Phillipe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl defined modern democracy as a system of government in which leaders are always

accountable for their actions in the public space for the citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation that takes place in their elected representatives. Politically, democracy is a political system based on the principle of national sovereignty: the state leads the nation through its elected representatives, on the principle of separation of powers, and the equality of all citizens before the law. In Romania, there was a deficiency of democratic political culture, because to participate in the political life the citizens needed to have a certain amount of information, education, which do not occur in the early stage of 1990. The first significant stage in the construction process of democracy is the building of institutions for rule of law. In this period there were social and political dispute, which escalated into violence. However, it is the first step towards democratization, free elections and the adoption by referendum of a new constitution. Another component of democracy that is found in the case of Romania is the alternation in government. Thus, after 1996 there was the first alternation in government - the center-right -, in 2000 we are dealing again with a social democratic government, as in the 2004 elections emerge victorious Dreptate si Adevar Alliance, made up of National Party Liberal and Democratic Party. To see what democracy means for Romania we must return to 1990. The revolution in Romania expresses the regimes shortcomings and the urging of the people about the impending change of Ceausescu. Thus the new regime, which was directly conditioned by the economic shortcomings and urgent problem solving, claimed the strict necessity: food and utilities. These were the most pressing issues of Romania in 1989. Constitution is the guarantor of democracy, but Parliament "was actually a Constitutional Assembly intended to formalize what was already fact, a transformation that was rather meant to break not too hard to get past than a precise point in the future. Romanian estimated way of transition is focused on politically parties and civil rights. These are the elementary conditions for Romanian transition to democracy. Although in political theory the civic society and citizens participation in NGO s structures are elementary conditions for democracy, Eastern European transitional processes are based on institutional engineering or political class consolidation. In this case, the political class is succeeded by the respect for democratic law and for civil rights. Since 2002, Freedom House labels Romanian system as a democratic one and a free country, and the rank for civil rights is 2.00. Thus, this
1

value, which reflects a minimum condition for democracy, has been announcing the incipient phase of civic participation. Romanian system is characterized by two tendencies: i) a political tendency based on the consolidation of political parties and political elites, and on the institutional reform; ii) an economic tendency based on the development of economic policies for macroeconomic growth and free market. In this meaning, we assist to a model characterized by a strong equation: political framework- economic development. If we try to compare this kind of dynamic to western democracies, we have to underline the social variables and conditions for democracy. In Romanian political system the sense of the vectors is from politics to economy and a mechanism of political intervention in free market, in western democracy we have an endogen model where the vectors sense is from civil society to political institutions and actors and to economic dynamic. Western strategy for democracy, which is an endogen process, can be viewed as an optimal model for political changes.1 Romanian democracy exists because democracy is a fashionable trend imposed by the most powerful countries in the world, there is no other foundation, and therefore hardly anyone takes it seriously, it is a formality which, incidentally, we use effective. Last formality check was joining the European Union. The path Romanian democracy became evident only when it was realized, that an alternative route is not practical. And this becomes evident when witnessing discussions about rights in Romania in last 20 years. In addition to academics and university, where discussions are only theoretical, a coherent picture about rights hardly exists. And inconsistency rights approach means lack of political culture. 2 It should not surprise us that the Romanian democracy is in crisis. One can say that democracy is by definition a constant state of crisis. We never know how people drive, you lead the people, and especially if, despite appearances, even lead the people. What we do know is that modern democracy is defined by limiting political power (or so it should be). Modern touch of modernity is performed by liberalism, and it's less about who exercise political power, but first, how this power may be limited. The whole mechanism of the democratic system, the rule related rights, the separation and distribution of powers, the regular change of power is a discourse about power limit, not expand them. Therefore, the only acceptable model of state for democracy is one of the minimal state. Any expansion of the state does not bring more democracy but less.

1 2

http://ro.scribd.com/doc/49146376/DEMOCRATIA-IN-ROMANIA http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1907749

