Vladimir Mitev
Aurelian Giugăl has a degree in geography (1998) and a PhD in political science (2011). He was a geography teacher from 1998 to 2010. He did a research internship at the School of Geographical Sciences at the University of Bristol in 2010. Since 2019, he has been a professor at the Faculty of Journalism and Communication Sciences at the University of Bucharest. His areas of interest are human and electoral geography, political parties, political communication, cultural studies, journalism, and media.
Aurelian Giugăl emphasizes the serious impact of the measures on the pre-university education system. He distinguishes between the situation in universities, which are less affected, and that in schools. According to him, increasing teachers’ working hours from 18 to 20 hours will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. He rejects the claim that there will be no layoffs, indicating that between 15,000 and 30,000 people will lose their jobs. In addition, the drastic reduction in hourly wages makes this work unattractive. Giugăl harshly criticizes the education minister for claiming that the system generates a deficit, given that its funding is three times lower than that provided for by law. He believes that these measures are aimed at favoring private education.
Giugăl does not accept the idea that the fiscal crisis is entirely the result of the “budget debate” of previous governments. In his opinion, the big problem is the failure to collect taxes and VAT from corporations and the wealthy. He acknowledges that the Ciolacu and Ciucă governments were populist and raised salaries several times, but stresses that this is not the main cause of the current situation. Djugul argues that the state is deliberately protecting the privileged classes and big business, shifting the burden of the crisis onto ordinary people. He believes that the measures are aimed at the most vulnerable in order to maintain the country’s rating, rather than to solve real problems.
The academic is extremely skeptical about the Romanian political system and the lack of a real opposition. He notes that the traditional left, represented by the Social Democratic Party, has lost a large part of its voters, who are turning to the ultra-nationalist AUR party. Giugăl describes the situation as a trap between two ultra-liberal visions of the state, as even the AUR does not offer a serious alternative economic policy. He believes that political debate has been reduced to an opposition between “pro-Europeans” and “populists” and “sovereignists.”
Giugăl does not see a serious left fighting for citizens’ social rights, and small left-wing groups have no influence. In conclusion, Giugăl predicts a bleak future for Romania, where he sees no alternative to the current political and economic course.
He is skeptical that education unions will succeed in blocking the school year. According to the political scientist, the unions will eventually give in. The professor believes that inflation and rising prices will have a devastating effect on people’s incomes, but he does not expect mass protests or significant changes. In his opinion, things will get worse because power is controlled by an elite that cares only about its own interests, not those of ordinary people. He concludes that Romania is a peripheral country that lives off cheap labor, with no hope for a rapid improvement in the situation.
The state of the nation in Romania – two months after the parliamentary elections and a month and a half after the announcement of the first austerity measures by the Bolojan government
Vladimir: Aurelian, we are about two months after Romania supposedly resolved its political crisis by electing a pro-European president. However, a fiscal crisis immediately ensued, with the necessary austerity measures. What is the state of the nation now? How do people feel—are they upset, less interested in politics directly, or are they still active as citizens of Romanian society?
Aurelian: Thank you, Vladimir, for the invitation. Indeed, it has been almost three months since the recent presidential elections, which were a continuation of last year’s elections. I am not surprised by what is happening now, because things were clear. Center-right governments or factions, more or less liberal, have always emphasized the idea of austerity.
Of course, they did not say so explicitly during the presidential elections, but they knew that these were very important for the formation of the post-election government. They did not say it directly, they even gave guarantees that they would not raise taxes and that VAT would not increase, but it was rather an illusion. People did not believe and do not believe that they will not be affected by certain austerity measures. It is the scale and the way in which this is being done that is shocking.
It is always the most vulnerable, i.e. the people at the bottom, who are hit, while those in power try to resolve deficits which, it is true, are very large (Romania’s deficit in 2024 is 9,3%). However, I don’t think it’s just a case of “budgetary excess,” as they say. There are several explanations. You know as well as I do: uncollected VAT, taxes that are not correctly collected by the ANAF (National Agency for Fiscal Administration), and so on. These are good sources for supplementing the budget and bringing the deficit down to manageable levels.
