Romania I did not know

Every time I go abroad and I talk to foreigners about Romania I have the tendency to praise the people and criticize the inefficient laws. My Romania is not as bad as it seems, or at least no one is allowed to say something bad about it except for me...

Thinking about going abroad to do an internship in a social cooperative, I start again having questions about my knowledge of Romania and how much I will miss its fields, mountains and people. I feel sad that I did not have the time and interest to discover those parts of Romania that are different - I have never been in a very very poor village, I do not know how a gypsy community looks like, I do not know how children get an education in the rural areas of my beautiful country... but it's never too late, is it?!

Last week, I got a very tempting invitation from a dear friend to join her in a little trip to a village from Transilvania, Covasna county. The aim of the visit was to learn about the educational level of the gypsy community in Araci. Our findings would have helped a wonderful NGO to improve one of its programmes that encourages families to send their children to kindergarten by offering them some monthly food tickets (12 euro per month).

When I said "yes" to this trip, I must admit I was not sure of what I was going to find there and how important for my life this experience would have been.

I was about to discover that Araci and Heter, another village from Valcele, are two of the poorest villages in Romania. The area is known as a predominantly Hungarian one, but the two villages were populated by 60% gypsy, around 15% Hungarians and 15% Romanians. Araci is the capital of the commune and has the only secondary school, the other villages having only primary schools. There are around 350 students in the school (primary and secondary level), but only around 65% of them come to school daily. As for highschool, if one wants to continue his/her education, they need to commute to Sfintul Gheorghe, the city next to the village, 20 km far. Moreover, many professors seem to have lost their interest in educating the students and they have very poor results, most of them not qualifying for going to highschool. The Hungarian classes are held for all primary and all secondary school students, since their number is very little. For example, all 15 primary school students that attend the Hungarian classes in Araci learn together from one professor that teaches in both Romanian and Hungarian so that she is understood...is that like she is teaching for 8 teachers in the same time??? (4 different classes in 2 different languages in the same timeee???). Moreover, most students from the Hungarian classes are Romanians and their parents decided to send them there because they get paid by the Hungarian Government (30.000 HUF - around 110 euro per year)...

In the center, the community looks fine,they have paved streets and a couple of shops, two churches, a school and a kindergarten, a police office and the City Hall.

Once we go up on a hill, we arrive in the gypsy community ...

Today, after seeing Heter too, I can say Araci is not the poorest one, since Heter looks a lot worse.The poverty is extreme.

There are up to 10-15 people living in one such "house" with one room. No kitchen, no toilet, no water and sometimes no electricity... if they had electricity, though, they had TV and some of them had even a mobile phone...

The communities are not traditional ones keeping alive their customs or wearing traditional costumes. They are rather a mix of cultures adapting to a continuous capitalistic change that offers no job, very weak education and no chance to become someone else, since there is no possibility to go study in the city or see that there is something else except for your little community. Most of the people do not have the perception of another kind of real life, since they have never been out and what they see on television looks like utopia...

We started to talk to people and soon most of the community was out, watching us and asking what we were doing. Their clothes were dirty, there was no water on the hill, so they needed to bring it from down. Their houses looked small and unfinished. The children were hanging on us, taking our breath and energy. They needed attention. The panorama was scary, but there was no danger...there was only a complete lack of opportunities.

Talking to the people from the community, we found out that they get married around 15-16, the youngest I met marrying at 13 and having the first baby at 14. The time seemed like passing differently in that place and I felt a kid in comparison to the women my age who had at least 4 children...According to my standards, everyone looked a lot older.

I have not met anyone who entered highschool and it was a real success if someone finished the 8th grade, most of the population having around 4-5 grades. The most usual reason for quitting school was getting married and having kids. While everyone declared school is very important, no one knew anyone who had finished highschool and / or had a sort of career or achievement...It looked like studying serves only for learning how to read, write and count, which, in the end, they will never use, since they almost never get a job....

