by Peter H Frank | Feb 15, 2020 | Politics |
Nearly 30 years ago, I was sitting in an office at Bloomberg News when Mike Bloomberg stopped by.
The room, I think, had windows to the outside, but no one looked. Instead, what kept everyone’s attention was the activity beyond the full glass wall that faced the bustling center of the headquarter’s atrium, where large shelves offered free food to employees.
When Bloomberg unexpectedly came in, he introduced himself with a handshake and a smile. Friendly, quick-witted, and irreverent, he fidgeted in a chair near the door facing me. With an engaging, large ego on display, he was clearly master of this world.
So, as he talked to me, holding court, and glancing distractedly and repeatedly through the glass wall, it came as small surprise when he suddenly perked up and, guiding all our attention to a pretty young woman wearing a fashionable, short skirt, said, “Somebody make sure she gets hired.” The three of us men chuckled.
At the moment it happened, I knew Bloomberg’s comment was inappropriate. He should not have said it. Looking back, I should not have laughed. But the unexpected tastelessness, and my desire to be considered one of the boys, prodded me on. And that, I am certain, is precisely why he said it.
Such are the stories that most men, and more importantly, most women of a certain age know all too well. How times have changed – a little anyway – and thank God for that.
Of course, this still happens. The #MeToo movement is needed. But if the movement is succeeding at all, it has to do with awareness and change. Because society cannot change if people don’t change.
And that, in a nutshell, is what’s so illuminating about a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in late January. It found a full 53 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds supported Sanders for president, compared with just 7 percent of the Woodstock generation.
Yes, at first glance, it appears we’re a bunch of establishment fuddy-duddies who’ve lost our ideals as our hair turned grey. Although I’m not quite in that generation, I think I can speak for the former Summer of Lovers when I say we know well the appeal of certain platitudes, especially when you’ve not heard them before.
But we are not not progressive. We are not not idealistic. Some of us in our teens even absorbed the writings of Eugene Debs and admired Tom Hayden, if not Abbie Hoffman.
No, we’re not young, but that means we’re also not as susceptible to simplistic idealism, the type fueled more by passion than real-world solutions. And no matter how authentic the pitch, the more superpumpedness set before us – whether in Silicon Valley or Washington – the more skeptical we are of what’s underneath.
I know very well the culture in which Bloomberg flourished. And I know that behavior does not stop overnight when it is reinforced and encouraged by all those around you. Like me, sitting there, rewarding him with laughter.
As D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser remarked recently, she’s “pretty sure that all of us can imagine Wall Street 30 years ago, male-dominated. And I think we would all be very naive if we thought a lot of crude remarks didn’t happen.” And we know she is right.
From George McGovern and Millicent Fenwick to John McCain and Barack Obama, I’ve spent my life – like many others in my generation – hoping for leaders who will bring change. Most of us remember the assassinations and George Wallace, the Vietnam War and the first Earth Day, two-hour gas lines and 18-percent mortgages.
I’ve been lucky enough to live through the decades it has taken for much of society to finally recognize, address, oppose, and fix at least some of the rampant sexism, racism, antisemitism, and homophobia that was around me in childhood.
From middle school when our baseball coach publicly referred to my black teammates with unprintable epithets that did not include the N-word but were equally abhorrent. To the angry shout of “Jew” I would hear on the playground. To the parents’ obvious whispers as a young neighbor walked by after her abortion. To my friends sent to juvenile correction for smoking Mary Jane. To the fear of my friends when they had to “come out.” And to the world of chauvinism and racism I saw in the 70s growing up near New York.
These things are not gone, but our country is better (despite recent setbacks). Yes, there’s a long way to go. But society has changed because people have changed.
“I shall perhaps change soon, not accidentally but intentionally…,” Montaigne observed, “either because I myself have become different or because I grasp hold of different attributes or aspects of my subjects.”
So, as I watch the debates, I can’t help wondering why the moderators insist on questioning why, over so many years, some on that stage have changed their positions. And I wonder, very simply, how could they not?
Wouldn’t a more illuminating question be how any of them cling to positions that have barely budged for more than three decades? Haven’t things changed? I’d like them to ask, in the words of Montaigne, do you grasp nothing new?
We all know what happens when a person can’t change. We are watching a president incapable of learning, which means nothing less than he is incapable of change. Being unable or unwilling are effectively the same.
