I know that most of us dislike politics, but it exists. Removing the mirror, the image reflected in it disappears, but the real object. We do not solve problems by ignoring them.

¶. Many American friends asked me how is life in nowadays Romania. What is interesting is that all of them have the same lake of understanding about what happens in the real life, because they are victims of the system in which they live. All of us are like this. I must confess that, in my turn, I am not different. I would like to know more about the life in some central African areas, for instance, but I have not enough patience to read about them, even if I realised that I could learn many interesting things. In the same way, why other people from more developed countries would be interested in the Romanian's life? That explains why people ask questions, but does not listen the answers. (And still I try to give answers!) We all think in archetypes, in patterns, previously done in our education. From this reason, often we cannot understand some different situations, and put our patterns on other life.

It is true, I had the opportunity of being present to the ascension, decline and collapse of the communist system. I know how worked the wheels of all its gearings. And still, it is very difficult to explain shortly what really happens.

¶. The pure democracy does not yield prosperity, but chaos. Occidental countries are prosperous; consequently, they are not quite democratic. It sounds like a paradox. Is it one? Is USA really a democratic country? Not at all! Otherwise, it would be impossible. (In a hundred per cent democratic system, people will elect Barabbas, not Jesus) About the meetings in the old Greece - country where the word democracy was born - Cyrus (mentioned by Herodotus) said that agora is the place where the Greeks come for cheat one another. (How small is the difference between chat and cheat!) The nowadays democracy is not more than a word efficiently used by politicians in order to lead the people, common people especially. (If voting could really change things, it would be illegal, said a wit) What could be a real democracy? A country where stupid but many people elect their "clever men" to lead the country? Let's be serious! It would be such a great ineptitude that even the electors would not accept it. What really happens? The idea of democracy leads to the universal vote. Every people have the right to vote. But people are not organized, so that the first initiative come from some active persons, the politicians, who build the necessary organism for attracting as many electors as they can. They will develop propaganda adequate to their political conviction, in order to make them known. But a few people understand politics. Much more people are ignorant. And then, the sly politicians develop a demagogic propaganda, particularly adequate to stupid people. This is the way of the communism. Russian experience proved that this way is wrong. A clever man learns from other's mistakes. Occidental counties know that it is more important to keep the equilibrium. And people understand that it is not so wise to impose your own opinions. Sometimes it is good to listen what others say; maybe they know better. And the equilibrium is possible if those in power do not stay too long in power. This is what East European democracies did not do: Stalin, Brezhnev, Ceausescu stayed a lot. USA succeeded in keeping the equilibrium.

During the communist years, Russian official propaganda used to say that the former USSR and occupied countries were being democratic countries, while the occidental ones were some capitalist ones, namely bad. Now, we are democratic again, but of capitalist inspiration, even if the capital lacks us.

What I am remarking in USA - the symbol of the democracy - is the similarity of its nowadays propaganda with that of the Russians in 50's years. What makes the difference is the USA is a prosperous country, while the East European countries still have precarious economies, in a fragrant contradiction with the communist propaganda.

Yes, the democracy is conditioned by prosperity. We may speak about democracy only in a prosperous country. Instead, only an authority well intentioned could produce prosperity, which is the necessary background for democracy. Without prosperity, democracy yields only chaos.

¶. Dictators are not always what they seem to be: authoritative, dour, definite people, with forward-looking conceptions. On the contrary, such people would not succeed to come in power. The other politicians would eliminate them from start. With several exceptions, particularly from old monarchies, in democratic countries, politicians without a strong personality succeed sooner, because the others do not consider them to be difficult adversaries, but some ones easy removable. A strong man is first eliminated, because he is uncomfortable. A weak man leaves the impression that he will be easy manipulated. Any politician thinks: "if I cannot be elected, x is preferable, because I can make him to play on my song".

This is the first step, and this was the way on which Ceausescu came in power in Romania. There were several much stronger politicians then, but a fight among them would have been dangerous for any of them. Consequently, they proposed and accepted the young and 'inoffensive' Ceausescu.

