Paul Cozma

Author: Paul Cozma

  • We’re better off, but we refuse to see it. And some want to tear it all down.

    We’re better off, but we refuse to see it. And some want to tear it all down.

    Let’s be serious. It’s hard for us to see how much we’ve advanced, both as humanity and here, at home. Today’s Romania is light-years away from what it was in the ’80s and ’90s, or even under the tutelage of comrade Iliescu until around 2004. This doesn’t mean we’ve reached paradise and can just rest on our laurels. We still have an enormous amount of work to do. But it’s one thing to keep building and another to want to tear down everything that has been done.

    I often use the analogy of the reverse boiled frog: the water has cooled from boiling to lukewarm, but because it happened gradually, many are still screaming they’re getting burned.

    Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: The Numbers Don’t Lie

    Let’s leave nostalgia-edited memories aside and look at the figures. The ’80s were a nightmare: cold homes, queues for everything, two hours of TV programming.

    And now, a leap to the present:

    IndicatorThen (the ’90s)Now (2024)
    Purchasing Power (GDP/capita)~$13,000~$49,000
    Life Expectancy~68 years~76.6 years
    Average Net Salary~$50~$1,900

    In short, your purchasing power has tripled. You live, on average, 8 years longer. You earn tens of times more in nominal terms. You have access to the internet, you travel wherever you want, you buy whatever car you want. Things that were science fiction for our parents. We started at 40% of the European average in terms of living standards and are approaching 74%. This is the reality.

    If It’s Better, Why So Much Discontent?

    Simple. The progress has been slow. You don’t wake up overnight with an extra 100 euros in your salary. But the human mind remembers shocks much better: the cold, unemployment, rampant inflation.

    Then, our standards have changed. We no longer compare ourselves to our Bulgarian neighbors, but to the Germans. And it’s normal to want more. But this frustration is being exploited. Idealizing the past is not a desire to return to dictatorship, but a way of saying “I am dissatisfied with today’s corruption and incompetence.”

    The Same Scoundrels, a Different Hat

    And riding this wave of frustration are, as always, the populists. It’s the same old story, just with a new face. It started with Vadim’s PRM, who was Ceaușescu’s court poet. Then came the populism of Băsescu, also from the communist ranks, who, despite making some reforms that helped us, perpetuated a toxic style.

    Now, they have regrouped under logos like AUR. Don’t be fooled, they are just very vocal, not a majority. Yes, they seem numerous, but a simple calculation shows their election success represents somewhere around 27% of the voting population. They can’t get more than that. They are Putin’s bots, infiltrated to disinform and manipulate, taking advantage of any discontent. Their goal is simple: to tear everything down. To decouple us from the EU, our only real anchor of progress.

    Look at our neighbors. Without the EU, we would have been like the Republic of Moldova or, worse, Ukraine. And if someone gives you the example of Orbán’s Hungary, tell them to look at the figures again. Romania is already surpassing Hungary in several economic indicators. They are in decline, we are growing. The illiberal model is a sure recipe for failure.

    It Could Have Been Better, But It Can Also Be Much Worse. What Do We Do?

    It’s simple. We shouldn’t be content with what we have, but we shouldn’t tear it down either. We need to get involved. Each at their own level.

    • At the micro-level: See cars parked on the sidewalk? File a complaint with the local police. Maybe you’ll help a mother with a stroller or a person in a wheelchair pass by. That’s what involvement means.
    • At the medium-level: Are you good at something? Help others learn. Create a community. Be an active citizen, not just an inhabitant.
    • At the macro-level: Do you have communication and leadership skills? Get involved in politics. We need competent people, not demagogues.

    And above all: go vote! Don’t let the vocal and manipulated 27% decide for you and for the other 73%. Progress is not a given; it is earned and defended every single day.

  • Religion in Politics: Freedom of Expression or a Tool for Control?

    Religion in Politics: Freedom of Expression or a Tool for Control?

    Religion in Politics: Freedom of Expression or a Tool for Control?