Whether Mike Bloomberg has changed, I do not know. Whether his charitable giving has been contrived for votes or is in genuine recognition of his current beliefs or his many past failings, again I don’t know. Will I vote for him? I’m decidedly undecided.
It’s not a matter of forgiveness. It’s a basic understanding – the type that comes as you climb up the levels of those survey demographics.
Because I, for one, know I’m not the same person I was when sitting in that chair in the early 1990s. My life has changed. My humor has changed. My understanding has changed. And I’m confident that my reaction today to Bloomberg’s comment back then most certainly has changed.
(Cover photo updated Feb. 20, 2020)
by Peter H Frank | May 29, 2015 | Culture, How I Know I'm Not in New York, Life in Romania, Politics |
“A Tall Blonde”
It’s been a very busy spring, but after an urgent phone call from my Romanian friend Remus, we had a chance to catch up.
“Hey Remus. Over here!!”
“Hello, my friend.”
The Romanian Parliament. [Source: http://www.rri.ro/en_gb/parliament_to_resume_its_activity-21585]
“Yes, yes, I want to talk to you.”
“Wait, wait, wait. Hang on a second.”
“So, how was the US?”
“It was good. Wait, wait.”
“What are you looking at? Oh, the news.”
“Look at that. There goes another one.”
“Another one?”
“Yeah. See? Another government official – this time a minister – heading off to jail. It’s unbelievable.”
“Yeah. It’s great isn’t it?”
“Well, I don’t know if it’s great. It’s good they’re catching them. But it’s sad.”
“No, it’s not sad. It’s great!! Listen, listen. This is what I wanted to talk to you about.”
“What do you mean?”
“I’m going to become a politician!”
“What?! Remus, what?! What are you talking about?”
“Yeah, that’s great, huh? And it’s because these guys are going to jail. Thank god for jails, right?!”
“Remus, no, it’s not great. But wait. What are you talking about? How are you going to be a politician?”
“Ah, it’s fantastic! I should have thought of this years ago. Let me tell you what happened.”
“But….”
“Wait. Wait. Let me tell you. So my sister has a new boyfriend.”
“Ok.”
“Yeah, just a couple weeks. Anyway, she’s talking to him on the phone the other day and he says, just suddenly, ‘I want to make your brother a politician.’ Yeah, that’s right. Just like that. Do you believe it? The guy says he can get me into parliament with no problem and I won’t have to do anything.”
“Remus, hold it. That’s really strange. Even for you. What are you talking about?”
“Well, you know, he’s a politician. And he says he knows all the right people and there’s nothing to it.”
“What?”
“Yeah, that’s right!!”
“Has he met you?”
“No. Why?”
“Well, nevermind.”
“Can you believe it? Seriously. A real job. Can you imagine? Great food. Free trips. Nice clothes. A car. A car with a blue light on top!! No responsibilities. And so much money, I won’t know what to do with it all.”
“Remus, I don’t think it’s…..”
“Have you seen those guys’ watches?? And their houses????? They have like 10 of them. Oh, and girlfriends!!??? Who knows how many of those?? And the guy who cuts my hair said some of them even get paid in gold bars. It’s like free. All you have to do is get elected. Or appointed. Or whatever.”
“Remus, wait. Really. I’m completely confused. You can’t just come out of no place and suddenly be in parliament.”
“Ha. Have I ever told you how American you are? Of course you can. Where do you think these guys come from? And the best part is, my sister’s boyfriend says there is a huge opportunity right now. He said there’s really a need. Uh huh. That’s right. He said the country’s about to run out of them. In fact, he said if things keep going like they’re going, there won’t be any politicians left!! So he says for the good of the country, I have to do it.”
“But Remus. You don’t have any experience. In fact, you’ve never actually had a real job. Not for long, anyway.”
“Yes, I know. I know.”
“In fact, when we first met, you had no idea what you were doing.”
“Yeah, I know. My uncle owned the company. They fired me after he went to jail.”
“Remus, I was going to fire you!!”
“I know, I don’t have any experience. You’re not the first one to mention that. My sister said the same thing, but then she told her boyfriend. And you know what? He said that’s perfect!! He said none of the politicians have experience. He said it just gets in the way. He said it’s better if you come in with no ideas at all.”
“Really?”
“Yeah, he said they even make fun of the guys with experience. They call them, umm, techno-rats, or something.”
“Yeah, I think the term is techno-crats.”
