What I really want for Politichristmas
Lately, my feeds have been flooded by politics, as it is time for the 2020 Romanian parliamentary elections.
A rather worrying trend that is quite standing out lately is to point out “what Romanians want.” Of course, who those Romanians are and whether or not their desires are actually representative (or even realistic), is not part of the equation. Just that they want things. So, to make matters clear, here is a list of things that I want. I’m certain, dear reader, that, wherever you are from, but especially in Romania, this will (or should) also apply to you (and if any is not applicable, then congratulations to your nation!).
1. Complete digitalization of central, regional and local administrations
I cannot overstate how important this is. We live in an era when interconnected systems are ubiquitous, and yet we have retained the same administration style of an era when they were merely a novelty, if at all. Paper dominates the scene, and the major purpose of paper documentation, that of being original issue or identifiable script, is completely lost, as most of it are copies.
There can be no progress in a world where major assets are not used, and special accommodations are made for enabling the obsolete to thrive. Just try to think of how much time, space, matter and energy is lost on storing, transferring, processing and validating bits of useful information on paper.
APIs, gateways, access points, online forms, et. are not new things, people! Let’s get this done already.
2. A defined, upgradeable, quality of life standard
Now that the Covid-19 pandemic hit, and restrictions had to be imposed, we suddenly realized that a lot of people are left behind the times. We suddenly realized that we could have an online education system, but for all those people that have no electricity, or no Internet, or no TV, etc.
What I want is a defined standard of life. It seems unbelievable that, in the year 2020, in a European country, some people go by with no electricity. And not because they make their own, but because they completely lack it.
So I would say that this should be an aim of a living standard system: to define mandatory access to a few basic utilities. Unless you can show that you have access to them, you are not given a housing permit. Whether or not you actually connect to them is another matter, and is your choice entirely, but, at least, you have them to use.
3. Our forests exploited, responsibly
A great amount of buzz recently has been on illegal forest cutting, and especially demonized were the major wood processing companies (more particularly the foreign ones — apparently the ones with local capital are squeaky clean — yeah right!).
This is one rhetoric that needs to disappear. I want the forests exploited. Wood is a seriously important material in industry and in our daily lives. We need it, and we thrive on it. And the best part is that we have all we need to keep it growing for all we need.
If we could abandon the empty Captain Planet discourse for a while, we could come up with a reforestation plan. Forests don’t get cut down overnight, just as they don’t grow overnight. It is not conceivable that in 2020, the best we can do is shout up and down as to how forests are being cut, and not come up with an actual plan. The same goes with pretty much all regenerable resources. And, should we be able to do that, we should find ourselves in the great situation of not having to rely on fossil fuels and non-regenerable sources.
Also, it’s not nice to see the name of an institution that has already gained the respect of people thrown in to support a somewhat vacuous idea. In this case, for those who don’t know, it’s the National Anticorruption Division, the name of which has been hijacked for an idea that lacks any substance: the National Anticorruption Division for Forests. Who’s it going to investigate for corruption? The understaffed, unarmed, unprotected, ill-equipped foresters? Good luck stopping deforestation with that! Rather, abandon this hijacking and describe the institution for what it’s actually meant to be: a specialized division for environmental crimes.
4. A different approach to law
There is no reason, other than “we’ve always done it like that”, for which we have major legal encodings in the form of “Law 31 of 1990, article 27” (specific formalities for establishing corporations by way of public subscription, regarding withdrawal of non-monetary contributions, in case you were curious). There is absolutely no reason for that, and, in the current context, this is a terribly inefficient system.
Why cannot we have a logically organized system, with a Constitution on top, a clear set of major codices, like Civil, Penal, Commercial, Administrative, Military, Fiscal codices, and a Codex of Terms and Explanations, then minor and domain-specific codices underneath? All would be online, free, on the Official Monitor site, and nothing would have any legal power if it is not part of a specific codex which can be updated instantly after every Parliament vote. Think of GitHub, law edition. GitLexHub?
Everyone should have full access to all laws, and laws should be kept organized and updated according to standards of the 21st century, instead of the 18th. Any party that sees the current system of laws and regulations for the broken mess that it is and vows to change it can have my vote.
5. Taxation of profit, not work
Taxes are not fun, that is a given. Nobody likes to calculate them, nobody likes to pay them, but they are a necessary evil in our world. So why not make it look a little more like it’s about people, and less like it’s about the money?
I would like to see a plan that declutters the workforce from all forms of useless divisions (laborer, authorized practitioner, sole trader, etc.) and creates a unified vision of a person that does work, regardless of aspects like for whom, for how long, and how often, and is given the same protection for everything, and the same taxation for everything.
Next, I would like to see that the workforce is taxed fairly, and is allowed liberal but fair deductions (like a taxi driver needs a car for his work, a priest does not; however, a priest that is delegated to an area which he does not live in does need a house, whereas a taxi driver driving in his home city does not).
And I would also like to see a vision for making sure that we don’t have to pay 5 different taxes and contributions, none of them avoidable, and pretend that we’re actually enjoying some benefit as to the distinction.
Also, I care not for a “non-taxable minimum” — a minimum that is great for a small village is meaningless for a big city, and going for asking people to “move out of the expensive areas” is just begging for trouble.