A very interesting aspect was the fact there there were no two families living in the same house/room. Every new family (husband) was building a new house (sometimes with help from the family and friends) and they were living there until the end. The number of children varied from 2 to 14, but most of them had around 5-6 children. Most of their income was comprised by state social aid and children allowance. While the women were never hired and took care of the children, the men were sometimes working on the fields in agriculture, or in industry and constructions. Furthermore, they were often going in the city (Sfintul Gheorghe or Brasov) to collect old iron and sell it...or to beg. In short, their income per capita was around 20 euro per month.


What stroke me was that only one family from Heter (who was known as a sort of leader of the village) was planting some vegetables in a little garden and had some chickens, one horse and one cow. All the rest did not plant vegetables and had at most a horse. I kept on wondering whyyyyyyy? don't they do anything to improve their situation and whyyyy?? are they so short-term oriented? Later, I found out that no matter what they do it's useless since they get stolen....how comes that such a community was not able to have one leader who can convince the population of respecting the other's property...Putting them all together, it makes sense, though: their education level is awful and there is no leader who has the ability to make himself/herself listened to. In addition, the land where they were living was probably stolen also, so their entire lives began like this, by stealing. How can you change your mind about something that you learned from the beginning of your life?

There was only one positive side of the story, as far as I have seen - the tolerance for everyone's ethnicity and religion. All Hungarians, Romanians and Gypsy, reformats, unitarians, catholics, Iehova's witnesses and other believers lived in peace with one another as far as these two components are concerned and there was no association between the criminal acts or occupations and ethnicity or religion. So, please, dear specialists from the top floors, before you bring into discussion the ethnic conflicts in Transilvania, please go there and check it yourselves! This is the last problem we have there!

I keep on thinking on our governmental investments and malinvestments and how we spend our money in those beautiful and opulent shopping malls while those hundreds of children have 0 (ZERO) opportunity to get out of that vicious circle...And I imagine the millionaires who keep on doing passive charity and not changing a bit the way they do business... and I go on reflecting on how we encourage the dependency of those people form Araci and Heter on social aid instead of creating efficient instruments for empowering them... isn't it time to woke up and stopped doing development from the top with no care for the hapless?!

proiect de lege cadru pentru economia sociala

sunt o lenesa cand vine vorba de scris, desi atunci cand ma apuc nu mai termin sunt in faza in care nu contenesc sa citesc materiale pentru lucrarea de licenta, pe tema economiei sociale, mai ales ca in fiecare saptamana apare ceva nou, un nou proiect, un nou consiliu, o noua lege :P citind noul proiect de lege aici, am venit cu 2 argumente. Va invit la dezbatere!

• Argumentul 1: legea cadru a cooperativei, 1/2005 est prea permisiva si duce activitatea cooperativei mult prea aproape de societatea comerciala reglementata de legea 31/1990 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/31493224/Societatea-cooperativa-reglementata-de-Legea-nr-1-2005-Delimitari-si-interferente-in-raport-cu-alte-tipuri-de-societati-comerciale-sau-necomerciale).