“Yeah? Maybe. Anyway, who wants to be called a rat? Not me.”
“Ok, ok. Not to be completely negative, let’s say this is possible. Let’s say you’re just given a seat in parliament. And you don’t have to do anything. You still have to show up, right?”
“Of course. That’s why I get the car. It is a real job, you know.”
“Ok, but when you do show up, you’ll need to know something – or pretend to know something. If nothing else, you need to know enough so you’ll know how to vote.”
“Oh, that’s easy. The guy said not to worry. He’d let me know.”
“What do you mean?”
“Yeah, he said someone would stop by my desk before anything happened and let me know what to do. He said that’s how everybody does it.”
“Ok, but what if you’re asked a question or something? What do you know about parliament? Or the government here?”
“Listen, I went to school. I’m not an idiot, you know. I vote.”
“You do?”
“Yeah, once. Almost.”
“Ok. So you’ve read the constitution?”
“Hey, dude, leave me alone with the constitution!”*
“Remus. What are you 12? You can’t say things like that. But wait. Ok. This is really confusing. Ok, but let’s say it’s possible. So what part of the country are you going to represent?”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, you have to be a senator or whatever from somewhere.”
“I know that. But I don’t know. My sister didn’t have a chance to ask him.”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, when he was talking to my sister, someone stole his phone.”
“Someone stole the guy’s phone while he was talking on it!? Really? When did that happen?”
“A couple days ago.”
“And…”
“And?”
“And what did he say when he called back?”
“Yeah, well, he hasn’t been able to. Not yet.”
“No?”
“Maybe I’ll get a blue Maserati.”
“What? No wait. What do you mean he hasn’t been able to?”
“They’re not really supposed to have phones.”
“Who?”
“The prisoners.”
“The guy’s in prison?!!!!”
“Just for a little while.”
“What?”
“Ok, a couple of years.”
“A couple of years?! This guy, your sister’s boyfriend – or whatever – is in prison?!”
“Yeah, but he said it’s ok. He said the months are going by pretty fast.”
“Months? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You just told me they’ve been dating a few weeks. You mean your sister started dating a guy who’s in prison?”
“Yeah, but hey, it’s not like he’s a bad guy. He’s young. He’s really nice. She said he’s really well-prepared.”
“Well-prepared for what?”
“I don’t know, but that’s what she said. My sister said he’s really cute. Well, she hasn’t met him yet. But from the TV, she said he looks really cute. Short, yes, but cute. Anyway, he didn’t really do anything wrong. My sister said he was just doing his job.”
“What? What do you mean she hasn’t met him yet?”
“Well, you know that she’s on that dating site. She’s had a bit of a problem finding a boyfriend, you know, that problem she has. Anyway, apparently this guy was a bit bored and, well, I guess after a few months, he got lonely. So they met on the site. Now they’re dating.”
“I don’t know if I’d call that dating exactly.”
“It is for my sister.”
“Well, yes. I suppose.”
“And he said it’s not so bad for now. It’s like a reunion. The best part, he said, is that when he gets out, he knows lots of places to buy things tax free.”
“Yes, I suppose he would.”
“Maybe I’ll get a Rolex.”
“You know, Remus, this is not a game. This is very serious stuff.”
“Well, maybe. But it’s just politics.”
“Just politics? Remus, it’s criminal activity!!”
“No, it just looks like that. My sister’s boyfriend says it’s that Basescu and that other lady. And I’m telling you, I think he’s right. And you know why I think so? You know how I know? Did you see a little while ago the head the investigative agency here got arrested. That woman. Whatsername. The one in Paris. I mean you know what her job was? She’s the head of the investigative agency for the WHOLE COUNTRY. And then, THEN….the head of that something integrity office – the NATIONAL integrity office! You hear me? IN-TE-GRI-TY!!! – I mean, c’mon. Seriously. How’s the guy in charge of this country’s INTEGRITY going do something wrong??!!! They wouldn’t let him if he tried!!! So when THOSE TWO get arrested, you know it’s political. No sir. Someone is trying to get rid of them. Someone definitely set them up. You know what I think, it’s that lady Kvetch. Well, and Basescu.”
“You mean Kovesi?”
“Yeah, that’s what I said.”
“No, you said Kvetch. Kvetch means….”
“Whatever. And probably the Americans too. It’s you guys. You know that. You do.”
“Remus….”
