In the 22 years since the revolution of 1989, Romania has had two technocratic governments (the prime ministers were not members of political parties, but the ministers were politicians).
All examples show that technocratic governments are short-lived because they are at the mercy of parties. Parties endorse them in taking tough measures (Greece’s case), but as long as they don’t commit to them politically. Technocratic governments have the advantage that they can make reforms that a political government would not be brave enough to commit to.
It is not the case of Romania at present, the move is a purely political one (it is true the opposition asked for a technocratic prime minister, but only so he would organize early elections), comments political sciences professor Stelian Tanase.
What businesspeople say:
Dragos Anastasiu, owner of Eurolines group: From the prime minister who will replace Boc I want competence, I don’t believe in technocrats who leave their jobs for that, but in a technocratic politician, i.e. someone who has ended their career as an entrepreneur and dedicated themselves to a political career.
Stefan Gadola, one of the owners of EnergoBit: Politicians have lost all confidence, anyway, not just in Romania, that is why a technocratic government would be a good alternative. Let’s see what they can do.
Dan Sucu, owner of Mobexpert: An economically competent prime minister is needed, one with significant expertise, but not a professor.
Dragos Damian, CEO of Terapia Ranbaxy: An urgent intervention of a technocrat is needed, one who can implement the systemic reforms that the IMF has been demanding by over a year.
(English version by Daniela Stoican)