Editorial Press Review, November 4

In Gândul, Cristian Tudor Popescu says: "Why the Boc Government should not leave".

Quote taken from the editoral: "Prof. Emil Boc, prof. Daniel Funeriu, prof. Marko Bela, prof. Gh. Ialomiţianu, prof. Gabriel Oprea, prof. Valeriu Tabără, prof. Cătălin Predoiu...a lot of professors in the Romanian Government.

The only reason why the Boc Government should not leave consists in the risk for these "distinguished' professors to start teaching something, somewhere to some defenseless beings.

But what does the Opposition do? Well, it does whatever its informal leader Crin Antonescu does, namely to decline in front of the people the invitation to dialogue made by the president on the grounds that Traian Băsescu fails to fulfill his role as mediator.

This is taking place in a moment when the country is being bombarded with troubles. A teacher is not entitled to suspend a dialogue even if it is held with the punk sitting in the back of the class, because that would be the most harmful solution for the entire class. What is Antonescu's basic profession? He is a history teacher, in case you didn't know or have forgotten, Cristian Tudor Popescu concludes.

In Jurnalul Naţional Victor Ciutacu writes about the same Education Bill, quote: "An entire country has grown accustomed to the Government led by Emil Boc, a professor of constitutional law, to periodically pass an unconstitutional legislative act".

Moreover, the journalist believes that this new situation in which the political authority is placed will not carry any penalty as far as the premier and even the education minister are concerned, and provides an explanation: it is due to the fact that the political authority- perfectly legal, but illegitimate, emphasised by the friendly polls - does not give a damn about the people and it is driven into the battle only by its selfish petty interests.

These interests are: money, money and, of course, money", end of quote.

Alina Mungiu Pipidi writes in România Liberă about the toxic majorities and impossible cohabitations and in order to understand the phenomenon, she comes up with examples taken from American politics to the one on the Dâmboviţa's bank.

Instead of a conclusion, the columnist puts forwatd two backed proposals, quote: 'the first one: adopting a constitutional anti-deficiency principle, by means of which any bill for which there are no financial resources will be ruled as unconstitutional.

This would remove the budget oversight from the politics area and would entrust it to the Constitutional Court.

It is not a coincidence that much stronger countries auch as Germany and France have been attracted by this policy.

And the second one: changing the absurd regulations of the two Chambers of the Parliament, which are tougher even than the Constitution.

If the Romanian governments can survive with minority votes it is because of this regulation.

Until major reforms re adopted, a small reform of the Parliament regulation would solve many issues.

Consequently, Alina Mungiu Pipidi invites the political parties to promote these two solutions "if they want to prove their responsibility and to prevent us from providing an alternative to them".

Translated by: Maricescu Anamaria Cristina
MA Student, MTTLC, Bucharest