Principala diferenta intre cele doua tipuri de societati, pe langa forma de organizare juridica (dupa cum arata Viorel si Mihnea Gaina), consta in scopul asocierii, în sensul că asociaţii din societatea cooperativă urmăresc promovarea intereselor lor economice, sociale, culturale (ex.: obţinerea de dividende; obţinerea de facilităţi; obţinerea de servicii), in timp ce asociaţii din societatea comercială urmăresc realizarea şi împărţirea numai de beneficii. Un asociat al unei cooperative nu poate deține mai mult de 20% din capitalul social (art. 11 din Legea nr. 1/2005), impartit in parti sociale egale cu o valoare nominala stabilita prin actul constitutiv (nu mai mica de 10 lei - art. 9(3) din Legea nr. 1/2005). In plus, cooperativa este controlată democratic de către membrii săi în conformitate cu principiile cooperatiste (art. 7(1) din Legea nr. 1/2005). Problema: ce ne facem cu o cooperativa (grad I) care are 70 de cooperatori si 50 de actionari ce are ca obiect de activitate producerea si comercializarea unor produse, scopul fiind de obtinere de dividente pentru actionari. Sa presupunem ca mergand pe teren, aflam ca nu realizeaza insertia pe piata muncii a persoanelor din diverse grupuri vulnerabile, angajatii sunt platiti cu salariu fix, iar actionarii nu impart servicii si produse, ci doar profitul. Conform legii propuse, cooperativele de gradul I sunt o forma a economiei sociale...conform legii 1/2005, activitatea lor poate ajunge departe de interesul general, al unei colectivitati si/sau interesul personal nepatrimonial. Mai precis, aceasta cooperativa-exemplu, urmareste interesul actionarilor. Reprezinta ei o colectivitate? Atunci si o societate pe actiuni poate reprezenta interesul unei colectivitati...cred ca e asolut necesar sa explicam foarte clar dimensiunile ”interes general” si cel ”al unei colectivitati”, alaturi de tipurile de cooperative ce pot intra in conceptul de economie sociala. Cooperativa sociala poate fi un raspuns, asa cum a fost operationalizat in aceasta lege, dar adaugand si alte dimensiuni.

• Argumentul 2: impartirea profitului catre membri trebuie restrictionata

Prin oferirea posibilitatii distribuirii profitului ne vom indeparta de esenta conceptului de economie sociala, dand sansa unor cooperative sau SRL-uri sa apeleze la diverse forme de economie sociala pentru a-si deservi niste interese beneficiind de subventii – daca acestea vor fi aplicate, asa cum este mentionat in acest proiect de lege. Eventual, putem oferi o limita pana la care se pot plati dividendele.

o carte, o idee

metamorfoza valorilor românești a anului 2010 parcurge același drum ca în multe alte țări în anii 1960 - citat din Rezsohazy, Rudolf (2006) [2008]. Sociologia valorilor. Iași, Editura Institutul European. Traducere de Ioana Opaiț. pp.115-117 ”revoltele din campusurile americane, protestele împotriva războiului din Vietnam, Mai 1968 în Franța și în alte părți (în special în Germania) vizualizează brusc problemele care sunt în incubație și care stau la baza schimbărilor care aveau să urmeze. Sistemele de valori predominante sunt sfidate. În interacțiunea ”păstrătorilor” și a ”inovatorilor”, primii (puterile din politică, din întreprinderi, din școli, din familii) opun o rezistență care nu e foarte fermă, astfel încât inovatorii reușesc să răspândească modul lor de a gândi și de a se comporta. Dar care sunt problemele? În anii 60, o nouă generație, născută după război, ajunge la vârsta la care tinerii își pun întrebări (nu toți, desigur, ci cei care se exprimă, care dau tonul, care au inițiativa, care marchează evoluția). Aceasta nu a cunoscut războiul mondial, suferințele și lipsurile lui. Este invitat să intre într-o societate care se desfășoară ”normal” și care este în plină expansiune. Dar această societate nu îi propune niciun proiect colectiv mobilizator, așa cum pentru antemergătorii acestei generații fuseseră rezistența sau reconstrucția. Această societate este, în exprimarea lui Riesman, ”subsolicitată emoțional”. Nimeni și nimic nu îi solicită energiile. Or ea nu acceptă fără a proba propunerea de a își lua locul în ”sistem”, de a acționa ca mama și ca tata înaintea ei. Mulți părinți sunt dezorientați. Ei au obiceiuri, dar le lipsesc adesea convingerile. Nu sunt nici măcar în stare să explice motivația atitudinilor și valorilor lor. Criza educației constă de atunci în absența unei imagini sigure oferite de adulți. Aceștia nu își asumă un leadership credibil, ca înainte. Comunicare între generații se face plecând de la două experiențe total diferite: cea a părinților s-a acumulat în timpul războiului, cea a copiilor în plină societate de consum. De aici, neînțelegerile. Când părinții gândesc și judecă luându-și tinerețea ca punct de referință, când încep cu o frază cu ”pe vremea mea”, schimbul devine imposibil.” ”un refuz exprimat de tineri (...) un refuz al autorității, oriunde se manifestă aceasta: în familie, la școală, în politică (...) este refuzul sclerozei universitare, al birocrației și al ierarhiilor (...) al clasei politice. Este o contestare generală, o ”silă” universală, o revoltă împotriva monotoniei vieții, a faimoasei rutine ”servici-casă-somn. Dezvoltarea economică nu a dat un sens vieții. Formele democratice practicate nu au solicitat un sentiment intim al libertății. Dreptatea și egalitatea proclamate oficial contrazic realitatea. (...) Nu este interzis să credem că ruptura care dă la iveală problemele se produce între generații: valorile celor mai în vârstă nu mai trec la cei tineri. Tinerii aspiră la o altă viață, la alte moduri de a gândi, de a simți, de a se purta. Criza văzută în termeni macroeconomici conduce la o formulare asemănătoare: ruptura s-a produs, pe de-o parte, între capacitățile de producție ale economiei și ale societății de consum căreia i-a dat naștere (opera ”eroică” a celor mai în vârstă), și cultură, pe de altă parte, mai ales valorile și aspirațiile (dezvoltate de tiner). Miza care se conturează este cât se poate de generală: este vorba despre scopul și natura societății înseși” nu suntem noi aici? suntem noi aceștia? nu credem noi acestea? nu simțim noi acestea?

