REACTION “To demonize young people is a big mistake” – UBB Rector Daniel David talks about the survey in which most young people say they will vote for AUR

Professor Daniel David, rector of Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, intervenes in the debate generated by the national survey that puts AUR in the top of young people’s preferences and proposes another perspective. He says, in an interview with HotNews.ro, that it should be accepted that there can be people, even young people with schooling, who find themselves in their message and that “it would be a mistake to demonize them”.

“Let’s take a different look at the survey that shows that most young people vote for AUR”, suggests Professor Daniel David. For him, what is more relevant is not that 15% of young people would vote for George Simion’s party, but that the remaining 85% would not support him.

HotNews.ro published on Saturday the first data of a survey carried out in March at the national level, which shows that the party led by George Simion would be the first to be voted for in the parliament, by young people between 18 and 35 years old, “if the elections were held on Sunday future”.

“I’m not that worried,” says Daniel David. But he is concerned about the distrust young people express towards the Presidency, Parliament or the government and believes that “frustration towards democratic institutions” leads them to the AUR. An anti-system vote.

“As long as AUR is an accepted party in Romanian democracy, we must also accept the fact that there can be people, even young people, even with schooling, who find themselves in their message. To demonize is a big mistake”, says Daniel David.

“It’s a normal democratic battle”

We reproduce the full interview with the rector of UBB, Daniel David:

HotNews.ro: A national survey shows that AUR is the favorite party among 18-35 year olds. How does that make you feel?

Daniel David: I don’t feel in a particular way, because I’m not a politician. But looking at the data, I can say I understand what’s going on. And I see that the prototype of the young person in the research sample is the one with secondary education – 51%. There are very few with higher education, 27%, and the rest only have elementary education. The fact that a party that has a more sovereignist discourse catches on to this prototype of young people is not a surprise.

Well, this is the profile of the young man from Romania. The survey was not only conducted among students, it is relevant for the general young Romanian, right?

Daniel David: That’s right. And I am convinced that the differences are very large within each category. But the general young people in Romania are mostly more open to globalization and only 15% of the entire population or 25% of those who intend to vote are in pro-sovereignty positions. The percentage is one that we also see in other European countries. However, most young people go towards the parties that are more open to the EU and NATO, so that do not have a very strong sovereignist discourse. Maybe the percentages of 15 and 25 seem high to us, but we can look the other way around: 75% or 85% are in the area that does not support a sovereignist approach. It’s a normal democratic battle.

Is your division between pro-sovereign and pro-European youth?

Daniel David: Exactly, because the other big parties, probably PSD, PNL, United Right Alliance, cover most of the rest.

I’m not so worried about the percentage. I am more concerned that democratic institutions are being put last

Let’s get to know the 15%. What does this option tell us about them?

I look carefully at the partial data. And it doesn’t worry me as much as others, maybe because I look at it in an international context. But also because they show that the young Romanian has confidence in the university environment, in the European Union and in NATO. That’s a good thing we can build on.

I say that for those who want a Romania anchored in the western space, a more globalized Romania, in the EU space, is good news. We notice that the young man does not trust the democratic institutions: Presidency, Parliament, Government and, surprisingly, even in the press. This tells me that they are more oriented towards alternative means to the traditional media, where fake news is much more widespread. And he has this critical attitude because he seems to be disappointed with the way democracy works in Romania. In relation to this mistrust, the anti-system attitude that leads to an AUR vote must be put. I’m not so worried about the percentage, nor about these options. I am more concerned that democratic institutions are being put last. This tells me that the option for sovereignty does not necessarily come from a rational analysis, with a calculation of the advantages and disadvantages, but from a frustration with the current democratic institutions.

“It’s time for those who care about democracy to return to the Internet”

The political leaders also indicated that young people would turn to TikTok and said that a regulation is needed. What is the effect of TikTok and social networks in general?

I think it’s a bidirectional relationship, that is, they influence each other. And democracies and democratic institutions must learn to return to the public space through social networks. That we abandoned them. And then who manifests there? Other anti-democratic forces, which undermine the truth, which undermine cooperation and trust. And then we see how the democracy index collapses. It is time for those who care about democracy to return to the Internet and understand the reality of social networks. He must have a presence there. Banning them is a big mistake. Any ban generates an area of ​​revolt, which will develop. However, taking into account that there are mostly young people from pre-adolescence and adolescence on TikTok, they are anyway prone to oppose the rules. If we find ourselves wanting to block them, let’s not be surprised that they will find some extremely creative means to react.

Regardless of the environment, the party that gathers 15% of the youth proposes a set of values. Do you think young people identify with these values?

