The postulates of stability...

"Romania needs stability, not conflicts," says the latest INSCOP study presented on this platform. Almost everyone (80%) agrees. If we also include those who are "somewhat in agreement," it rises to 95%. So almost everyone wants stability, after some agreed with the motion, others did not, some wanted early elections and AUR, others did not. It seems that people were a bit scared, as after the long budget came the long interim and electoral math does not help us. As I said, there were quite a few dissatisfied people with the Bolojan government.

The motion was a calculated moment, in which PSD went with the idea that leaving the government bar would rehabilitate it in the public's eyes from the association with the unpopular measures of the coalition. AUR presented itself to the Romanians, in the same context, with the solution of early elections. But a successful motion is a two-stroke engine: after the euphoria of the government's fall, the small political cycle would suggest that a new majority should establish itself at the Cotroceni gate. Do you remember when President Băsescu knew who he wanted to appoint as prime minister after some such attempts and refused coalitions, whether they had a bască or not? A month ago, President Nicușor Dan has neither what to refuse nor what to propose, because none of the three major parties is willing to negotiate under realistic conditions. The party, as a political vehicle, is something that is supposed to want power, in order to implement its program and doctrine. At the moment, it seems that the parties have abdicated from their main function within a democratic political system and are waiting for the president to somehow solve their problem. After all, it is legitimate for a party to pursue electoral profit through its political movements, but still this is not the main role of a party in our political system.

The narrative of stability is, in turn, very interesting. The public that feared the government's fall before the censure motion relied on stability. More recently, as the above figures show us, a good part of the public, previously disappointed by the Bolojan government, is now disappointed by the prolongation of the post-motion political crisis and the parties' inability to negotiate. And many have turned back towards stability. Stability has always characterized the Ciucă-Ciolacu government. Stability propelled the pro-European government from 2025 and with the appeal to stability, PNL, USR, and UDMR tried to prevent the submission of the motion.

Next, with the motion passed in their pocket, PSD takes over the discourse about stability, which it had repudiated just a week before: everything would be resolved as if by magic if the prime minister left, said PSD, practically. And maybe another one could come, also from PNL.

Meanwhile, at PNL and USR, the optics have changed. "We no longer want stability with PSD." "Let PSD and AUR come," they said, "so that the world can see what they are capable of." And stability fell from the top of the pyramid of values. Of course, I do not intend to say what some should do and others should not. I just note that a genuine work of political history of the idea of stability in our electoral and political system is possible. It is the parties' option, between ensuring governance and cultivating a favorable image in public. If, after 1989, we learned to have political preferences, the question is whether we also learned to distinguish preferences from opportunities. Only one stability and so many stances...