* Originally Published in revista 22 collection ' a Constitution for liberty III '

In the United States, a plurality of effervescence to serve organizations manage preferences and various social groups, and the think tank is so influential, that draw in good measure frames political life. How to make the pluralism in the u.s. and why don't we have the same thing and in Romania? The problem arises, in fact, for the whole Europe and the explanation lies in the different natures of the base of support for NGOs. If in the United States think tanks have multiple databases support private they serve successfully in Romania NGOs contract projects from State bodies such as the European Union, suprastatale, and from foundations that receive the funds from other States. The subsidies can grow. The State will outsource the provision of various public services progressively towards NGOs. What will not increase the rate of innovation. Why?

While in the United States is ensured by innovation competition between providers of services made to non-governmental groups support different private, here nature of public money and the type of choke uniformizeaza activity by bureaucratic constraints. These constraints keep in servitude nongovernmental organizations.

Because public money come packed with the burden of bureaucratic constraints, NGOs are not able to sell and buy. As civil servants who manage funds for funding do not have an incentive to risk experiments, only certain things can settle and just behind the observance of certain expensive procedures sets. To shelter themselves from the nineties, accuse administrators of public funds intended for the financing of human resources limited payment. If it is difficult to pay people means that it is difficult to work with. Bureaucratic criteria do difficult and creating long-term partnerships with companies and other organizations, and partnerships must be carried out in the context of selections offer, replayed every time bureaucratic. When the accumulation of human capital is difficult, non-governmental organizations will be weaker, and the whole will be fragmented and weak in the face of the State. What prevents the diversifying support databases? Here sits the most important part of so. It is not in the Constitution. According To Art. 8, para. 1 of the Romanian Constitution, "pluralism in Romanian society is a condition and a guarantee of constitutional democracy". There is also an explicit guarantee of freedom of Association and dissociation, in Art. 40, para. 1, so the law allows private formal financing. Do not create but pluralism through a constitutional explicit commitment towards pluralism, just as you cannot create prosperity through an article that would guarantee prosperity. And the guarantee of freedom of Association is necessary, but not sufficient. Realization of pluralism demands more, a whole complex of constitutional articles to ensure a balanced distribution of decision-making power between the State and society. At this level, however, the Romanian Constitution establishes an imbalance.

Let's think about a card game. Different books have different powers. What if you the Joker would be more powerful than any combination of other books? A State whose powers are undefined for large is like a joker with elite politics can make any ordinary individuals. The group, which is in his possession will hardly allow others to be formed into groups to take certain decisions and to exercise. In front of the other, take the differences between playing cards are irrelevant; they are plural, but not their pluralism helps nothing. What good to hire game strategies with other books? What really matters is take control. This is Romania's situation: the players-different groups with different preferences — have no interest in using plural non-governmental organizations. It is cheaper to pay directly to the politicians who control state to obtain some advantages, so that the State can do anything, constitutional. Of course, the State cannot do anything as a result of an explicit constitutional statuari. But, basically, the conflicting "statuarile this right is guaranteed", followed by the opening of the possibility to restrict it by law, "" let the neingradita legislation. But if the legislation would be limited and, as a result, the State hardly instrumentalized, players are looking for some changes to the rules would be forced to turn to an authentic means of changing public opinion. Plural means would be employed in an intellectual struggle public transparency. These would be NGOs.

Only in a State with limited powers, non-governmental organizations are engaged in a race for reputation and in a spiral of innovation. The reason it won't spiral as a result Raab was brought by Madison. They will be able to offset each other just because of its multitude and diversity: none is sufficiently powerful to impose in interest expense of all others and the general public.

Meanwhile, the Romanian Constitution establishes through ambiguity and contradictions with a State wide powers, so his focus allows direct by the interest groups. Only a radical change in the direction of drastic restrictions on the Constitution of the State will achieve pluralism.