Probably that percentage of 15-20 has these values ​​and can be found there. But I think the attitude is more against the current establishment. Young people normally rebel against the rules, believe that the country is going in a bad direction and are dissatisfied with a lot of things. In the research we are talking about, young people show that they are worried about getting a job. However, the party that manifested itself in this spirit – against the establishment, against the institutions – is the AUR party. That’s why I think they collected this percentage. We are surprised when we see 15-25% for a sovereignist party, but it is a common movement for the whole western space.

“15 years ago it was not good to be a sovereignist”

Is it fashionable to be a sovereignist? The Washington Post also wonders.

I don’t think it’s fashionable. We have always had this segment, only now they have the courage to be more vocal and present. But we also have a very strong left wing – the neo-Marxists are just as active and strong, only they are not represented by a specific party, so they are distributed among the other parties. Now these movements are more visible also because they are encouraged by the movements in the European Union space. 15 years ago, we had just entered the EU, we were just starting to develop there, and it was not good to be sovereign when you benefited from the fact that you did not have to queue for visas, for example. Now, however, the sovereignists are becoming more vocal and are encouraged by similar demonstrations in the Western countries that founded the European Union. But, I repeat, only 15-25%. So 75-85% have another option. We remain fixed on this percentage of 15-25, but I understand it as a natural movement, similar to international trends.

So, although most of the youth prefer GOLD, they are in the minority, you say…

They are minorities. If we gather the globalist parties, we notice that they have a consistent majority compared to the sovereignist ones.

What social effect can the separation between the “minority” who vote for AUR and the “majority” of those who support other parties have? Can we put in this context the reactions of people who describe the young AUR as “illiterate”, “stupid” etc.?

I think this is a big mistake! As long as AUR is an accepted party in Romanian democracy – certainly, a party that has other options than the majority -, we must also accept the fact that there may be people in the population, even young people, even with schooling, who find themselves in their message . To demonize is a big mistake. Why wouldn’t we expect from those who are pro-AUR to demonize the others, that they would like to sell the country to the European Union and thus start a polarization that will not lead to anything good.

“It’s a shame and gives water to the mill of those who say that democracy has failed”

Are we not already seeing the seeds of such polarization?

Sure. That’s why I say that we should penalize not the fact that someone votes with AUR, but the extremist tendencies at the limit of the law or beyond the law in all parties. And let’s accept that there are different perspectives in society, some more globalist, others more sovereignist, and people will vote. Beyond the fact that the press interpreted this result in a certain way – I think wrongly or not sufficiently weighted -, young Romanians do not, in a large majority, have a sovereignist perspective. There are some who have this perspective. Well, it’s their choice. But they are not the majority.

However, the polarizations already exist. Where can it be reached?

The polarizations exist and the elections are coming. The result can lead to social conflicts and damage to democracy. Therefore, if we consider ourselves democrats, I think we must stop abolishing the others. I have not seen, throughout the history that I have lived and from what I have read – that I have read enough to understand society -, such a desire on the part of political leaders to put each other in prison . Not only in Romania, but in almost all democratic countries. Or, this is a shame and only serves to fuel those who say that democracy has failed. We have to accept the fact that if someone has an opposite opinion to us and either wants a country dominated by sovereignty or wants a strong country in NATO and the EU, he is not the enemy, the enemy that I have to abolish. It is just an opponent of ideas. And, if he can convince the population more than me, in the end, the population is sovereign. This must be the message, and the authorities must quickly punish any deviation from the letter and spirit of the law in the extremist direction. I am surprised when I see so many arguments in the Parliament, so many attacks that ended up physical! Are we really not able to regulate the behavior in the Parliament and the way this institution works?

How would you describe, in a chapter of “Psychology of the Romanian People”, this picture?

Our individualism score went up. Attention, in Romanian this term has the connotation of selfishness. However, individualism means that autonomous individuals build groups based on common values. Collectivism is what creates groups based on predetermined relationships, in the logic of an extended family. In a structure of autonomous individuals, the group serves the individual. In a structure of collectivist individuals, the individual sacrifices himself for the group. And Romania’s autonomy score on the psycho-cultural component has increased in recent years.

We are approaching the threshold where we pass from a collectivist society to one of autonomous individuals. Our problem now is different: that we are in a phase of transition, of emancipation. The autonomous individual is not yet benevolent and empathetic, but is in a transitional phase in which he is more selfish, tempted to disobey rules, who wants to have his voice heard, to participate in all the processes that concern him, which of many or confuses his opinion with the truth. It’s a very complicated period, especially since it comes from a rather low educational background. We do not have a highly educated population, we are poor in this respect compared to the European average. Of course, we have to go through this phase, but this is where the risks of cracking institutions appear, when the quasi-emancipated individual stops respecting rules, institutions, and considers that he is the point of reference. I hope we go through this phase of emancipation as quickly as possible and reach the phase where we are already emancipated, when we will care about society, about institutions, we will be more tolerant, we will seek cooperation and we will be more benevolent.