Among the bare questions regarding political options, companies metering public opinion sometimes slip in wider-scoped questionnaires to poll people's views of democracy, communism, market economy and relations with the state.
Such was the case of the latest CURS poll, which, between a question on political coalitions and another on the resemblance between political currents, placed five questions that suggest the following: 77% of those polled believe, strongly and very strongly, that market economy is good, 75% say that, although it has its shortcomings, democracy is the best form of government, and 65% say privatisation should speed up. So far, so consistent.
But the other two questions, discretely slipped in among the above, blast everything up: 65% believe, equally strongly, that communism was a good idea with a bad application, and 63% believe everyone's well-being depends primarily on the state.
Although these answers are conflicting, there could be some explanations. People aren't dumb. In fact, it could only be a confusion of terms. Perhaps it would have been better if they were asked what they understood as "communism," "democracy", "state" or even "privatisation."
Everyone can see now that choices are open, if not for a car, at least for a beer, and that any monopoly, be it public administration, Conel or the urban transport authority, is sucking their blood out and now asking any questions.
It is one thing to be at the food market, where sellers are bargaining and everyone feel a king, and quite another when, just around the corner, the same person tries to buy a city transport ticket and the seller barks at him for not having any change.
The money is the same, only the relationship between supply and demand is different.
The teller doesn't need the money, and no matter what is said - that the state is not only this much, that, in fact, it's a mere malfunction, that the teller doesn't have bosses severe enough, etc., etc. - the difference in treatment will always exist.
And anyone can see it, without reading tomes on liberalism which demonstrate that totalitarianism leads to incompetent and corrupt leaders and to an impoverished populace.
Can anyone recall that before 1989 university professors were at the whim of food store sellers and butchers? That one could not buy bread in a different city for lack of a bread card?
Perhaps if asked whether they would like to relive such situations, the respondents would have answered quite differently.
Despite declarations of adherence to the market economy and pledges to withdraw from the economy, the Romanian state has grown its influence after 1989. Employees in public administration grew from 100,000 in 1990 to almost 150,000 now.
Add to this the fact that the retired populace has doubled and only a quarter of the economy has gone into private hands, and there is an explanation why two-third in the CURS poll think their wellness depends on the state.
After all, the conclusion of these polls is valid only for a certain definition of the terms used.
Contrasts like this can delight sociologists but, in the meantime, common sense wins in everyday life, even without the goal of any form of social organisation.
Pentru alte știri, analize, articole și informații din business în timp real urmărește Ziarul Financiar pe WhatsApp Channels