    In Europe, most countries pride themselves on being secular republics, where religion is separate from state power. Constitutions guarantee everyone’s right to hold any belief and to organise freely. But when it comes to public figures, particularly politicians, the issue becomes more delicate. Is it acceptable for a leader to use religious messages in their speeches? And if so, where is the line between personal expression and electoral manipulation? Let’s debate.

    1. Politicians and Religious Messages: Arguments For and Against

    Arguments For

    Freedom of expression is a pillar of democracy. A politician, like any citizen, has the right to express their convictions, including religious ones. Phrases such as “God be with us” or “We believe in God” can be seen as mere polite formalities, akin to saying “Good day”. In countries like Poland or Greece, where religion is deeply rooted in culture, such messages are perceived as natural, not propaganda.

    National culture also plays a role. In Ireland, for example, references to Christianity are part of the collective identity. Abandoning them could alienate a portion of the population that identifies with these values.

    Arguments Against

    On the other hand, religion can become a political tool. When a leader claims that “God guides their decisions”, they create an aura of infallibility, suggesting that opposition is “against divine will”. This has been observed in the United States, where evangelicals are often targeted by political promises, even though these lack practical solutions for healthcare or education.

    Another danger is the alienation of minorities. In France, where Islam is the second-largest religion, excessive Christian messaging from some politicians has led to tensions. Non-Christian citizens may feel excluded, undermining the ideal of equality.

    2. Religious Jokes: Where is the Line?

    The constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but what happens when this takes the form of jokes about religion? Take the case of comedians satirising rituals or dogma. On one hand, humour can demystify extremism. For example, in Denmark, controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad sparked global protests but also opened discussions about press freedom.

    On the other hand, there is a risk of normalising contempt. When a politician mocks Orthodox ceremonies in a country like Romania, where the Church holds major influence, they not only criticise but also reinforce divisions. Here, common sense comes into play: there is a difference between highlighting the absurdity of certain practices and ridiculing personal beliefs.

    Moreover, no one is immune to criticism. If a politician expresses their faith publicly, they must be prepared to face sarcastic retorts. Freedom of expression works both ways.

    3. The Majority Religion: Does It Hold More Value?

    In theory, European secularism does not differentiate between beliefs. In practice, however, the majority religion holds an invisible advantage. In Germany, though the state is secular, the Catholic and Protestant Churches receive public funding through church taxes. This does not apply to Islam or Buddhism.

    Why does this matter?

    • History vs. Modernity: Countries like France or Belgium, with centuries of secular tradition, have integrated religious diversity better than post-communist states. In Hungary or Poland, where the Catholic Church survived authoritarian regimes, religion is used as a symbol of national resistance. Politicians exploit this sentiment, promoting “anti-LGBT” laws or abortion restrictions under the guise of protecting “Christian values”.
    • Education as a Solution: Poverty and lack of education reinforce fundamentalism. In 1990s Romania, after the fall of communism, the Orthodox Church gained influence by filling the void left by a weak state. Today, with access to European education, the younger generation is more critical of the mixing of church and politics.

    4. Secularism: An Imperfect but Necessary Ideal

    Examples from Europe show that a clear separation between religion and state does not eliminate tensions but manages them better. In the Netherlands, where nearly 50% of the population identifies as non-religious, politicians avoid religious messages to avoid alienating voters. Conversely, in Italy, where the Vatican holds direct influence, laws on divorce or euthanasia are often blocked by Christian groups.

    What can we learn from this?

    • Transparency: Religious messages in politics must be sincere, not electoral tactics. If a politician participates in rituals only during campaigns, citizens have the right to question their intentions.
    • Respect for Diversity: A country is not defined solely by its majority religion. Politicians should promote interfaith dialogue, not wield faith as a weapon against minorities.

    Conclusion: Freedom Requires Responsibility

    Religion in politics is not inherently harmful but becomes problematic when used to divide or manipulate. In an increasingly diverse Europe, secularism remains the best way to protect both religious freedom and social cohesion. Politicians must remember that their role is to represent all citizens, not just the majority. And citizens, in turn, must remain vigilant: a joke may be harmless, but a vote based on religious dogma can have dire consequences.