In the second stage, in time, he eliminated the old leaders one after another. As any stupid man, he removed also every capable person, and rally around himself only with flattering people. Such a person, without his own ideals, is easy to be used. On the one hand, with every passing day, he thinks more and more to be a genius. On the other part, those around him "raise balls at net" according with their interest. Apparently, he decides, so he is guilty for any mistake. In reality, there is an oligarchy behind that prepares the chief's decisions. All the former communist

¶. I am just inventing a definition of the communism: the hell where a society arrives when the socialist ideas are out of control.

The communist structures act on a similar way with some underground galleries, useful for people of the house, but unknown for the others. In other words, such governs are organised like Mafia. It is not surprisingly that today the same men are at power.

The struggle of people for social ideas is good, but with limits. Too many socialist ideas are like a virus. Unfortunately, people usually do not know where to put the limits. Socialism is a right way for ants, but not for mankind. "Ant colony" would be a caricature of the ideal socialist community.

As early as the antique times, one knew that people need bread and circus. They are the ingredients of any sure and quietly government. The communists gave only circus. With less and less bread, the circus itself become poorer and poorer and the performance clumsy. Finally, people got rid off the single actor, trainer and animal in the same time. Up till now, nobody offered bread without circus.

Coming back to the democracy, the question is if in western countries there is a real democracy, or it is as perfunctory as ours is? In my opinion, it is not perfect, but is better then nothing. On the other hand, the absolute democracy means chaos. That's why equilibrium is necessary, and western countries know how to do it.

As for people, they are equal in front of the law, but not behind it.

¶. There were many great empires during the history, but we judge them now after what they leaved us. Sometimes, some small countries, like the ancient Greek, are better-known thanks to their cultural role. An opposite example is Turkish Empire. Even if there are flying fishes, they never become eagles. I am not eager to know what the former USSR or USA will become. Maybe other people are!

For the moment, the Americans are like poker gamblers, who - even if they have bad cards - take the liberty of overbidding beyond the adversaries' possibilities, in order to eliminate them in this way. I want to say that American politicians' solutions are not always the best, but they always win. That is the power! There are spots even in sun,

¶. I have pen pals from many countries with different political orientations. It is easy to remark that those from countries with former socialist regimes are of right orientation, while those from countries with market-driven economy have left orientation. There always is a problem to know how much to the right thinks someone coming from the left and how much to the left thinks someone coming from the right, and which one is their relative position. It seems that, in people's opinion, the best political system is anything except that which they live in. (The grass always is greener in another field) Is there an ideal political system? The question is not new at all. The ancients were very concerned in such topics, much more than we are, and we are often surprised how deep their concepts were. One of the most comprehensive one belonged to Aristotle, in his Politika. He identified three main theoretical types of political systems: aristocracy, monarchy and republic. None is perfect. Every one of them has good qualities and flaws. That's why the society usually turns from one type into another in a perpetual cycle: monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, monarchy and so on, passing through some degenerated forms. Dictatorships are degenerated forms of the democracy, before its fall. (Aristotle said.)

I had the misfortune to change three types of political systems in the same country. Despite this misfortune - in any evil there is something good-- I was lucky by having the opportunity to see for myself what really happened here, and how people behaved during those changes. Before the WW2, Romania was a monarchy in full development. Soviet Army suddenly broke its evolution. They imposed us their democracy in fact one already degenerated. In less than fifty years, this political system broken down in all the occupied countries, starting with USSR itself. All of these countries are now trying to adopt a market-driven economy.