“Ok, maybe not all of you. But you and the Europeans and probably some others. They don’t like us. You know, if you were Romanian, you would know that. They never liked us. You don’t know our history. Nobody likes us.”
“Remus, I really think you might be missing something.”
“No, I’m not. And you know what? You know how else I know it’s political?”
“How?”
“You don’t think I know the constitution? You asked me about the constitution? Ok. You know the most important thing in the constitution?”
“No. What?”
“You don’t know? I know. You want to know the most important thing in the constitution?”
“Yes, please. What are you talking about?”
“The most important thing is that we are a democracy. It says it in the constitution. Right? Romania is a democracy.”
“Ok. I don’t know that it says it that way. But yes, it’s a democracy.”
“And what’s the basis of a democracy?”
“Well, it starts with the principle that…”
“I’ll tell you. Majority rules! No more single guy, no more single bad guy can tell us all what to do. We vote. And you now what? We do what we want. And the majority rules.”
“Ok.”
“So let me ask you a question. This lady bigshot Kvetch says all the politicians are crooks.”
“Well, no, I don’t think she ever said that.”
“Ok, but she acts like it. So let me ask you, if they are crooks, then they’re not doing anything illegal.”
“What?”
“Well, because if she’s right, and everyone is a crook, everyone would be a majority, wouldn’t it? So if everyone does something, it can’t be illegal. Majority rules. See?”
“Remus, what? What? Wait. What?”
“Hmmm. Uh-huh.”
“Democracy doesn’t mean you just let people go because everyone does something.”
“No? Everyone parks on the sidewalk. You see any tickets?”
“Remus, I don’t know.”
“I wonder what color I should dye my hair.”
“What? What? Hey, are you listening to me!!?”
“You ever notice how many of those guys dye their hair? They’re old, they’re like, I don’t know, they’re like over 50 – oh sorry – and they have hair like, like, I don’t know, like Smiley. Hell, no one has hair like Smiley, I mean not if you’re more than 20. So what color do you think I should be?”
“Remus, I think your hair is fine. I think, be to honest, you have a lot of other things to worry about than your hair.”
“Like what?”
“I don’t know. Well, you might have to write laws.”
“Don’t be silly. Politicians don’t write the laws.”
“Huh?”
“Politicians here don’t write anything. Even in school. We hire people for that. That’s why we’re politicians. C’mon you’ve been here for years. Don’t you know anything?”
“Oh, now it’s WE’RE politicians? That was quick. But wait, when did you say your sister’s boyfriend was getting out of prison?”
“In a couple years.”
“Well, for one thing, there’s an election next year. You’re going to have to run in an election.”
“Ok.”
“Well, that is going to require some preparation and some money. Remus, you don’t have any money.”
“No no no. My sister told him. He said he’s got a couple friends and money was no problem. Whatever I needed.”
“Wait. No.”
“Yes. He said he can call them anytime – well, I guess when he can find a phone – and they’ll bring over whatever I need.”
“No no no. Wait. You can’t do that. Remus, I don’t want to be visiting you in prison. You can’t just take money from strangers. You’ll need to report it. To someone. At least, I’m pretty sure.”
“Ok.”
“Well, that’s a lot of paperwork. Do you know how to do that?”
“Paperwork? Like what?”
“I don’t know. In the US, any donation more than $200 has to be publicly disclosed. So you have to keep track of it, give a receipt, report it, send in forms. Things like that.”
“Oh, yeah, I’m pretty sure we do that here, too.”
“Really? You have the same law? That’s good.”
“Yes, almost the same. Except I think it’s the opposite.”
“What?”
“Well, the guy told my sister something about the fact that I needed to keep track of any money I get over a certain amount.”
“Ok.”
“To make sure no one finds out. I think that must be the law.”
“Ummm, Remus, I doubt it.”
“Well, maybe not a law exactly. But, he said, that’s the rule. So that’s what we do. I guess we just do that voluntarily.”
“Yes, maybe.”
“We wouldn’t want anyone to get in trouble for denying the right to secret ballot, or secret giving, or whatever.”
“No, of course not. So what did that boyfriend say will happen when he gets out in a couple of years?”
“What do you mean?”
“When he and the others get out of jail.”
“Who?”
“The politicians.”
“What about them?”
“They will want their old jobs back.”
“Why?”
“For the same reasons you want their job.”
“Well, I don’t know. I don’t think they can do that. That doesn’t seem fair.”
