Sever Voinescu: Merit, Privilege, Responsibility—Total Loss

The feeling that the world we know is approaching its end and that a new world about which we know nothing is being born seems to have become a global conviction. Technological developments, especially those in the field of Artificial Intelligence (which is increasingly often written with capital letters), cultural changes generated by demographic-economic shifts, the dynamics of migration, and the intensification of the eternal anxiety over natural resources (water, air, gas, oil, wood, etc.) are increasing tensions, while the ranks of political leaders everywhere cannot provide optimal answers. The waters are murky and turbulent, and specialized fishermen are growing in number. In this context, people are searching for their fundamental values and questioning their reference points. It is no wonder that the themes of sovereignty and nationalism have returned with force in societies in the Euro-Atlantic space. When it is not at all clear where we are headed or, moreover, when the direction suggested by the elites is unpleasant and unconvincing, you turn back and re-establish yourself on solid foundations. Often confused with one another, sovereignty and nationalism are not at all the same thing, although the historical connection between them is obvious. From this perspective, each nation’s case is special.

In our case, the greatest evil is that society cannot give a coherent and cohesive answer to questions related to sovereignty and the nation. We can no longer distinguish heroes from traitors, patriots from thieves, or capable people from incompetent ones. You do not have to be left-wing to feel the divorce between the elites exercising power of any kind in the Romanian world and the mass of people over whom this power is exercised. And the divorce is even louder when that mass of people formally led by the elites has emancipated representatives, people who no longer depend on the ruling elite, people who have risen through their own efforts, who want to become involved in public affairs, want to be heard, and want to participate in decision-making in proportion to their merit, but are kept away by the elite that distributes. This observation—I insist on emphasizing it—is made by me, a right-wing man, always accused of elitism and never ashamed of it, because I have always believed that people are born equal but do not live equally, and that merit must attract privilege, while privilege must attract responsibility. I still believe today that any rupture that appears in this natural chain—merit – privilege – responsibility—is the very definition of injustice, and that chronic injustice naturally produces revolt. I have always had, for instance, a weakness for the Protestant thesis regarding the justified nature of tyrannicide. I believe in the necessity of revolution when there is truly no other way. I still admire the December 1989 Revolution, which I experienced, happily to the point of ecstasy, in the streets. I know, this takes me outside the theoretical profile of a conservative. Conservatives, however, dislike professional revolutionaries and revolution as a profession, but when there is no other way, when there truly is no other way, rebellion must break out, and it is natural for that to happen. The question is whether Europe and Romania are now at that point. The answer can only be given by history, and it is simple: if the besieged institutions hold out, then it is not the moment for revolution, and everything will be a disturbance that will come to an end, while those who shake them will pay like criminals. If the institutions collapse under the siege of the streets, then what was supposed to happen happens, and those who strike at the falling institutions will be heroes and will form the new ruling elite.

But regardless of what happens, the problem remains. In Romania at least, the chain of merit – privileges – responsibility is broken. There is no connection between merit and privileges, while the privileged are completely irresponsible. As my neighborhood neighbors would say: from this perspective, it is a total loss. The hypothesis of the two Romanias is an old one. It was discussed in intellectual circles as early as 1990. Some are one way (frightened of the future, collectivist, statist, dependent on welfare), while others are another way (bold, autonomous, eager for Europe, independent)—two kinds of Romanians who will never be able to show solidarity. In 2004, Adrian Năstase was the first politician to say that there were two Romanias. In the context of his electoral defeat, Năstase said that, on the one hand, there were Romanians who needed a protective state (his electorate), and Romanians who wanted to be left alone, to fly, because they wanted to take on the risk of flight (the electorate of his opponents). Then the thesis of the two Romanias became commonplace and continued along various lines: urban/rural; Transylvanians/Old Kingdom inhabitants; Europeans/sovereigntists; pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine; private-sector/public-sector. More recently, we have witnessed the stupidest division of Romania in two: reformers and anti-reformers. Of course, the social fracture has become customary in Romanian society, and national solidarity is increasingly difficult to find. But there is something that unites all Romanians today, even if it seems that nothing unites them: deep down, in all groups of Romanian society, whatever they may be, there is a powerful revolt against privileges. All Romanians are outraged by the way privileges are distributed in Romanian society. In fact, Romanian society as a whole angrily asks the elite that distributes privileges on what grounds it does so and why. And the elite distributing privileges pretends not to hear. The basis of our society’s revolt, which is approaching if things continue this way, is neither AUR, nor Putin, nor manipulation through TikTok, but the rupture between merit – privileges – responsibility. If only one of these relationships were still functioning, there would still be something left. Even if privileges were granted on merit or if the privileged were responsible, it would still be something. But the relationships between these three poles are broken, and the discrepancies are becoming increasingly defiant: privileges are going more and more to those who deserve them less and less, while the degree of irresponsibility rises with the level of privileges received.

The year 2026 was an exhausting year for Romanians. A major economic crisis, deepened by a prolonged political crisis, in a global context strained by wars, made Romanians’ daily lives harder and more anxious. The general confusion is certainly aggravated by the absolutely vile way in which political parties understand how to play their role and by the bewildering performance of the President of Romania. We shall see what follows. As someone once said, we will die and see.

https://www.dilema.ro/tilc-show/merit-privilegiu-responsabilitate-dauna-totala