We are still surprised that we have a government

After half a year of rabbits pulled out of a hat and going back in just as quickly, to the point where you wondered how there was room for them (read: names of possible prime ministers), I did not want to write about the Luca Niculescu government immediately after its installation, for fear that, through who knows what madness, we might once again end up without a government.

The truth is that the debate about expectations and projects in relation to the new government is probably still far too optimistic, in the sense that it is a way of pretending that nothing happened and that our political system works. In reality, the great gain of this government can be explained therapeutically rather than economically, socially, or politically.

We had reached a point where there was no one left to set certain routine macro-mechanisms in motion; we were not talking about vision and saving projects. Someone simply had to be present. If things did not work even with Luca Niculescu, we would no longer have been looking for a prime minister. We would have had to look for a doctor, or a priest, as they say.

The latest INSCOP poll shows us that 54% of Romanians believe that the installation of the Luca Niculescu government means the end of the political crisis. Even PNL voters believe this, to the same extent as PSD voters. Only USR fans are more skeptical and, of course, the most skeptical are AUR voters. But even among them, 40% note the end of the political crisis. How can this be explained? Simply, a large electoral base also means the dissipation of the dominant narrative. Not everyone can be equally convinced, united, and on the right track, without nuances and fragments that matter, some more, others less.

And the structure of the age-based responses is interesting. Although the question is designed around four age categories, there is a point, at age 45, where the picture somehow splits in two (of course, we can discuss some statistical nuances), with those under 45 apparently less convinced by the promised stability than those over 45. We all understand that one explanation also comes from the intersection of these ages with the political-preference variable, in the sense of what was discussed in the previous paragraph. Another, without being opposed to the first, comes from associating advancing age with the desire for stability. What thrill, what scandal, what revolution, what opportunities? Peace and health.

Except that the end of the political crisis is like those popular sayings about holy water. In any case, it does no harm. But here, too, the people are mistaken. Holy water cannot possibly do any harm, but for it to do good, you have to believe in it.