Cătălin Predoiu, who resigned his leadership position in the Liberal Party after he fell out with party leader Ilie Bolojan over the nomination of a Liberal Party member as prime minister designate without a party mandate, on Wednesday defended his position.
Predoiu, 57, who has served as justice minister, interior minister and interim prime minister, said he accepts the consequences for supporting Adrian Veștea along with other party members. Vestea failed to get the votes he needed on Monday in Parliament and President Nicusor Dan is set to nominate a new prime minister. Predoiu says he will not contest a decision to exclude him from the party.
Vestea’s proposed government included several Liberal ministers, but not Predoiu.
“In difficult times for the country, responsibility for the public interest must prevail,” he said.
Here is his blog in full:
“For over a month, I and other colleagues from the PNL have constantly argued that the party must participate in the government, because Romania needs a functional government, with full powers, and without the PNL it is not possible. PNL is the solution to the political crisis, not AUR (Eds: a hard-right party and the second biggest in the Parliament). Financial markets and the economic realities could lose patience, and prolonged uncertainty has generated costs and risks that we cannot afford.
All this time, the party has repeatedly discussed and voted on the idea that PNL should not continue in government alongside PSD and that a period in opposition would be the best option for the future of the party. It was a position supported by the leadership and most colleagues. However, I had another belief: in difficult times for the country, responsibility for the public interest must prevail. Other colleagues said the same. The way the situation has evolved has put some of us in front of a difficult dilemma: to act according to our conviction that the country urgently needs a government or to bend our convictions to a party command.
Even more, we have looked with interest at the change of approach in recent days, when the PNL leadership decided to support the formation of a new government. Beyond the political calculations inherent to any party, the important thing is that a step forward has been taken to overcome the deadlock and to provide a signal of stability to society and markets. (The fact remains, however, that those who voted for a government that included the Liberals are considered suspected of disloyalty, but voting for a simple PSD government, even with conditions, is fine. It’s a paradox.)
I voted for the government proposed two days ago because it represented a solution that could end a period of uncertainty and could put the state institutions back in motion. In developed democracies, parties assume both the role of government and that of the opposition, but there are crucial moments and exceptional circumstances that call for exceptional actions compared to the rule of taking into account one’s own party interest. The same was true last year, when the pro-Western Coalition was formed from parties that have traditionally clashed politically.
I chose to remain consistent with the conviction that Romania urgently needed a government and that this objective had to prevail. Other colleagues have done the same. It was not a conspiracy against the PNL, but a spontaneous political expression to save the situation with a government that also included a few liberals. It was an option to prioritize, not to undermine, to prioritize a general interest over a specific party interest.
When I voted, I knew that the government would not pass, because there weren’t the votes needed, but I chose to emphasize, once again, the country’s need to have a government. I knew that my vote could not contribute to the validation of a government, because there were not enough votes for the government to be validated. The same was done by the other colleagues from the PNL who voted in favor. At the time of the start of voting, it was clear that the government would be rejected. We could have abstained from voting and avoided an unpleasant discussion with the party, but we chose to say our point of view until the end. It’s true, implicitly I also made a choice of perspective, taking into account the party’s position.
As far as I am concerned, I am ready to accept these consequences. I’m not asking anyone for anything. I will not contest a possible decision to exclude me from the party. I will take it as such, I will not comment on it and I will continue my public activity under the given conditions.
At the same time, I believe that those colleagues who wish not to be subject to sanctions and express it as such must have the chance for dialogue and compromise with the party, under reasonable conditions for both themselves and the party. And not just as an intermezzo until the new statute is approved, and then they are eliminated or permanently put in the shadows and disregarded. Here is a complex topic for the party’s secretary general: how to find a political solution in a complex situation, in which you have to reconcile commands, landmarks and apparently irreconcilable positions. It’s a little more complicated than instigating the party to kick people out. It resembles a diplomatic file that I once dealt with, apparently insolvent. I am convinced that the secretary general will find the right solution.”
Romania reduced commercial flights to support US Epic Fury in Iran: NATO chief