“No, I suppose not.”
“They can’t come back. They were in prison.”
“I know.”
“Are they allowed to do that?”
“I don’t know. I think so.”
“Well, that doesn’t seem right. I mean, they almost destroyed this country. They can’t come back and do it again! Can they? And kick me out of a job.”
“I don’t know if you can stop them.”
“Well, we should. We should figure out a way.”
“Yes, actually, this time, I think I agree with you.”
“They can’t take my stuff.”
“I don’t know if that’s the right reason. But you know, it won’t be that easy.”
“Wait. No. They can’t have their jobs back. They won’t have lived anywhere. They can’t be politicians if they don’t live someplace.”
“Remus, they still have their house. Or houses.”
“You mean they get to keep them?”
“Well, it seems they do.”
“Really? That’s not right.”
“So they’ll just become mayor or a senator again.”
“Oh.”
“And actually, I think they still have most of their money.”
“Really? You think so? Even the money they stole?”
“I’m afraid so.”
“Then why did they bother sending them to jail?”
“They broke the law. They were sent to jail to punish them.”
“That’s not much punishment.”
“I don’t know. Prison’s not very nice.”
“Really? You don’t think so? I know some villages they should send them to if they wanted to punish them. I mean really punish them. I know one, it’s way up north…..”
“Remus.”
“Yeah, ok, right. Anyway, if they really want to punish them, they should take all their money and their girlfriends and stuff.”
“I’m not sure they can find it all.”
“Oh, yeah It’s hidden, huh? Like in Madagascar or someplace?”
“I guess.”
“You know if they started finding it all, then you know what?”
“What?”
“Then I say then we give them a choice. They can either give back all the money they stole – which would be everything – EVERYTHING – plus maybe a little more to teach them a lesson. And let’s say if they do that, they could stay out of jail.”
“Ok.”
“Or, we’ll make them a deal. They can keep it ALL – no matter how much it is – ALL of it – we won’t even look for it – if – IF – they move away and never come back. Never visit. Never call. Never take my job.”
“Hmm. You know, Remus, sometimes you’re a pretty smart guy.”
“See?”
“That really would be interesting. A fresh start here. A real fresh start. You know, yes indeed, that might be just the thing. You know what we could do then? Remus. Hey, you know what we could do then? Remus?”
“A blonde. That’s it. Definitely. I think I’ll get a tall blonde, maybe from Moldova.”
###
FOOTNOTE: * Special thanks from Remus to UNPR Senator Ruxandra Jipa.
by Peter H Frank | Nov 12, 2014 | Journalism, Politics |
“Criticism by politicians and politically motivated media attacks on individual judges, prosecutors and members of their families, and on judicial and prosecutorial institutions, have been a particular concern…”
European Commission (Jan. 22, 2014)
By Peter H. Frank and Roxana-Maria Gaina
(Nov. 12, 2014) The arrests keep coming. New allegations every week. Hundreds of politicians and the politically connected, from the powerful and famous to little-known officials, are being investigated, indicted, or imprisoned for money laundering, bribe-taking, influence peddling, abuse of power and more.
This year alone, more than 100 of Romania’s political elite have been indicted, including eight members of parliament, six county presidents, and 21 mayors, newly released data show. That does not include the more than 120 others who have been publicly accused by prosecutors, arrested, or announced as suspects, or the dozens more who were convicted.
In all sectors and industries, DNA investigations led to the indictment of 834 people through October this year, according to new figures, while more than 1000 people have been convicted.
Where the prosecutions will end and what lasting impact they will have is not yet clear. What is clear, though, is that much of the country’s political foundation is being ruptured, leading some to allege it is a conspiracy against certain political parties while others plainly claim it is a much-needed cleansing of systemic corruption that is destroying this country.
While an analysis of the available data cannot support either side’s claim with any certainty, it is clear from an extensive review of public data that one political party consistently accounts for the preponderance of corruption cases: the PSD.
Number of politically connected individuals named as subjects of accusation, indictment, arrest or conviction by the DNA in the first 10 months of 2014 sorted by political affiliation.
CLICK HERE to view the pdf file.
In fact, in the first 10 months of this year, 44 percent of individuals who could be identified with clear political affiliations and were named by the Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie (DNA) as subjects of accusation, indictment, arrest or conviction were affiliated with the PSD. In all, through October, 105 of the 237 individuals in this category were associated with the PSD. And its representation among those suspected, accused or arrested is increasing as the cases grow in complexity and scope. The PDL and PNL each accounted for 19 percent of the total.
