There are still many ways to interpret into the public appeal for the partyâs reform, coming from three prominent members in the National Liberal Party, or PNL.
As I stated in a previous article, the public appeal lacked teeth; it was making vague claims instead of precise requests to be met by a clear deadline.
What was its likely outcome?
That the appeal of the three liberals will bring together the other party members discontent with the current leadership of PM Calin Popescu Tariceanu, thus revealing the dissenting liberals who still did not speak their minds.
But no such move occurred. As for the local party subsidiaries, they denounced the appeal.
Therefore, if provocation was not the hidden aim of the appeal, what other purposes could it have served?
It may have been conceived as a means to trigger a disproportionate reaction from the PNL leadership reprimanding the dissenting voices either with sanctions or with sheer exclusion from party ranks.
That would have been a real blow to the liberals image as the only party were freedom of thought was imbedded into the party fabric.
Reprimanding the three voices would have led to a lasting scandal in the media and the political arena, which would have enabled the likely moral author of the appeal, President Traian Basescu, to score points against Tariceanu.
A reprimand would have also reinforced the image of the three dissenters, while ripping apart the PNL in the course of the ensuing controversy.
The reprimand would have legitimized the travels around the country of the group to probe the likelihood of local subsidiaries to join it.
The reprimand would also have watered down and cast into oblivion the initiative of Tariceanuâs followers to start collecting signatures from citizens willing to end Romaniaâs presence in Iraq, along the United Sta