The only involvement of the state must be related only to the recognition and protection of natural rights. When the state institutions "grant" rights (called "positive," "social" and so on), that can not only be done violating the natural rights of man. And this is because the right is about human nature is limited. No institution has a "deposit rights" in that they can "extract" and "give" when you need them. The only way it can be done is by reducing other rights. Another limitation is that the interventionist measures in economic freedom inevitably lead to the collapse of political freedom. Although the warning is decades old, is often seen as a more ideological dispute movement between capitalism and communism, ignoring the very clear message, states didnt intervene only in communist state, but also one of the more incisive contemporary Western democracies. The mechanism is very simple: whenever an action of an individual is limited by regularization, the state intervention on behalf of principles related to good sharing or social justice, the ability of that individual to be an active political actor, as a citizen of a coherent and consolidated democracy is diminished. 3 From the perspective of superficial analyzes, Romania is a missed democracy. The explanation seems simple and complicated at the same time. Simple, because as it is clear from qualitative studies (institutional analysis, case study, "Comparative Politics", theory and applications of democracy, political parties and coalitions theories, theories on civil society interest groups and pressure groups, etc.), but also quantitative (to us almost exclusively surveys, which measure the "opinions" of people, at times determined or over a longer period ), the institutions of democracy would not have worked better than the occasional post-communist Romania, and their effectiveness was often reduced. We include the effort of political forces that succeeded to take the country out of the "gray zone" in the area of interest Geopolitics and out of the influence of the USSR and Russia, which was done in a constructive manner by integrating in NATO and the EU. 4 Joining the European Union has changed the nature of democracy in the new member states. EU membership has complicated the structure of democratic decision making it more multilayered and polycentric. EU membership has improved the skills that are not majority institutions such as the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, and various regulatory agencies. National parliaments tend to be less powerful players, democratic, after a

3 4

http://www.sferapoliticii.ro/sfera/165/art14-Plesca.php http://www.scribd.com/doc/74479785/teoria-democratiei-ratate#download

country joins the European Union and even before, the process of EU accession proved that. EU membership has expanded, too, democratic public space. As a consequence democratic decision within the European Union must host a more diverse range of interests and cultural orientations. Giving citizens greater access to European decision-making seems to be the most urgent in the new member states from Central and Eastern Europe, whose citizens feel particularly detached from the process.5 Democracy in a nation-state government has a clear center and clear allocation of competences. The system is very hierarchical, although some countries allow a substantial devolution of power to local units. Moreover, operating limits correspond generally to those authorities. Government enjoys legal powers, economic and administrative territory across the state. European governance structure, however, is more complicated, with many implications for democracy. EU governance operates at several levels: European, national, regional (one should add that in Central and Eastern Europe was the European integration process that led to the creation of independent regions, the European Commission, insisting that regional institutions will be set up to manage the structural Funds). After Romania joined the European Union things have changed in the democratic system. In the article "The quality of democracy after joining the European Union", Jan Zielonka examines the implications of EU accession countries in Central and Eastern Europe have on the democratic process in these countries. Jan Zielonka highlighting his analysis on three implications that joining the European Union has on national states. The most obvious implication is that membership of the European decision-making process involves amplifying complexity. If within a national state decisions are usually hierarchically from central government to local police power (although in some countries there is a greater decentralization), government institutions enjoying the right to exercise power throughout the national state, as regards the European institutional system things are more complex. Complexity is based primarily on the fact that European governance operates at multiple levels: European, national and plus regional. The European Union authority is divided and dispersed among several government centers, and whose tasks are not strictly separate components. The complex multilateral nature of European governance is problematic in terms of democracy, leading

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55606431/Calitatea-democra%C5%A3iei-dup%C4%83-aderarea-la-UniuneaEuropean%C4%83

inevitably to decrease transparency of decision making. It is noted in particular the lack of separation of powers. However, versatility, multi-level allows greater flexibility and it is particularly necessary since there are still significant differences in terms of economic, social, cultural, so that a holistic approach uniform the problems faced by Member States, would be a fiasco from the start. The second implication author spotlights aimed low representativeness of Parliament. Contemporary democracies are representative democracies the rule under which Parliament plays a decisive role primarily because they enjoy legitimacy obtained directly from the citizens. Parliament operates by majority, who holds the majority in Parliament has the power in the state. Things are quite different in the European Union where the European Parliament's powers are more restricted. Although competencies that institution have increased over time, the European Parliament is the only legislative power (like a national parliament), its role in appointing the executive is insignificant, and the institutions that are not guided by the principle of the majority in decision-making, enjoy broader powers (for the Commission, the European Council). A third part of the analysis focuses on questioning the existence of a European demos that are made public policies. Regarding the formation of European identities are very delicate things, most citizens feel connected primarily by their nationality and Symbols. Moreover, there is still the perception of community citizens cleavage Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe. In the Romanian context, the major argument of the need for limiting the abuse of political power, perhaps the strongest support for a minimal liberal state is to eradicate corruption and incompetence. When the politician has no access to public funds, because they no longer exist, its role in society can be reduced to the basic objective: good governance.6

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45453083/Calitatea-democra%C8%9Biei-dup%C4%83-aderarea-la-UniuneaEuropean%C4%83