It is in fashion nowadays to say communist instead of socialist when they speaking about Eastern Europe countries, in order to spare the feeling of the members of some occidental socialist parties. Do not allow the illusion to lead us! It is the same. Communism = Socialism. As a matter of fact, till 1989, we used to say socialist, not communist. I am sorry for those who think that the socialism is a possible solution, even after it failed has everywhere, not only in Europe. Those who think that we did not have democratic rules, universal vote, etc., are also wrong. On the contrary, theoretically, we had all of those rules. Officially we used to say that we were of the democratic system, while the occidental countries were belonging to some "capitalist", "imperialist" systems. They used to say that we were the good ones, and the occident the evil. The communist system would have been a perfect democratic one. All of the adults used to participate in the election. The right to vote was more than assured: it was compulsory. Unfortunately only theoretically! Reality was the opposite. The frontier guard kept us away from the border so that we could not go abroad, instead of keeping away the enemies of our country. The result of the elections was always the same: over 90% for the "beloved leaders". They inverted all the scales of values. Maybe Lenin really wanted to build a socialist system. Maybe! We saw the results. Aristotle was right. Democracy degenerates in dictatorship. How is that possible? Firstly, democracy causes corruption and hypocrisy. Then the leaders learn how to use democratic rules in order to handle people. From the corruption to the terror mentioned with the political policy, all the means are used. Dictatorship is the last stage. After that only the fall follows, due to economic decline. This is exactly what happened here. The main cause of the hypocrisy is simply the universal vote. It is a paradox to ask stupid people to choose clever representatives. In order to obtain their votes, the sly politicians make unrealistic promises. Politicians everywhere do it. Of course we do not want to renounce the universal vote as long as we do not have a better solution. People from some countries know to use it reasonably while those from other ones are easily deceived. It is a matter of how to use it. Our system was the most hypocrites that humanity has ever invented. I know some people will say that there is corruption, hypocrisy, et cetera in occidental countries too. Yes, but not to the same degree and not so widely spread. Italian Mafiosi are beginners in comparison with some communist leaders. We practised "state Mafia". The whole political system used to be of Mafia type.

Yes, the belief that communism is something promising is wrong. Both socialism and communism are words defining an ideal political system. In fact an Utopia! We may ask why the eastern democracies dropped so fast, what was wrong, or what were the differences face to the Occidental countries? The explanations to these questions only regard the past, but the morals are for the future because such perils are possible whenever there is a democracy. A common saying is: "The wise man learns from the other's experience; the fool not even from his own." An ideal is a theoretical notion. It does not exist in reality. Society belongs to nature, and nature is not perfect. It is contradictory, complex, uncertain, unforeseen, and in perpetual moving. Nobody could control it perfectly. Trying to suddenly build a perfect society was the mistake the Marx, Lenin, and their disciples did. It is an intellectual naiveté to think that someone could conceive a new society. We are unable to conceive of a simple blood corpuscle or human being, how could we conceive a whole society?

In my opinion, the system in which we live is not important. None is perfect. Our duty is to try to make things tolerable and to improve it continuously. The key to progress is not in politics but in morality and economy. Politics is a necessary evil. The economy must be efficient, because the more efficient it is the easier people succeed in annihilating the stupidity of the politicians and lead their acts. The occidental countries have different political systems. Some of them are monarchy and others republics, but all belong to the same community: the community of prosperous countries. People want to improve their lives only when they can trust their political system and respect its rule. That's why we can accept some small imperfections if the system is a prosperous one, and people really want to improve it step by step because they trust in their morality. What impressed me most when visiting occidental countries was people's preoccupation for well-done things. They know that working well is to their advantage. Our elder generations used to do the same but the younger ones have a "socialist education". This is what we need to change.

¶. It is clear that we do not know how a society could be like, but we know how it not must to be. That's why we should be concerned more on those social mechanisms, which would be able to prevent the society to go on dangerous paths. For example, the absolute majority in a parliament for a political party must be forbidden, in order to hinder some politicians to impose their will. Only a general accepted law is good for all people. Also, the algorithm for counting tax proportional to income comes from the times when great landlords were the leaders of the society in the same tome. They really feel themselves to be responsible for their estates and people working and living on it. Of course, they were the ones whose contribution - direct proportional with their estates - used to make most part of the national budget. It was correct for those times, but it has nothing in common with the democracy. Why the one who works harder must pay more? Nonsense! Everyone is indebted a small amount, as he exists, and government spend money with his evidence, protection, etc. If he lives in a large town, his tax must be greater for sanitation services, and so on. Shortly, everyone should pay for what he consume, end not for how much and efficiently he works.

The deepest effect of the communism was the deterioration of the morale. That's why people need morale now more than ever.