But no, they went for the classic option, as they did in 1996, during Constantinescu’s time, and in 2004, during Băsescu’s time. Now, how does the population perceive this? From what I see, the ordinary people in southern Oltenia, with whom I interact, did not support these types of parties and policies anyway. Therefore, they are a bit cynical and say, “Well, the city dwellers are getting what they voted for.” In any case, they don’t have much sympathy for teachers or people in administration.
In their view, teachers are a privileged class. The idea has been created that teachers don’t work very hard, give a lot of private lessons, and earn quite well compared to the private sector, compared to incomes in agriculture, etc. The idea that public sector employees are supported by the private sector, by corporations, is widespread. So I don’t see any surprise here. What I find bizarre is that the education unions and the teachers themselves are not very convinced that they should protest.
I don’t see much momentum for protest. OK, it’s vacation time, that’s understandable, but there are still only a few hundred protesters. I don’t see very good prospects for the future. I was reading earlier that the deficit cannot be reduced by more than one percent. Therefore, there will be new tax increases, new levies. I don’t know how to put it, but dark clouds are gathering over Romania and vulnerable people will probably be increasingly exposed.
Austerity measures through the lens of the education sector
Vladimir: You are active in the education sector, you have worked in high school, middle school, and university. How are these measures being felt in the field of education? I see that there are large protests in this area. On the other hand, I notice that dissatisfaction is focused on the Minister of Education, Daniel David. You yourself have written one or more articles in which you criticised him very harshly and called for his resignation. What is going on? How is everything seen from the perspective of people in the education sector?
Aurelian: In education, we need to separate things. We are talking about two distinct areas: the university environment, which remains largely unaffected or less affected (universities, as I understand it, can increase the norm by two hours, but this is optional), and the pre-university system, where the effect is major. The merging of student numbers will lead to the closure of some schools, and increasing the workload from 18 to 20 hours per week will simply mean the loss of jobs for thousands of teachers.
Basically, one in ten teaching positions will disappear. If you divide 300,000 or 250,000 people, which is how many are in education, by 10, you realise that 25,000 teaching positions will disappear. Now, they say that these people are not employed on a permanent basis. That’s true, but these are people who work in the system, who have taken exams, who have one-year or four-year contracts that could have been extended. So it’s not true that “no one will be fired.” Yes, between 15,000 and 30,000 people, I don’t know the exact figure, we’ll see in September after the classifications have been made, will leave the system and be unemployed.
What’s more, the hourly wage has been reduced from 50 lei to just over 20 lei gross. Well, these people, to speak their language, the liberal language, are always talking about the market, about the virtues of the free market. Let’s see how much an hour of training is worth on the free market, and then we’ll see if the state is paying in line with the free market or paying four times or twice as little.
These are two measures with immediate effect. People will no longer be tempted to take hourly paid lessons, but there will no longer be any lessons, because they will disappear as the norm increases. Of course, teachers are unhappy because they will have to work much harder for the same money, or even less if we consider hourly pay. In any case, we are talking about a poorly funded education system: according to the education law, there should be a budget of 6% of GDP. Now it is three times less. And you have the nerve to say that it is the education system that is generating the deficit? Daniel David is doing what his predecessors did, contributing to the further deterioration of the public education system.
At the same time, private schools will obviously grow, because if the alternative to an increasingly weak, poorly paid, and poorly designed public education system is to send your children to parallel private education systems, that’s what people will do. There’s nothing new here. People act according to this logic. I was reading earlier that at Babeș-Bolyai University, where Daniel David is rector, there is a budget deficit of 10 million lei, even though budget allocations have been steadily increasing. Nevertheless, the university run by Daniel David is in deficit.
