Jun. 24, 2026
For more than a month, my colleagues and I in the PNL have consistently argued that the party must participate in government, because Romania needs a functional government with full governing authority — and without the PNL, that is not possible. The PNL is the solution to the political crisis, not AUR. Global financial markets and Romania’s business community may lose patience, and prolonged uncertainty generates costs and risks the country cannot afford.
Throughout this period, the party repeatedly discussed and voted on the position that the PNL should not continue in government alongside the PSD, and that a period in opposition would be the best option for the party’s future. This position was supported by the party leadership and by most of my PNL colleagues. I held a different view: in difficult times for the country, responsibility to the public interest must prevail. Other PNL colleagues took the same view.
As the political context evolved, some of us were confronted with a difficult dilemma: whether to act according to our conviction that the country urgently needed a government, or to subordinate that conviction to the directive of a party leader.
I also noted with interest the change in approach in recent days, when the PNL leadership decided to support the formation of a new government. Beyond the political calculations inherent in any such process, what matters is that a step forward was taken to break the deadlock and send a signal of stability to society and to the markets.
There is, however, a paradox: those who voted for a government that included PNL members are deemed disloyal, while voting for a purely PSD government, even under certain conditions, is considered acceptable.
I voted for the government proposal put forward two days ago because it represented a solution capable of ending a period of uncertainty and restoring the normal functioning of important state institutions. In consolidated democracies, parties assume both the responsibilities of government and the role of opposition. But there are critical moments and exceptional circumstances that require decisions which go beyond the usual calculation of party interest. The same was true last year, when a pro-Western coalition was formed by parties that had traditionally opposed one another politically.
I chose to remain consistent with my belief that Romania urgently needed a government and that this objective had to take precedence. Other colleagues acted in the same spirit. This was not a conspiracy against the PNL. It was a political response to an urgent situation, aimed at enabling the formation of a government that included several PNL members. It was a choice to prioritize the national interest over a narrower party interest — not an act of sabotage.
When I cast my vote, I knew the proposed government would not pass, because there were not enough votes in Parliament. I also knew that my vote could not, by itself, lead to the formation of a new government. Even so, I chose once again to prioritize the country’s need for a government. Several other PNL colleagues voted in the same way.
Once the vote began, it was clear that the government proposal was effectively defeated from the outset. We could have abstained and avoided an unpleasant discussion within the PNL, but we chose to express our position to the very end.
It is true that I made a choice of perspective, fully aware of the PNL’s official position. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to accept the consequences. I ask nothing from anyone. I will not challenge a possible decision by the PNL to exclude me from its ranks. I will accept it as such, I will not comment on it, and I will continue my public activity under whatever circumstances follow.
At the same time, I believe that those colleagues who do not wish to be subjected to such sanctions, and who express that position openly, should still be given the opportunity for dialogue and compromise with the PNL, under conditions that are reasonable both for them and for the party.
This should not be treated merely as an intermezzo until the new statute is approved, after which they are removed, sidelined, or permanently disregarded.
Here lies a complex task for the party’s Secretary General: finding a political solution in a difficult situation, one that requires reconciling imperatives, principles, and positions that may appear irreconcilable. That is somewhat more complicated than encouraging the party to expel people.
It reminds me of a diplomatic file I once handled — one that appeared, at first glance, impossible to resolve. I am convinced that the Secretary General will find a solution.