There are some striking similarities. > In our case all candidates are reasonably corrupt. Our previous batch of rulers at least had the decency to try and hi

There are some striking similarities. > In our case all candidates are reasonably corrupt. Our previous batch of rulers at least had the decency to try and hide their corruption. This president is pretty open about it. > What we do know for sure is that he's a pretty good manager, Our president not. He has grade 3 and is just seen as a populist. > The biggest problem I think is a bit different. I'm very very scared by the politicization of public institutions. Top management is always chosen based on party, and automatically so is middle management. This breeds a brand of bureaucracy interesting more in politics than in getting things done, and the more it lasts the lower the mindset seeps. This is extremely similar. In my country it is called “cadre deployment” and is an official position. The ruling party employ their members (cadres) at all public institutions to follow the ruling party’s will. This includes but is not limited to all branches of national, provincial and local government, including places such as hospitals and government owned companies (such as electricity utilities). So, these people are employed on the basis of where they are in the ruling party – and not based on competence. They then also ensure that the whole institution is politicised. --- There are two other things, which I do not know if it happens in Romania. The first is an extremely well politically connected oligarchy which are members of the ruling party. They get government contracts (and are favoured by government policy) while they give money to the ruling party and members. Does this happen there? Another thing we have is the ruling party’s “investment arm” (Chancellor house) which holds stake in many tenders given by government. (The government therefore give tenders indirectly to the ruling party).