People in general are extremely dissatisfied, but I don’t see that. You say there are big protests in Bucharest, but I don’t see them in the big cities. There are threats that the school year will not start. We’ll see, it will be an extremely interesting start to September. But, I repeat, the financial crisis that Romania is going through with this deficit is being solved with money from the budget.
It’s the logic of peripheral countries that embrace this ultra-liberalism. It’s always the others who are “irresponsible,” who spend without shame, and whom we punish. It’s simple logic. Basically, whether we like it or not, this is the dominant discourse in Romania today. This is what a dominant discourse looks like.
The idea that people don’t understand… they understand very well. A friend of mine always said to me when I kept repeating that maybe people don’t understand the extent of the disaster in education and public systems. And he said, “No, Aurelian, they understand very well. If they didn’t understand, they would be selling at the corner store or at the market. No, they don’t sell at the market, they are ministers, they are secretaries of state, they are people who understand very well what is going on.” Except that they understand it in a certain logic, an ultra-liberal one. You always favor business and big business, generally the biggest, and obviously you cut wherever you can.
The main logic: let’s not regress in the rating agencies’ rankings. They have achieved their goal. Romania has not been downgraded to “junk” status, but remains one notch above. But at what cost, at what sacrifice? More than ever before, we are now seeing this class distinction in Romania. Is there no longer a left or a right? Yes, there is. We see a very clear distinction, a divide between at least two large social categories: those who are on the public payroll and those who are in the private sector. This does not mean that those in the private sector are living the high life or that corporate employees are living very well. Not necessarily. They are also workers who receive fairly poor wages in relation to the work they do.
But this almost primitive logic of capital accumulation, always taking from the most vulnerable and easily manipulated, or fooled, as they say in popular parlance. And Daniel David, whether he leaves or not, has a mission here that he will fulfill with zeal. There are many staunch liberals in state institutions and state universities, so it is no surprise that Daniel David is acting like an ultra-liberal who is employed by the state. Let’s see what autumn brings, but I find it hard to believe that these measures will be retracted or reversed.
How justified is it to talk about Ciolacu’s bad legacy?
Vladimir: Yes, there is talk of a new wave of measures and another one before the end of the year. I want to ask you: isn’t it objectively necessary to make certain cuts? Isn’t the problem rather where to cut? Obviously, Romania has fiscal and financial problems. So, if you personally don’t accept these measures, or if ordinary people don’t accept them, what can be done differently?
And one more thing, for a long time we had a Romanian left-wing leadership headed by Marcel Ciolacu. It was during Marcel Ciolacu’s time that several pay rises were introduced for various jobs, and the state was generous to the population. How do you and the world see this now? Because some people are accusing Marcel Ciolacu very harshly of being responsible for what he did. Now, perhaps this is also being used to justify cuts in areas where he gave more. What is the balance or what is the truth? Is he significantly or less significantly to blame for what happened, or who is to blame for this fiscal situation?
Aurelian: It wasn’t just the PSD in government, but the PSD and the PNL. Well, if we are to judge them, we judge them all together. Now this idea is circulating in the public sphere that there was financial debauchery and that all kinds of bonuses were given out. Certainly, there are privileged groups, numerous in the Romanian public system, but I don’t think the vast majority of the population is living on a mountain of money.
Even in education, even in healthcare (salaries are higher in healthcare, but this is not the result of the previous government), even in administration, I don’t think that salaries of a thousand euros or so, which is what most people earn, are a problem. There have always been discrepancies here. Within the budgetary system, there are several levels of financial power. It is one thing to talk about the top categories, where salaries and bonuses are very high, and another to talk about the vast majority of the population. How much does a civil servant earn?
There is also talk of this issue, that there has been a lot of hiring in the public sector. Well, what is this surplus of employed people? And if they are employed, they are primarily part of the political clientele of the PSD, PNL, and USR, without any problem. Ordinary people cannot get hired. We know very well that competitions in Romania are very well controlled. Not just anyone can enter the public administration system through a transparent competition. Only the right people get in.
