujeana si bucuresteana a anului 1990

Un reportaj in Adevarul (care este si sursa foto) despre golaniada clujeana

O revista a presei clujene si centrale despre evenimentele din 13 -14 iunie (apare si CTP care incerca sa convinga cititorii ca pe 13 iunie a avut loc o tentativa de lovitura de stat).

Autor: Transildania

Analiza AliantaDreptei:

Orice analiza decantata la dreapta, contine o declinare la trecut, prezent si mai ales la coordonatele realpolitikului.

Prinviind spre trecut este necesar sa constatam ca autorul politic si moral ale represalilor din 13-15 iunie 1990 este Miscarea Politica Frontul Salvarii Nationale. Din aceasta formatiune politica au emanat doua partide politice parlamentare: Partidul Democrat si Partidul Socialdemocrat.

Daca revolutia din decembrie 1989 a fost de stanga, atunci manifestatia din Piata Universitatii a fost contrarevolutia libertatii.

A inceput la 22 aprilie cu mitingurile electorale ale PNTCD si Uniunii Democrate de Centru (alianta de partide din care au facut parte o serie de formatiuni de centru si centru-dreapta) din care enumar: Partidul Socialist-Liberal condus de Niculae Cerveni, Partidul Democrat din Cluj, Partidul Frontului Democrat infiintat la 17 decembrie 1989 la Timisoara (prima formatiune politica din Romania postcomunista).

Dupa 13-15 iunie Grupul Democrat de Centru sa destramat: Partidul Socialist-Liberal a fuzionat prin absorbtie in PNL, dar nu a fost radiat din registrul partidelor politice. In aprilie 1992 pe structura juridica PSL urma sa se infiinteze Partidul National Liberal-Conventia Democratica.

Partidul Democrat din Cluj a fuzionat prin absorbtie in Partidul National Liberal-Aripa Tanara. O fractiune din PNL-CD a fuzionat cu PNL-AT, formand Partidul Liberal 1993.

In 1997 PNL-CD si PL-93 au fuzionat in Partidul Liberal. In septembrie 98 Partidul Liberal a fuzionat in PNL.

Din structuriile PNL-AT/PL’93/PL sa format Fundatia Rene Radu Policrat, devenita ulterior Fundatia Horia Rusu. Horia Rusu a decedat 2 saptamini inaintea congresului PNL, congres care la ales pe Valeriu Stoica drept presedinte PNL. Cu siguranta un PNL condus de Horia Rusu ar fi avut alta traiectorie, decat PNL-ul condus de Valeriu Stoica si Theodor Stolojan.

Partidul Frontului Democrat a fuzionat cu Partidul Democrat, care in 1993 a fuzionat cu Frontul Salvarii Nationale, devenit ulterior FSN (PD), rebotezat PD, actualmente PD-L.

In iunie 1990 PNL se afla in corzi. Sediul central era devastat pentru a treia oara intr-un interval de 6 luni, iar in interiorul partidului se structura ramura disidenta Aripa Tanara, din care in iulie 1990 va emana Partidul National Liberal-Aripa Tanara. 20 de ani mai tarziu PNL-AT , traieste politic prin Fundatia Horia Rusu.

Partidul Socialdemocrat, partid de stanga a fost si ramine adversarul  discursiv al Partidului National Liberal. Acest joc democratic, aceasta regula academica ar fi valabila daca am trai intr-o tara democratica. Realitatea este ca Romania se afla la marginea prapastiei. In termeni economici Romania este un failed state.

Iar falimentul de stat se va cupla cu implozia politica al partidului-stat. Iar falimentul de stat este inevitabil. Un factor decisiv este reforma monetara din zona euro, care va veni peste Romania asemenea unui tsunami.

Falimentul politic va demara totodata descompunerea organizatorica al partidului-stat, iar acest proces va genera competitia politica intre stanga si dreapta.

Piata Universitatii din perioada 22.04-15.06.1990 a fost un fenomen politic al miscariilor civice postrevolutionare.

In istoria noastra exista insa Piata Universitatii de Dreapta. Si aceasta o consemna prin demonstatia din 8 noiembrie 1945. La 8 noiembrie 1945 organizatiile de tineret PNL si PNTCD au organizat prima manifestatie anticomunista, antitotalitara si promonarhista din Romania.

8 noiembrie 1945 este Piata Universitatii de Dreapta!

8 noiembrie 1945 este revolutia noastra! 8 noiembrie 1945 este contrarevolutia libertatii!

Traditie, ordine si prosperitate ar fi sloganul acestei constructii politice.

Un asemenea amalgam politic ar putea sa castige viitoarele alegeri locale, parlamentare si prezidentiale cu o majoritate absoluta.

Si imi justific aceasta afirmatie cu modele politice aplicate cu succes in sistemele politice ale Uniunii Europene.

– In Germania, Partidul Liberal a castigat in perioada 2008-10 toate scrutinurile electorale (locale, regionale, legislative si europarlamentare) cu o medie de 15% si cu un surplus de voturi valabil exprimate cuantificat la 500.000.

– In Cehia, doua partide liberale (TOP’09 si Miscarea Politica „Interesul Public”) proaspat infiintate au obtinut impreuna 27,58%. Rezultat care pozitioneaza aceste formatiuni pe primul loc.

– In Slovacia, formatiunea SaS (Solidaritate si Libertate) este cotata la cca. 13,7% si este curtata intens de potentialii parteneri de guvernare din stanga si dreapta esichierului politic.

– In Marea Britanie, Partidul Liberal Britanic LibDem a revenit dupa 87 de ani la guvernare.

– In Olanda, formatiuniile liberale VVD si D’66 insumeaza impreuna 28,35%, scor care va propulsa aceste formatiuni la guvernare.

– In Franta, fostul premier Dominique du Villepin va infiinta la 19 iunie a.c. o noua formatiune de centru, care va calibra elemente liberale si neogaulliste. Este de asteptat ca viitoarea formatiune liberala sa fileteze segmente importante din UMP. Si in Franta, neogaullismul se indreapta spre liberalism.

– In Italia, presedintele Camerei Deputatilor, Gianfranco Fini, pana in trecut partener de guvernare in executivul Berlusconi, co-presedinte al PdL, si-a configurat propria formatiune liberala. Liderul „Generatione Italia” isi propune castigarea alegerilor parlamentare din 2013. Si in Italia membrii PdL sau saturat de populism, demagogie si manipulare publica.

Liberali si taranisti strangeti randurile!

Gabriel Savulescu


Citeste la Dreapta!

Citeste http://AliantaDreptei.wordpress.com

Daurel's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Florin Citu

A look at financial markets and government policies through the eye of a skeptic

La Stegaru'

"Aveţi de apărat onoarea de a fi stegari!", Nicolae Pescaru


Pune întrebarea și, împreună, vom găsi răspunsul!


"Istoria ne legitimeaza ca singurele partide autentice de centru-dreapta", Crin Antonescu

Carl Schmitt Studien

"Istoria ne legitimeaza ca singurele partide autentice de centru-dreapta", Crin Antonescu

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: