A sovereignist leader has the advantage of a protectionist constitution and a social body adaptable to new conditions. The maximum resistance would appear among the corporatists and those dependent on the money received from abroad from the economic diaspora. What would he have to do from the first days? In addition to guillotining the heads of the secret services and removing the undercover officers from the media, politics, and administration, justice changes rapidly, but with an American protectorate and an English proxy.

In secret, the sovereignist leader could “buy” his peace from the government of His Majesty King Charles III in exchange for the promise that he would manage the presidential mandate only for a transitional period with the aim of preparing the monarchist restoration. A good image play and an emotional perspective would be the action of requesting a vote from the Parliament with a view to Romania’s entry into the Commonwealth. Without a transitional protectorate, it would slide down the slope of the fall of the only genuine sovereignist who was in command of the state, Liviu Dragnea, sent to prison by the system because he tried to cut off the arms of the octopus from the Romanian state.

Taking over the Nicolae Ceaușescu model of industrial development would be a catastrophe, a suicidal action. It would be just a readjustment of Queen Mary’s plan to establish a Balkan Commonwealth. Being pressed for time, he would urgently need a sovereign wealth fund, through which to formally redistribute (shares, not money) parts of the remaining state properties, taking a breather of enthusiasm. At the same time, mandatory (the English word) would be the next action to convince foreign public service companies to sell, at fair value, the possessions obtained arbitrarily. In cases of non-acceptance of negotiations, the sovereignist leader would have sufficient means of legal pressure.

In need of a quick infusion of capital, this phalanster-type leader could resume historical ties with the great Eastern powers, which have developed meteorically since the establishment of the first economic relations with Romania. They would have no claim to natural resources. It would solve their financial investment needs with good returns. An imperial guarantee could create stability and give the leader the strength to reorganise the state. The promise of the return to the monarchy would have a triple impact: freedom to promote sovereign and protectionist measures in the economy, the preservation of human freedoms and ancestral traditions, and a good social tone, by reviving the hope that Romania could once again become a Balkan power, as it was in the interwar period.

Romania enjoys immense sympathy from the peoples of the Balkans. At least twice in history, King Ferdinand, nicknamed the Loyal, was invited by the parliaments of Budapest and Sofia to assume state authority. A promising project would be to repopulate abandoned villages with Western citizens, tired of political correctness and new-woke trends. A sovereign leader does not mean an obedient of a foreign power, but only a partner. If this leader has to run away from anything, it is the expansionist power of Russia, the only one interested in a hegemony in the Black Sea, despite the historical agreements.

A sovereignist leader must strengthen the NATO flank in his country and maintain cordial relations with European leaders, but not of cruel vassalage, as they are today.
The dialogue with the Western powers should start with the principle, “What does my country gain?”

A Viktor Orban-type leader would not be successful in Romania.

By Marius Ghilezan