So, if mistakes have been made here and there have probably been a lot of salary increases in these privileged top areas, I don’t think the population supports a certain social justice through wage flattening, through financial decency. But why do you think these striking discrepancies exist in Romania’s public systems? Why do you think there are such incredible gaps between average salaries and those at the top? It’s simple. Because those at the top, with their salaries and privileges, will be careful to control and maintain the status quo.
I don’t think that the Bolojan government, as it stands, has the nerve and courage to take on these privileged groups. That’s why they say they can’t touch the magistrates’ money, because the European Union and the European Commission are opposed to it, and there’s talk of the independence of the judiciary, etc. So I don’t see any big miracles happening. I don’t think Romanians are living on a mountain of money. However, if we look at the wage structure in Romania, most people earn less than €1,000 per month.
So I don’t know if that’s where the problem lies. On the other hand, economists have been telling us constantly lately that there are gray areas that cannot be touched. VAT is very poorly collected in Romania. Similarly, corporate taxes are very poorly collected, from small and medium-sized players to large corporations. There are still problems here that are not being addressed. Does the population not understand these issues?
Yes, Ciolacu and Ciucă, the tandem, were extremely generous and populist during their time in office. They thought they could retain power by giving all kinds of benefits and wage increases. But now it’s not just a question of cutting these benefits and increases. It goes much deeper. The increase in VAT, the liberalization of energy prices, and so on, will bring a wave of price increases. I don’t think the vast majority of the population will be able to cope with this wave of price increases.
And what are you doing, where are you making savings? In education? It has been calculated that the savings made by the education reform are absolutely insignificant in percentage terms, less than one percent. For €30 billion, which is Romania’s budget deficit, it is clear that you have to go into other areas, much tougher ones, in order to achieve a certain balance.
So, yes, the previous government was extremely relaxed financially. It was a bit of a giveaway. But I don’t see a big problem here. The problems continue to be the non-collection of taxes, the non-collection of VAT, and the alarming increase in differences between social categories. You have seen that, according to data on social inequalities, Romania and Bulgaria are at the top of the list. They are among the most unequal countries in Europe. Wealth accumulates at the top and decreases at the bottom. It’s simple.
Against this backdrop, extremist parties are growing, in this case parties such as AUR and candidates such as George Simion. I understand that polls show AUR at between 40 and 50%. Doesn’t a party that was founded five years ago and is now polling at 50% tell you anything? Is it all manipulation and TikTok? Are people really that intellectually weak? A party that practically didn’t exist before 2020 now has almost 50% support? Are there electoral miracles like this without any cause? Are they just generated by influence and propaganda, as those who criticize populists theorize? It’s a very simple narrative: “us, the good Europeans,” “the others, the bad ones, the legionaries, the fascists.” The PSD sees its votes transferred to AUR. It’s a sad time for Romania, and even sadder times are coming. I think things will get worse and worse.
What does the fiscal crisis and the crisis of confidence mean for the PSD?
Vladimir: You mentioned that the PSD is in a historic crisis, at 13%, if I heard correctly. On the other hand, the AUR has grown so significantly, probably attracting PSD voters, among others. What can be said about the prospects for a left-wing “revival” in the Romanian political system? Because if austerity measures are taken, this hits the economic and social interests of citizens and, respectively, there should probably be resistance. And there is resistance, both from the unions and from ordinary people. How does this resistance translate into a political and party direction? Can we expect the emergence of a party or parties that appeal to the interests of people who have seen their incomes reduced and so on? And, in general, how is the political system changing in this context, in the current situation?
