Regardless of the name under which they are made and regardless of the presence or absence in their body has some additional alloys ideological always find in the arsenal of the democratic parties of thematic discourse in contemporary parties known as "centre-right"-two major components. On the one hand, a classical liberalism individualist recovery, propiata, prolibera, and on the other hand, a reformulation of some conservative themes relating to the role of community, family and religion in social order, coupled with concerns related to the function of the State as guarantor of social solidarity. Basically, in the past 20 years, so the new articulated ideas straight have radically changed the political discourse. It is obvious that neither the story nor the competitors ' failures cannot explain this remarkable performance. A more complete answer would have looked so at the level of detail and specific ways in which are combined and welded these ideas, so to have one so big four-wheel drive politics.
The key observation in this regard is that the merger of the centre-right ideas could not be stopped at the level of general principles, but has gained specific forms in the context of each country, each time being the result of an intellectual effort to adapt themselves. Given the fact that political doctrines are not simply lists of sentences, but discursive structures vii what draws the political and social environment in which they arise, specific formulas of sharpening and construction are the result of a doctrinal deliberate effort adjustment, specific to each political and intellectual cultures. When even socialism, with all internationalismul or, because of the necessity to recognize national, even more so in the case of the righteous, sensitive to variations in local or national, cannot import or plagiarism. Whether it was talking about the development of the democratic Christian ideas with "ordo-liberal" in Germany, whether it was the "fuzionismul" association between American libertarianism and paleoconservatorism, be it more recently, synthesis of "social Catholicism" and procapitaliste of the popular right wing thesis, we have in each case to deal with ideological products always calibrated to the context. That is why it is only natural to ask when Romania where we situate in this process. Where are we on the right track for the formation of the modern architecture of the Romanian doctrine? That should be the direction of movement in order to achieve this target?
Before anything, it should be recalled that this process does not happen spontaneously and effortlessly. Someone has to take the burden of the effort steadily in the direction of articularii and harmonizing these ideas. If we look at the experience of other countries, we see that, every time the process is accompanied by disputes, discussions and polemics that sometimes cross the stage what lasts years. In most cases, they have led to the identification of appropriate solutions and combinations of national and cultural contexts, but also, in most cases, the process was a complicated one, which assumed a profound commitment on the part of several groups of thinkers, publicisti and political commentators, sometimes in conjunction with political parties, sometimes running separately. In other words, even a superficial glance upon Western experience shows us why "doctrinal clarification" should not be construed as a decision sinodala, but as a process associated the public dialogue. It is not a political act, as well as an intellectual debate. It does not lead to both a Decalogue or credo, as well as from a corpus of themes, arguments and counter-arguments, which is all the time in public debate. During this process, the politician playing a supporting role. Forefront of the intellectual, publicist returns and political commentator. In short, the first precondition to doctrinal construction process is the existence of an intellectual class, having the intention and capacity to engage in this effort. In its absence, everything is blocked. The second precondition is the existence of the institutional infrastructure necessary for this process: organizations, publications and media and channels of communication. It was not until after these two prerequisites are fulfilled we can talk about the steps and elements of the process itself.
In the case of Romania, constatand this still fragile of the two prerequisites, we are faced with one of the fact that we cannot talk about merger or doctrinal development, as long as there have been established the first components. Or, in our case, these are not at all clear. Both liberalism and conservatism are diffuse, polisemantice, entities with many facets. In the Romanian context, some are functional and have sense, others are not. So, before anything should be identified, veneers or current schools of thought or ideas what it might be an accumulation owing to existing elements. Romanian Association of past being the one who is, the effort is as necessary as delicate. But, even if this ghost of the past would not exist, the problem remains topical. For example, in what can only be called conservative thinking in broad sense, there was a racordeaza straight to what is "European" tradition or conservatism of "Western civilization" and another, what claim directly from the classical conservatism of the 19th century. The two are not always on the same page. Similarly, the Romanian liberalism has libertarian, classical liberal veneers and liberal society. To be able to put all of these current and their ramifications together under the same umbrella, it is necessary an effort to define their precise coordinates and of identifying points of convergence. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that, in the world of postliberala, in all political systems give a fight between right and left for the political legacy of the residue of the aura. In some countries, it is captured mainly in orbit right in others, in the left. And in Romania this process begins to make itself felt. Creating a flexible framework to doctrinaire accommodate as many liberal elements of teamwork and strategic way as much as possible from the political area, seems to be the strategy adopted everywhere in the world where there is the right recipes for success. In short, the right of the Romanian has started a busy agenda.
The doctrine of the Association of Romanian also need to definesca and to reinforce the perimeter. Removing the "right" in Romania under the shadow of nationalist extremism, religious fundamentalism and traditionalismului etnicist and pasunist is a priority, it becomes more and more urgent. In other words, build conceptual apparatus and symbolic ideologico-need this issue is an emergency. At a more concrete level, these concerns into themes such as the elaboration of a doctrine of relationship between politics and the religious sphere. The lack of such modern political doctrines that would tap into, for instance, the European political orthodoxy is a problem, but also an opportunity. A problem, because the vacuum currently existing (or, at least, the perception of the existence of a vacuum) born stresses and monsters. An opportunity, because in front of the historical task to stand build a form equivalent to the Western Christian democracy in space. If we were to confine even at that, the agenda of the Romanian Association of doctrinal construction would already be very stoked. But this is only the beginning. Another theme is that of defining the national problem in a modern manner, attuned to global and european context of the 21st century. With it comes the delicate task of operating in the area of the imaginary of the national identity, as well as in that of the relationship between culture, public institutions and civic space, in ways in which to prevent nationalist extremism-resurgenta etnicist. A list of these themes may continue, but the goal is not to make an inventory, but to illustrate the magnitude of the task that stands in front of intellectuals, politicians and public debate.
We can see more clearly, in light of the above, double your bet to challenge. The first is purely political and refers to the relevant political forces in agregarii a party or functional construction policy. This direction has already been assumed and announced as a project explicitly political grouping founded around t. Stolojan, v. Sahota and Gh. Angara and remains to be seen the extent of its success. The second is ideological and refers to the so called "doctrinal clarification." This direction cannot be but monocentrica. If the challenge is mainly the field of politics and the responsibility of politicians and must lead to forms of concentration and regrouping bipolar politics, the second returns but mainly in charge of public intellectuals, political commentators and publicistilor and can not be otherwise than polycentric. In short, success in reforming the political system depends not only on the ability of politicians to find solutions to problems related to the uneasy realisation of an unprecedented construction in Romania, but also the ability of the intellectuals, publicistilor and political commentators to contribute, through public debate and regrouping in schools and the current of thought, ideas and themes to define what should govern the doctrinal architecture our political spectrum in a system that meet the needs and realities.