A general impression that DNA activities involving politicians are increasing also proves correct. In the past three years alone, nearly 400 politicians and the politically connected have been the subject of prosecutors here while many of the most powerful and wealthy, seemingly untouchable a few years ago, have ended up in prison.
Indeed, this year’s spate of DNA announcements has arguably reached such a level that specific cases and names and cash amounts and crimes have created a foreground of details that can become increasingly blurred in the overwhelming landscape of corruption. And ironically, as the number of serious crimes being uncovered is on the rise, it often appears the media’s attention and the public’s interest merely slides the other way.
For that reason, we decided to look at all the indictments and investigations announced by the DNA since the agency’s founding in 2002, try to determine whether the people involved were politically connected, and if so, what might be deduced from an analysis of the data. In all, we reviewed nearly 4000 press releases in the DNA’s database and attempted to identify those individuals who had, at the time of announcement or previously, strong political associations.
* * *
[NOTE: The judgment that some people did or did not have political associations was not scientific. We could establish no firm and incontestable criteria. In other words, we do not claim that we used a pure measure, merely approximate based on our best judgment. We focused primarily on those we identified as politically involved and their families. There are also some names that appear more than once on this list. For statistical purposes, we included them each time and did not limit them to only one appearance in our calculations. There are also several politicians who have changed political parties, sometimes more than once. We have done our best to identify these individuals and we either used our best judgment as to which party to assign them or we placed them in the “Other” category. Also, we have attempted to proofread ourselves. But errors can occur and we encourage readers to bring any such errors to our immediate attention.]
* * *
Number of politically connected individuals named as subjects in DNA press releases from its inception in 2002 through October 2014 sorted by political affiliation.
To our knowledge, this is the only such database that exists, which we find regrettable. It is important to note that the details here cannot disclose any political motivations on the part of investigators, however much some parties might try. There is nothing self-evident except for the names and numbers. Importantly, there are no political conclusions that can be made – except by those who specialize more in propaganda than in facts.
What the evidence can support, however, is the belief that this is clearly a critical time in the modern history of Romania, long considered one of the most corrupt nations in the European Union. And it increasingly appears that much of the economic success of Romania, and with it the country’s accession into the EU, was based on a foundation of endemic corruption from the time society here found its capitalistic footing in the 1990s through the booming first 10 years of the 21st century.
Because of the overwhelming involvement of the political class in these investigations and prosecutions, the battles, of course, have been used as political weapons by both sides. And because of such attempts [see, for example, an Oct. 22 headline in Jurnalul National, controlled by Dan Voiculescu, a PSD-friendly politician who is currently in prison: “DNA’s goal: Destroy the PSD”] it appeared to us as a self-evident necessity to try to measure such claims.
From outside, it is impossible to know and unfair to say whether the recent acceleration of prosecutions have had a political motive or whether they are a natural consequence of one investigation leading to others, or one conviction leading to more confessions.
Perhaps it’s a consequence of an increasing number of investigators being hired by the DNA. Or an increased aggressiveness that comes from a heightened morale as prosecutors begin to see more convictions and prison sentences meted out in recent years. Perhaps it also has to do with an increased expertise among investigators in uncovering and understanding complex conspiracies. And perhaps it’s an outcome of a 2010 provision that provides for leniency to people who confess and collaborate with prosecutors.
Number of politically connected individuals named as subjects in DNA press releases in 2013 sorted by political affiliation.
(For its part, the DNA insists that there are no political considerations in any of its investigations. It is, for example, why party affiliation is never mentioned in their press releases. It does not matter, a spokeswoman said.)
So whether it’s a political conspiracy or a much-needed cleansing cannot be determined merely by looking at the data. Yet, no matter the numbers, the extent of corruption is not likely to surprise Romanians. People in this country already know well the pervasiveness of corruption whether in politics, in education, in health care, and beyond. According to a survey in early 2013 by the European Commission, a full 93 percent of Romanians believe corruption here is either very or fairly widespread with two-thirds of respondents saying it had gotten worse in the previous three years.