Aurelian: From my point of view, no. We see this widespread phenomenon in Europe as well. Left-wing parties have been diluted to the point of extinction. The dominant divide in today’s society is this: sovereignists, populists, “legionaries,” as they call them, fascists versus pro-Europeans. It is as clear as day. And here, in this conglomerate of anti-establishment parties, there are a multitude of voters, including those who prefer the Social Democrats or people who expect a little social protection from the state. Well, where are the PSD voters? Where have they moved to? They have moved en masse to the AUR. They didn’t go to the liberals, they didn’t go to the USR. No way. Did they go to the UDMR? Not there either.
But what do we do with the AUR? During the election campaign, George Simion said he would fire 500,000 civil servants. Simion wants to copy Milei’s model in Argentina. So, basically, Romania is now caught in a trap between two forms of ultra-liberalism, between two ultra-liberal visions of the state. The differences between them are minimal, at least from an economic point of view.
Otherwise, it’s East versus West… I don’t see the AUR party capable of turning its attention to the East, to Russia. First of all, it’s a party with representation in the European Parliament. They are in the parliament in Brussels, they sit there, they discuss laws, they make laws, and so on. I don’t see the AUR as Eurosceptics.
The left in Romania, in my view, is almost dead. There are certain groups of intellectuals, mostly academics, ironically referred to by others as the “caviar left” or “salon intellectuals,” who, in fact, don’t really matter. They are just intellectuals and nothing more; they have no influence whatsoever on public discourse in Romania today. Not even the AUR is contesting what is happening in the country at the moment. They go around suggesting: “Look, we are with the ordinary citizens, we are helping them repair their homes.” But they are not really contesting what is happening. Nor is the PSD, as the Social Democratic Party. It is in government and accepts these measures. What left are we talking about in Romania today? It’s practically useless. There is no longer a left-wing party, and I don’t see what could be invented. The AUR should disappear first, so that a left-wing alternative can emerge.
Or it should drastically reduce its percentage of the vote. I don’t see that as a possibility in the near future. I don’t think so. We’ll see what happens in the next elections. But I don’t see who. Tiny groups like Demos, Sens, and I don’t know what else, let’s be serious, these are jokes at best, not parties. They are NGOs that discuss politics. But they are not parties in the true sense of the word.
So, from my point of view, as Gramsci said, we are talking about hegemony. It is a hegemonic discourse. We don’t have much opposition. What is the opposition now? And how does the opposition manifest itself? What is the AUR doing? What countermeasures are they proposing to these systems? I haven’t even heard them. We just saw them with shovels and pickaxes removing mud from houses in Moldova. A relatively cheap piece of grassroots populism. Do they have anything? Do they offer any serious, well-argued criticism? Do they come up with any countermeasures? Do they come up with any counterproposals? No. Therefore, I believe that they too accept this status quo.
It’s a peripheral country that lives by exploiting its local working population, with a local elite that lives well by even European economic standards, with foreign business that does well here in Romania, and with small Romanian companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, which struggle to survive, some through contracts with the state. And that is Romania, in fact. I don’t see an alternative in the near future to this way of doing politics and seeing things in an economic, political, and social sense. I don’t see it. Maybe I’m skeptical, but that’s how it is. I’ve learned in 35 years that optimism is useless.
Do we know Nicușor Dan or not?
Vladimir: Then, very suddenly, this controversy arose over the anti-Legionnaire law, which Romanian President Nicușor Dan is trying to either have overturned by the Constitutional Court or reconsidered by Parliament. Nicușor Dan also made some statements that sounded as if he was justifying, to a certain extent, Legionary tendencies because he was anti-communist, because he is from Făgăraș, and so on. This is only one aspect, of course, of the president-elect, Nicușor Dan, but he probably has many positive aspects as well. I see, for example, that he is concerned, at least rhetorically, with the fight against domestic violence. So, I’m not saying he’s an easy person to analyze, but I wanted to ask you: how does Nicușor Dan look two or three months after the elections? To what extent is the image that existed during the elections, that of a kind of savior with pro-European tendencies, still justified? To what extent do we see a more or less different person, and where does the difference lie, if it exists?