¶. Many people say that politics does not interest them. Me too, but since I feel its effects on my skin and in my pocket I can't help seeing that it exist. It is not an honest way to hide ourselves behind the mask of innocence. Embarrassing is that people benefiting by politics of their country pose as innocents. Of course, I cannot claim them to renounce at their advantages, because politics of their country is malefic, but I am going to be sick of their false innocence. I am not a fighter - never was - so that in depressing moments, I find a refuge in reading. It is pleasant, but I realise that it is an abandon. Less awkward, but ... Yet, I am not a hero. Also, I wish to meet the American who leaves his job, because he realised that the products he works for are used in a to blame war.

The politicians are like ingredients in culinary art. One takes a potato that is far to be perfect, but it is peeled, all the defective parts are removed, it is washed, and finally it is thrown in the pot. Then, one takes a carrot, maybe less perfect, and follows the same way. Afterwards an onion, and so on! It depends on the cook's talent whether the soup will be tasted or not. The ingredients are not perfect. The politicians not at least, but their ensemble may give good results, if the cook is skilled enough. The cook is the nation, which knows better or worse to clean and mix the politicians and to boil them at small but long fire.

For do not be too malicious, here is a more positive comparison: a politician is like a bus driver: he is not the nicest, stronger, cleaver, or most educated, but people accept him as he promised to drive them up till the destination. Unfortunately, we are not quite sure about the destination.

¶. During the communist times, Romania and the other East European countries had all the necessary democratic laws, but not the democracy itself. There were parliament, elections, etc, but everything was perfunctorily, for sake of the affirmation the country is democratic. (If voting could really change things, it would be illegal, said somebody.) In fact, there was not the political will for a real democracy. On the contrary, after the Russians installed at the top of the country a team of politicians, that team installed their dictatorship. It is a stupidity to think that in all these countries suddenly appeared dictators like Bismarck in the same time. The communist system yields "dictators" as symbols, but behind them there was a group of individuals joined by the will to be at power. Shortly, we had democratic laws, but not the democracy, because of the lack of political will.

Dictators are not always what they seem to be: authoritative, dour, definite people, with forward-looking conceptions. On the contrary, such people would not succeed to come in power. The other politicians would eliminate them from start. With several exceptions, particularly from old monarchies, in democratic countries, politicians without a strong personality succeed sooner, because the others do not consider them to be difficult adversaries, but some ones easy removable. A strong man is first eliminated, because he is uncomfortable. A weak man leaves the impression that he will be easy manipulated. Any politician thinks: "if I cannot be elected, x is preferable, because I can make him to play on my song".

This is the first step, and this was the way on which Ceausescu came in power in Romania. There were several much stronger politicians then, but a fight among them would have been dangerous for any of them. Consequently, they proposed and accepted the young and 'inoffensive' Ceausescu.

In the second stage, in time, he eliminated the old leaders one after another. As any stupid man, he removed also every capable person, and rally around himself only with flattering people. Such a person, without his own ideals, is easy to be used. On the one hand, with every passing day, he thinks more and more to be a genius. On the other part, those around him "raise balls at net", according with their interest. Apparently, he decides, so he is guilty for any mistake. In reality, there is an oligarchy behind that prepares the chief's decisions. All the former communist East European countries were governed by oligarchies.

¶. In these days, taxes are so high in Romania, as if we have been the richest businesspersons in the word. As for the Romanian government, it seems to have a program in two stages for decreasing the income tax. In the first stage the income is to be decreased. The social situation is going from worse to evil. More and more people are cracking down. The gap between rich and poor will grow. This is not too bad; the worse is that between them - namely the middle class - is smaller and smaller, and just middle class gives the power of any country.

It remind me that in Iasi, the town of the years spent at the University, the tramway number 3 used to ply between the rail-station and graveyard, These seem to be the two alternative for most nowadays Romanians.

¶. Frequently, Romania and the other East European countries are put together with the Russia. This is a great mistake. We were as communist as capitalist were the former colonies, occupied by capitalist countries. After the WW II, Russia was the occupant, while the other countries were occupied. The communism was authentic in Russia, as they did it by themselves, while ours was not at all. In occupied countries some traitors sold the country, while the rest of people beard the consequences. The Russians destroyed our economy, but they built in Russia. (Do not forget that Moscow was built in 1156 by Iuri Dolgoruki, which means long arm (hand), namely Iuri "the thief". The Russians did not forget.) The hierarchy of the values was normal in Russia, but inverted in occupied counties. Good professionals were appreciated in Russia, but persecuted in Romania. Only corruption was the same, as an authentic product of the communism.