And while some of those under attack by prosecutors would cast the DNA as a villain, much of the public here apparently trust in its actions. In fact, in Romania, where far fewer people than the European average trust the police or the courts to deal with corruption, more than three times the average trust their local anti-corruption agency, in this case the DNA. In fact, the DNA is trusted more here than any political body, the central bank, and yes, the media.
Even so, attacks on the DNA continue, giving rise to worries from the European Commission.
“Criticism by politicians and politically motivated media attacks on individual judges, prosecutors and members of their families, and on judicial and prosecutorial institutions, have been a particular concern …” an EC report stated earlier this year.
Number of politically connected individuals indicted by the DNA in the first 10 months of 2014 sorted by political affiliation.
And recent attempts by the PSD-led government to sidestep certain procedures involving the DNA or Parliament’s passage a year ago of amendments that could effectively remove those in Parliament from laws against bribe taking, trading in influence and abuse of office – a move that was found unconstitutional in Romania and attracted heavy criticism from the EU – are also reasons for concern.
In many ways, corruption, it seems, remains an accepted practice in business and politics. As another EC report concluded in January this year: “Whilst investigations, indictment and convictions are taking place, there is evidence that corruption is not always treated as a serious crime. Within the judicial system, the high percentage of suspended sentences seems to illustrate a reluctance by judges to carry through the consequences of a guilty verdict – in contradiction of the sentencing guidelines of the High Court itself.”
(In the first 288 days of last year, the report said, there were 853 defendants convicted in cases brought by the DNA. Nearly 80 percent of them were given suspended sentences.)
Then there is the money – the reason for most of the crimes to begin with. Perhaps more than prison, the threat of losing one’s wealth can potentially be the strongest deterrent available. But not here.
“Another important issue in this respect will be to improve track records in confiscation of assets and asset recovery. Extended confiscation, to allow for assets to be confiscated from relatives, still remains a scant and relatively rarely-used procedure,” the report said.
“This reluctance is underlined when Romanian politicians make statements which express sympathy for those convicted of corruption.”
In all, less than 10 percent of court-specified damages are recovered by the Romanian Asset Recovery Office, the EC report stated, adding that “it seems that the public authorities responsible for recovering these damages only rarely pursue the cases.”
Number of politically connected individuals named by the DNA as suspected, accused, or arrested for alleged criminal activity in the first 10 months of 2014.
While these additional issues deserve more attention and creative ways of bringing them alive to the public, they are not the primary concern of this database.
It is our desire that this spreadsheet is a beginning, not a final document. It has been posted less to answer questions than to provide details to the landscape. It is our belief that it is long overdue for this publicly available information to be compiled in one place to help shed light on the environment of corruption in this country. We hope it leads to someone providing periodic updates, more informative stories, more balanced articles, and more detailed studies by the press at large. We know it might be purposefully misconstrued by those with an obvious, or not-so-obvious, agenda, but we have no control over that. Only solid and responsible journalism can counter those attempts.
Given the political atmosphere in this country, other salient facts include:
• Of the 725 individuals we identified as politically connected and subjects of the DNA and named in their press releases since the agency’s founding in 2002, more than 95 percent occurred since Oct. 2, 2006 when Laura Codruta Kovesi became general prosecutor.
• Of all politically related announcements since 2002, 35 percent involved people with PSD affiliations, 22 percent with PDL and 17 percent with the PNL.
• The number of politically related persons who were subjects of DNA announcements has increased significantly in the past two years, climbing roughly 50 percent from previous years to 100 individuals in 2013 and to 237 in just the first 10 months of this year.
• In 2013, the percentage of PSD affiliated persons who were named in DNA press releases was 26 percent of the total compared with 18 percent for the PNL and 14 percent for the PDL.
• Of those individuals named more specifically as suspects or were accused or arrested in the first 10 months this year, 57 percent were associated with the PSD, while the PNL accounted for only 17 percent and the PDL for 16 percent. Much of the increase in PSD representation stemmed from the presence of several large cases.
• Of those individuals indicted through October this year, PSD-associated individuals accounted for 29 percent while the PDL represented 24 percent and the PNL was at 19 percent.
• Importantly, much of the overall increase in the number of people named in 2014 came as the scope and apparent complexities of the investigations also increased. Nearly 40 percent more individuals were involved on average in each of the cases listed on this database than in 2013.
[Editor’s note: This article and database were amended on Nov. 27, 2014, to incorporate reader suggestions and reflect minor adjustments to some party affiliations. While some statistics changed, no significant differences resulted.]
###