Aurelian: Here, there are again two distinct issues. Nicușor Dan as the savior who saves us from fascism. That’s simple, it’s part of the imagery of election campaigns. You have to create a relationship between “bad” people and “good” people. Nicușor Dan was on the right side of history. Pretty much all stories in post-communist Romania revolve around narratives of good and evil. In 1996, Constantinescu faced off against the “neo-communist” Iliescu, who, ironically, was also an “unbeliever.” A question posed by Emil Constantinescu, then a candidate and later president, was: “Do you believe in God, Mr. Iliescu?” As if it mattered what a presidential candidate believed in. It was a time when God still meant something to the right. The right was conservative in the sense of the church, and not being a believer was seen as a sin. You had an unbelieving, atheist neo-communist and a non-communist geologist, very “fancy” and, moreover, a believing geologist.
In 2000, Iliescu’s struggle was the same: Iliescu is a neo-communist, but he’s not like the fascist Vadim, so we must stop fascism. In 2004, the narrative revolved around anti-corruption, corruption as a societal phenomenon that would never disappear, and it didn’t disappear then, it actually intensified during Băsescu’s terms in office. Then came Iohannis and Ponta: Iohannis, “the good German who knows how to get things done,” versus Ponta, “the mythomaniac,” the “plagiarist.” In other words, the classic story. And now, finally, fascism has entered the race, because that is the nature of the times in Europe and Romania. You have nationalist-sovereignist parties that must be countered, and so you counter them with… “We are pro-European.”
Then, part two: Nicușor Dan was on the side of the good story, he won. Part two: we defeat fascism, but we are reluctant when it comes to enacting a law that condemns it or, I mean, a law about the legionnaires who are being cornered.
If you look, as someone who knows the Romanian scene well, at these right-wing, anti-communist, as they call themselves, non-socialist and so on, media outlets, the fighters in the mountains have always had a certain aura, even if they were legionaries, because they fought against communism. So, in these areas, if you conduct an honest survey with a large enough sample to give you some validity, you will find that people do have a certain sympathy for those who opposed the communists, even if they were legionnaires or fascists. That remains the case. Films have been made about the fighters in the mountains. There is a cult of these anti-communist fighters.
And, in this anti-communist/post-communist logic, obviously, those who opposed the communists have an aura above their heads. Therefore, we should not criticize them too harshly. Yes, we do not like interwar legionaryism, we do not like interwar fascism, but here we have peasants who were members of the Iron Guard, of the Legionary Party, who fought against the communists, who opposed communism. Therefore, they are not so blameworthy.
And Nicușor Dan falls into this category. It’s simple, it’s been made very clear that he belongs to this category. Think about it, in the 1990s, Humanitas published all the authors who had been closely connected with the Iron Guard: Cioran, Eliade, Petre Țuțea, and so on. They were published on a conveyor belt. There was and still is this idea that, hey, some people fought against communism. What did it matter that they were legionaries? Some of them, not all of them. And so, naturally, Nicușor Dan comes from that area. It’s simple, it’s obvious. Again, it’s no surprise. I mean, it’s not like, “Wow, we’re surprised.” This phenomenon has always existed in the post-communist period. The Legionnaires who fought against the communists were given a blank check. They may be “bad,” but look how cool, they opposed communism, fighting in the mountains, with weapons in their hands.
In the 1990s, Romanian television aired series about the fighters in the mountains, about the people there. Of course, not all of them were legionnaires, let’s not get the wrong idea, but some of them were. And that’s how things were handled. Nicușor Dan didn’t say it explicitly, but he implied it: “Still, they fought against… we have to think about it a little. They were anti-communists.” So there’s a balance between their Legionary past and their anti-communism. A kind of balance is created and they are at zero. So I don’t find this unexpected from Nicușor Dan. I was honestly expecting it.