    To paraphrase an old principle: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. In politics, let’s keep things within the bounds of reason.

  • The Silent Majority – Why Your Vote (And More) Actually Matters

    The Silent Majority – Why Your Vote (And More) Actually Matters

    We often hear about the “will of the people,” but let’s be real for a second. What does that actually mean? It often boils down to the will of the most numerous or, more accurately, the most active part of the people. The majority – or those who manage to convince everyone they are the majority. And that, my friends, is where the trouble starts. Because, guess what? The majority can be just as oppressive as any dictator. We need safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, just like we need them against any other abuse of power.

    And that brings me to something that’s been bugging me: the shockingly low voter turnout we see in so many places. Take Spain, for example. Only about 22% of the population voted for their current government. Twenty-two percent. That’s… well, it’s a bit bad, isn’t it? It’s like shrugging your shoulders and saying, “Meh, I don’t care who runs the country,” and that includes your local elections, which can be even more important in the grand scheme of things.

    Look at Bucharest, my own city. I like Nicusor Dan, the mayor, but he got into office with just 16% of Bucharest’s population voting for him. Sixteen! Whether you’re a fan or not, that’s the guy making decisions about the future of your city. And you should fight for that. Even the city council, those folks making all the big decisions, they only need 50% of the votes cast, which often translates to less than 25% of the eligible voting population. It’s sad, really. We should care more about where we live. It might seem like you have no power, but you do. They need your vote to get that power. And if they see more and more people voting, they’ll actually have to start making things better for everyone to hold onto their power and protect their interests in your community… or, you know, the entire country.

    And it’s more important now than ever. We’re seeing these extremist parties, both left and right, gaining ground in more and more countries. Why? Because the general population, the folks who aren’t that extreme – maybe they lean a little left, a little right, but not off the deep end – they’re just not participating.

    Just look at the US. They put Trump in power with 49.8% of the votes. Not even a majority! And the total voting participation was 63%. That means, essentially, “MAGA” is ruling the whole country, based on the will of roughly 31% of the total eligible voters. And I bet that even within that 31%, less than half are hardcore MAGA believers. Most of them probably just wanted a Republican president, maybe even, especially, not a woman (sadly). And that’s how loud minorities end up with so much power.

    Imagine what could happen if the actual majority decided to show up. Imagine a voting turnout of over 80%?

    I’ve even noticed a sort of correlation between voter turnout and things like a country’s happiness and GDP. Now, correlation isn’t causation, of course. You’ve got countries like Hungary with high turnout but failing on other metrics. Or the US, with its high GDP but low life expectancy and happiness index. And then there’s Norway, topping the happiness and GDP charts, but you could argue that’s all subsidized by their oil. But then, Nigeria, UAE, and the US also have oil… The point is, it’s complex. It needs education, too. A real understanding that elections matter, that your vote matters.

    But – and this is important – don’t just vote and then clock out. You need at least some involvement. Try to help in your community. Let your mayor’s office know if there’s trouble on your street. Don’t just grumble about that pothole that’s been there for a decade. If it’s not reported, as far as they’re concerned, it’s not a problem. And that’s just a tiny example. There’s a whole lot more where that came from. So, get out there, vote, participate, and make your voice heard. Because the silent majority shouldn’t stay silent.

  • My Personal Philosophy – Where I Stand

    My Personal Philosophy – Where I Stand

    1. Religious and Metaphysical Views

    • Agnostic Atheism: I find that there simply isn’t any compelling evidence to support the existence of the gods described by traditional religions. This leads me to an atheist position when it comes to organized religion. However, I also acknowledge that ultimate proof or disproof of any kind of cosmic deity is beyond our current capabilities. That’s why I lean towards agnosticism. Essentially, I’m skeptical of religious claims, but I remain open to the possibility that there are aspects of existence we don’t fully grasp.

