The waves of revolt were felt in the media, as intellectuals, actors, journalists, historians and all kinds of people took stand against president Traian Basescu’s statements about King Mihai I. I’ve already written last week about it. It’s interesting to note that even some of his well-known supporters apparently left Basescu’s side, telling him bluntly that they need another kind of president.

I’d like to bring to your attention Radu F. Alexandru’s open letter addressed to the head of state, from several reasons. First of all it is a sharp but very decent approach, secondly is critical but founded and thirdly stresses what I think it needs to be stressed: our incumbent president lacks culture and general knowledge.

Mr. Alexandru is a democrat-liberal MP. So, he comes from the president’s side and has never been a critic of government’s or president’s decisions. This week, he failed to keep his head up along the above mentioned and wrote the letter I was speaking about, just after the presidential speech addressed to the parliament. Alexandru is disappointed the president did not try to mend whatever could still be mended during the speech. ‘I believe your remarks regarding the recent history of Romania are inexcusable and unpardonable, proof of an ignorance that disqualifies you (I prefer to speak about ignorance as I refuse to understand it as ill-faith, which would be much more dangerous when implying a head of state).’

Well, the letter is rather long. But the very end is astonishing and reflects the disappointment for many of Basescu’s long-time supporters. ‘I need an answer to the question: Can I still trust the power of discernment and the judgment of the president? As far as I am concerned, with bitterness I admit, the answer is NO,’ Radu F. Alexandru concluded.

It’s sad to note on the other hand that Vladimir Tismaneanu, the very one that wrote the report on communism read by President Traian Basescu in parliament several years ago (pointing to the fact that one of the greatest crimes of the former regime was it altered the constitution and Romania’s political life by forcing the king to abdicate) is one of the few defending the president. Tismaneanu does not agree with the… terms used by Basescu but, however, lashes at others for the manner they reacted to the statements in a way I believe (and many others do) is not to honor him.

So Mr. Basescu is to be defended by fewer but harsher people. They pretend to be ‘people of culture or scientists’ but accept the president’s ignorance, even so, supporting the ignorance instead of using scientific arguments. Isn’t that ignorance by… prolongation? Or is it just servilism, the one lots were used to during Ceausescu’s time?

Maxy