6. Forced banking rules, and banking as a utility
This is a surprisingly absent motive in today’s Romanian political discourse, and I find it increasingly odd that, although we are stagnating at half the population being mostly unbanked, and less than 10% being online-banked, with a massive cash-only income, we are still not forcing banking.
Banking should be mandatory for any payment beyond the trivial, and for any form of income of any sort. I fondly remember a discussion I’ve had with the builder of the building I currently live in, who told the story of someone who wanted to buy a penthouse from him in cash (upwards of €200,000). The only exceptions should be for those people who cannot access banks for other reasons (see #2).
I would also like to see a vision in transforming banking into a utility, meaning that every one person is entitled to one checking account and one debit card that is 100% commission-free, at any one bank, regardless of income (if any), and should see all income through it. Anything else can be free, but tightly regulated, game.
7. Emergency means emergency
I’d like to see move towards a clearer definition of the power shift that happens during an emergency.
Ideally, if an emergency happens, there should be pre-defined situations in which a state of emergency is declared (disasters, pandemics, and I’ll include war here, too, for the sake of simplicity). These declarations, in clear and well-defined cases, should not require any consent by the Parliament or any other authority. Should there be a situation that is not explicitly defined, then Parliament approval should be given.
Then, there should be a clear mandate of power to the executive, which cannot be overridden at any moment. This would, of course, include power to restrict any citizen rights except the naturalistic ones: right to life, right to bear children, etc. for the purpose of making the emergency go away. For instance, since we’re in the Covid-19 pandemic, the government would have the right to force citizens to wear masks outside, regardless of whether or not they like the idea, and the Constitutional Court would have no say in this.
This mandate of power would have, of course, a duration, after which it would need Parliamentary approval to continue, unless we’re in a clearly-defined situation (e.g. we’re still at war), and the executive would have a clear path to step down and/or be replaced should the need arise.
Surely the above can be improved from the very basic principles put forward here, but alas, I would like to see some intention of progress in this area.
8. Let go of the idea of left behind
A rhetoric that needs to stop is the idea of “What about X category of people?”
For every policy change, there will be some people left behind. Whether it’s doing online classes, or paying online taxes, or introducing new taxation systems, or anything else, there will always be one category of people who will be behind the times and will be considered as an at-risk category.
I would like to see policies that at least have some research into what category of people are affected, or which are at-risk (the same way that is done for budget impact, you know… if you can do it for money, you should also do it for people). And, if the number of people that are “left behind” is negligible, we should go ahead.
There will always be people left behind, in most cases the very old, the very ill, the very remote, the very poor or the very uneducated, and this should not hamper progress. Instead, it should be a stimulus to get some help so that those people are at least not worse off while the rest of us get better (if that’s a low-enough standard for you — I say we could do a lot better). The thought of waiting for a category of people to disappear so we can finally move on is horrible enough on its own.
9. Mandatory public health, hygiene and sanitation rules
I guarantee that this is going to generate a lot of heated discussions and a lot of “but it’s my right” complaints. But we need to have policies for this, and it needs to be made into a priority.
Currently, we have some rules and regulations that govern basic aspects of living together. You cannot raise swine in the middle of the city. You can’t have a barbecue in a public park (unless there are special places designated for this). You cannot smoke in restaurants.
But they are not nearly enough for the modern day, as this year’s pandemic has clearly shown. New sets of rules need to be compiled, such as rules for public healthcare that have a clear direction. And they need to be enforced. Uninformed Average Joe/Jane need not offer consent, it need not even be requested, as recent events have made it quite clear that most said members of the Average extended family have little respect for authority and a sense of ideological grandeur inflated enough to believe they know better. And, all the while, reality proves them time and again that they don’t.
I’d be willing to vote for a party that has a clear sense of direction in this regard.
10. A complete overhaul of mistake and fine
Here’s what I mean: Not paying your road tax (annual renewal — no notification) and remembering that you need to pay it 5 days after the renewal term? Mistake. Going 50 km/h over the speed limit in a village? Not a mistake. Forgetting to wire money for the accident insurance until two days after the due date? Mistake. Not paying it for 10 straight years then whining that you were discriminated against when coverage is refused? Not a mistake. Not remembering the exact date of your national ID papers expire (considering you get no notification)? Mistake. Deliberately destroying said ID and proclaiming yourself a sovereign entity? Not a mistake. Not knowing that, apart from the 7 taxes you already have to pay, there’s also an 8th that you couldn’t know unless you thought of checking some obscure decree from a hundred years ago, or was a tax expert yourself? Mistake. Being informed in writing about which taxes to pay, and in what amount, and not paying them even if you had the means to? Not a mistake.
How about we give up on these useless limits, like you can only have a valid road tax starting the moment of purchase onwards? Why couldn’t you backdate it for a few days, maybe up to one whole month? No reason as to why this would not be easy to implement and useful for the citizens. Why do we have to have this “do it at that exact moment, and you better remember it, you filthy delinquent, or I can’t wait to slap you a fine” attitude?
I’m voting for any plan that massively overhauls our obsolete misdemeanor system into something that cares for its citizens and lets them know that “errare humanum est”.
So there you have it. 10 points that I would like to see in this year’s Santa Klaus’ Endless Bag of Political Promises. I’m voting for whoever touches on most of these in a way that I agree with.
PS: The “K” was not a typo.