    2. Political Views

    • Leftist Social Democrat: I strongly advocate for policies that aim to reduce poverty and improve social welfare through active government intervention. This includes:
      • Economic Regulation and Intervention: I believe in a mixed economy, where free markets operate alongside robust government regulation. The goal here is to prevent the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, ensuring a fairer distribution of resources.
      • Social Welfare Programs: I support state-led initiatives that help citizens meet their basic needs and provide opportunities for everyone to succeed.
      • Balancing Markets and Social Justice: I’m committed to maintaining a dynamic market economy that fosters innovation and growth, but I also believe it’s crucial to safeguard the interests of the broader public.

    3. Views on Free Will and Personal Responsibility

    • Determinism with Practical Free Will: I lean towards the idea that free will might be an illusion. Our actions could be heavily influenced or even determined by prior causes. However, I recognize that the concept of free will is incredibly useful in daily life. I act as though I have free will because it’s the foundation of personal responsibility and accountability. This stance encourages me to make thoughtful decisions and take ownership of my actions, which is important for personal growth and the progress of society as a whole.

    4. Broader Philosophical Perspective

    • Human Flourishing and Self-Discovery: At my core, I believe that every human being deserves the opportunity to live life to the fullest, explore their potential, and uncover the mysteries of the universe. I see life as fleeting—a brief moment in the vast expanse of time—and therefore, I believe that making the most of our existence, in whatever way is most meaningful to each of us, is of paramount importance.
    • Commitment to Continuous Learning: I have a deep desire to further my understanding of both politics and philosophy. I’m open to evolving my beliefs based on new evidence or compelling arguments. This reflects my commitment to intellectual humility and ongoing personal development. I want to keep learning and growing.
  • Why Logical Arguments Lose to Emotions in Politics

    Why Logical Arguments Lose to Emotions in Politics

    A Battle of Feelings, Not Logic

    We live in times when attempts to convince through logical arguments seem doomed to fail. I observe many striving to demonstrate with data and facts why one political candidate is unsuitable or, conversely, why another would be the saving solution. However, we find ourselves in a battle of emotions, ideologies, and deeply ingrained opinions.

    The Power of Repeated Narratives

    Human psychology is fascinating and, at times, deceptive. Ideas repeated endlessly come to be perceived as absolute truths, a tactic that, unfortunately, history has shown us through painful examples, such as Nazi propaganda. Faced with a wave of narratives about global conspiracies and imaginary threats, rational arguments pale. Interestingly, this approach is not the preserve of a single camp; we see similar examples among those considered “normal.” From personal statements turned into political attacks, to irrelevant comparisons meant to manipulate public opinion, propaganda is omnipresent, each with its own motivations. In this context, it becomes difficult to have full confidence in the intentions or ability of any political actor to bring about real and beneficial reform for society as a whole. Perhaps a careful look at the past would offer us some valuable lessons.

    The Ignored Lessons of the Past

    The current situation bears striking similarities to the events of 1990. Then, after the Revolution, Romania had the opportunity to build a democratic path, less touched by corruption. However, a part of the population did not accept the idea of being led by someone with international experience, who returned to the country intending to contribute to reconstruction, as was the case with Mr. Ion Rațiu. A former member of the communist nomenclature was preferred, and we feel the consequences to this day, blaming Ion Iliescu for the corruption and problems of the 1990s and 2000s. Even respected figures, such as Corneliu Coposu, mourned by an entire nation upon his death in 1995, were the target of popular fury during the miners’ riots orchestrated by the same Iliescu in 1990.

    A New Crossroads, The Same Mistakes?

    We find ourselves once again at a turning point. Recent elections have reflected a vote of censure against the traditional political class, bringing to the forefront candidates with anti-system messages. It is an episode that we will most likely remember with bitterness, a moment when emotions and resentments took precedence over a rational choice that could have brought us more benefits. It is sad to note that we are once again in the situation of choosing between political figures with no notable achievements or coherent plans, relying solely on populist speeches.