A nowadays historian said that there were more than 540,000 political trials in Romania in the first years of Russians occupation. Most of them were intellectuals from urban medium. I took a statistical annual, and did a little calculation. The Romanian population in 1948 was of about 15 millions. At that time, 78% live in rural, 51.7% were women and 25% children under 19 years. The result is the number of men living in urban: a few over 1 million. As not all of them were intellectuals, and the communists did not condemn the workers, we may come to the conclusion that almost whole intellectual class was destroyed.

Now, the collapse of communism caused not only a vacuum of power, but a vacuum of education too. As communism destroyed all the other system of values, when the system itself disappeared most people remained without guide marks. Now, young enough go abroad if the are a little skilled, or even without it. The others are not able to break the deadlock where Romania is now, either they are rich but swindler, or poor from whatever reason. Only the new generation will put to themselves the question what to do. Anyway, for a while, Romania will not be just a part of United Europe, but something similar with Mexico next to the USA.

¶. The society will need at least two generations for recovering by it. That's so because it marks people's mentality. The communism became real here only after the old education people were removed, and it will be removed after people educated by communism will disappear. This is the most difficult period, because instead of communist leaders some false ones appeared. Corruption and incompetence are the first words. Unfortunately, the occidental countries "help" us to increase only the corruption (there are not corruption without corrupters).

¶. In the bus station, where we have just stopped, I can see six different restaurants, and other ones are to be guest a little far away. It is a large car park. Curiously, all the bus passengers went to McDonald's, even if it is not the nearest, cheapest, modest, elegant, or anything else. Nobody granted any attention to the others, no matter of their offer. Why? McDonald's is not the best, but also its offer is limited and boring. And just because this you know exactly what food are to be find, and their prices. When you have not time and desire to try something different, go to something well known before and without risk. Here is how the uniformity - so boring and blasphemed generally - could be preferred. And it is advantageous not only for the consumers, but also for the merchants. It is the same for all kind of nets of motels, restaurants, busses, shops and so on. Besides, they are organised industrially, with the smallest expenses and prices. It is hard, if not impossible, for the modest investors to succeed with such competition. In Greyhound bus system - I am in such a bus now - it is the same: drivers, mechanics and all the employees are different, but they keep the same rules, and so the system works. The free is in details; the ensemble is ordered. When it is good! And it is good if it is a result of a natural process of evolution, or it was well projected.

There is a paradox: such nets of busses, motels, restaurants, etc., work well in the US, and did not in the former "socialist" East European countries. In a dispersed economy people succeeded in centralising some activities, but in a centralised economy the small systems did not work properly. The cause is simple, but difficult to accepted by arrogant people: the human system is too complex to be conceived and achieved by someone. The socialist government is a great stupidity, proof of a great ignorance. We cannot build a cell, not a plant or an animal, but we want to build a human system with millions of people living in a nature almost unknown in its details. Nonsense! Such a huge and complex system could not be conceived but wrong. It is wrong from the beginning. The government elaborates wrong rules, but impose them to the people. In exchange, people dislike the rules and hate the government. Nothing works harmoniously, and soon the system collapses.

The US is a young country, where people have just adopted their rules, natural rules, generalised by the government. People trust in rules. They know that things could be better, but at McDonald's it is more trustworthy.

I often thought the Americans do not know how close they are face to the communist system. Mainly their propaganda is still awkward similar with the Soviet one of 50's years. And now these nets of services, organised at national level. Fortunately, unlike the Russians, the Americans know to avoid the precipice in the last moment, before becoming ridiculous or provoking a disaster. They renounced in time at McCarthy doctrine and promulgated anti-trust laws. This confirms the idea that the key of the art of government is the equilibrium. Monarchy, democracy, or anything else, is not as important as the equilibrium.