Alternative austerity measures
Vladimir: You talked a lot about how the measures hit the interests of the underprivileged very hard, while they easily bypass the interests of, let’s say, people who have capital. What can be done differently? Can you please summarize what an alternative austerity program might look like? At least in terms of principles or sources of revenue, or spending cuts. What do you think is at least plausible as an alternative?
Aurelian: First of all, what I find plausible as an alternative, and I’ve told you this before, many economists in Romania, on the left, have said it: you can collect taxes better. Collect taxes better, not exceptionally, not splendidly like the best-performing countries in the European Union. No, but at least at the level of the average for Central and Eastern European countries or the average for former communist countries. Collect taxes in this way and we will see billions of euros coming in from there.
Then, if you want to flatten social inequalities, you simply stop progressive taxation and introduce another type of taxation, namely progressive taxation. The way you tax, how you tax people, whether you tax them differently and whether you allow them to accumulate privileges, and how you collect taxes, these seem fundamental to me. Otherwise, I don’t think the population would say “no” to reforms in the education system, the healthcare system, or the public administration system, or to the elimination of privileges and clientelism. It will never say “no.” Yes, but the reforms that are essential and vital must be carried out, not simply hitting ordinary people just because you can demonstrate that you have taken measures to prevent the country’s rating from falling.
That’s why I think, to sum up, that it’s important how you tax in Romania, whether you widen social gaps or not, and how you collect taxes. And you don’t have to be ultra-efficient. You have to do it exactly as the countries of Central and Eastern Europe do. Within those limits and nothing more. We can be like Hungary, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia. At that level, it would be very good. I think that’s fundamental.
The current government says it wants to eliminate privileges. Will anyone oppose this, except those who are privileged? Does the government really believe that the vast majority of the population suffers because a few privileged people lose their privileges? No, there will be no opposition here. On the contrary, they will be supported. From my point of view, these are essential. And with regard to tax reform, so many solutions have been put forward: how to collect taxes, including through the computerization of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), and so on. It is well known who the big debtors are, including those who owe VAT and unpaid taxes. It is very, very well known. Therefore, if they are exempted, they are exempted with the consent of the state. Period. It’s not that “it’s not known.” That’s… a bad joke. To sum up, these are redistributions from the top down, not from the bottom up, first of all. And second, very good tax collection. And, of course, the constant attempt to raise the minimum wage. Romania is no longer a country that will remain permanently in this dark area of cheap labor. You have to constantly put pressure on the private sector to raise wages. I am absolutely convinced that people in the private sector and in corporations work very hard and do not earn very high wages. But public sector employees are not to blame for this situation.
Expectations for the fall
Vladimir: Let’s conclude with what you said about the autumn being interesting. What are your expectations for the return to normal social and community life in September and beyond? What can we expect from working people or employees? What can we expect from the government, from the main actors in Romanian society?
Aurelian: The education unions say they want to block the start of the school year. We’ll see. I’m skeptical here. With 35 years of experience in post-communist Romania, I believe that the unions will give in at some point and say very simply that they are putting the interests of students above their own and that it is important that students do not suffer. Even if they block one, two, or three days, they will eventually give in. That’s with regard to education.
As for other social categories, I don’t know. There will probably be more strikes this fall because, indeed, the effect of price increases and inflation will be devastating, and many people will see their salaries wiped out. Romania has experienced mass protests before, even during the Băsescu governments, but it seems that things have remained the same.
Things will probably remain unchanged, but there will be small adjustments here and there. I am very skeptical at the moment. No, I don’t see many good things on the horizon. I only see this state of affairs continuing over the next few years and probably being discussed a little more, rehashed around election time. As for the political opposition, I have no confidence whatsoever in today’s political opposition. Basically, from my point of view, it doesn’t exist. There is no political opposition.
So, for citizens in general, for the people of Romania, the vast majority of the population, things will get even worse. That’s about it…
Photo: Bucharest (source: YouTube)
Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and Twitter. Its Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.
About Author
Discover more from The Bridge of Friendship
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