    It is disappointing that we fail to learn from past mistakes and overcome these seemingly simple hurdles. And it is not a problem specific to Romania; we observe similar trends in other countries. Poland seems to be on a similar path, and the situation in the United States, with the possible economic repercussions of a recession, will likely affect us as well.

    An Inevitable Process?

    I am beginning to understand that this cycle seems almost inevitable. I hope, however, that we will be more careful in the future, to note these moments when we missed opportunities for positive evolution, preferring to risk the country’s stability in exchange for unrealistic promises from the state. It is natural to want more, but not by any means, not by sacrificing the country into the hands of characters who glorify extremist ideologies and promote violence.

  • Beyond Labels and Slogans: What Truly Unites Us in a Polarised Society?

    Beyond Labels and Slogans: What Truly Unites Us in a Polarised Society?

    Have you ever felt overwhelmed by the noise of accusations in the public sphere, wondering where truth and, more importantly, solutions to your everyday problems can still be found? Lately, it seems we’re caught in a merry-go-round of labelling – “uncultured,” “uneducated,” “illiterate” – thrown about with ease from one camp to another, especially in the current political context. But do these criticisms help us understand reality better, or do they merely deepen the chasm between us?

    Criticising the Electorate: A Necessary Analysis or an Oversimplification?

    I observe a tendency to blame various categories of the electorate for the choices made. Comparisons are drawn, labels of “lack of culture” or “stupidity” are applied, perhaps forgetting that if there’s a fundamental problem, the main responsibility might lie with the political class that has governed for years. It’s easy to point fingers, but is it constructive?

    On the other hand, we’re witnessing a war of slogans. Some stir up scare tactics like “they want to force our men to wear skirts” – themes designed to distract from real problems and turn non-issues into topics of fierce debate. Unfortunately, some voices take the bait and steer the discussion exactly where it shouldn’t go, further fuelling the confusion.

    Real Problems vs. Empty Political Discourse

    But what about people’s concrete problems?

    Rising prices: Everyday life is becoming increasingly expensive. Jobs are fewer or harder to come by. Empty promises: Traditional parties, whether we’re talking about those on the right telling you it’s solely your duty to fight for a better life, or the social democrats who seem non-existent outside of election campaigns and whose short-term measures bring inflation and long-term problems. In this context, progressive movements come with demands for advanced policies, as if we’ve already solved fundamental issues like poverty, poor education, or the environmental crisis. It’s difficult to convince the majority, often “starving,” of the benefits of super-progressive policies when basic needs aren’t met.

    The Feeling of Not Being Heard and the Need for Empathy

    And yes, there’s a real frustration when you’re accused of being “illiterate, uneducated, and stupid” by those who promote progressive discourse but without offering concrete solutions for you, the ordinary person struggling with hardships. You naturally wonder: “Don’t I matter?”

    The same problem arises in the conservative camp, where there’s excessive talk about religion and family, while some of their own candidates seem far removed from these authentic Christian values – values that, in essence, call for loving thy neighbour, not for vendettas.

    What Actually Unites Us? Towards Constructive Dialogue

    I am almost convinced that, deep down, we all want the same fundamental things:

    A roof over our heads. A decent, if not good, living. Respect within our communities. What we see on social media, that exacerbated tribalism, often only exists there, in the online environment. It keeps us constantly on guard, as if our “tribe” is under permanent siege. But the reality outside is often different. No one forcibly imposes church attendance or skirt-wearing if you don’t wish it.

    A Call for Education and Listening

    I believe in left-wing policies, in real progressivism, and in our common evolution towards a better life for all. But, first and foremost, we need a solid foundation: education and the ability to listen to one another. That’s what I’m trying to do myself – to learn more, to understand better.

    Most of us don’t want the country to “burn” or for us to live worse. The problem is that we often believe others want exactly that. Perhaps life, overall, is gradually improving, but we mustn’t forget those left behind. We need to consider them, to understand their fears and needs.

    What do you think? How can we overcome these divisions and focus on building a future where everyone’s voice matters and where real problems are addressed with seriousness and empathy?