happiness and where to look for it

for romania's national day and the bday of one of my sisters-in-law , my family gathered. lots of noise, happiness (or maybe wanna-be feeling of happiness: we always think we should be happy if we are together, if we rationally decide it is a moment for being happy)food and ... searching :D coming back home to my eldest's brother house, i started thinking about me in 10 years. where will i be, what will i be doing, how will i be happy? i tried to understand if i see my life at least a bit similar to his. i realised the answer is rather negative, so again, i started asking why...why different? we come from the same family, we have more or less the same values etc, maybe the only thing that aparts us is the educational opportunities and the times we lived. so, are these two aspects so important that can produce two different lifestyles? i guess this question will find an answer in 12 years, when i'll be the age of my brother but anyways, coming back to happiness, because we all want to create that kind of life that makes us happy, many times we try to create contexts that we think can lead us to feeling good, feeling happy. we are deeply dissappointed when we find out this feeling doesn't appear, so we try again to look for happiness somewhere else, as, of course, it's always because of something that we're not happy...but what if we think of what exactly makes us happy when we experience the feeling? is it the new curtain? the great hotel room or the trip to lapland? or is it the enthusiasm, the intrinsic value of us being happy with ourselves, with our life and decisions that makes us increase the level of our happiness? is it the environment, or the way we connect with that environment - meaning place, people, ideas? where should i look for happiness when everything is tearing apart, when u find no solution and no hope? my answer? in myself and in my power to smile even though i'm in a way forcing myself to do it. and why is that smile authentic? because it comes from my justified wish to create a smiling network, a chain-reaction based on sincerity - an impulse to smile when someone else smiles at you, something that you cannot explain through more than saying "i smile cause he smiled". what is there more authentic than this relation? i guess i define this giving-back moment as the greatest one of authentic happiness and even though i'm tired and my back hurts, i send a huge smile to all those of you who are there to reach it

what about tomorrow?

the story of how to build tomorrow wisely

in the last two days I've been participating in a very interesting and challenging conference and I'd like to put down some ideas for fear of losing them and, if possible, for getting some input. yesterday's topic referred to finding a strategy for increasing competitiveness among romanian students, debate which involved stakeholders from the public, private and non-profit arenas. here are some issues that caught my attention or were simply raised in/by my mind:

• it's said that we have lots more students in university today compared to 10-20 years ago. however, the big number of graduates is a "fake"one, as it is produced by an assessment process guided by the idea that we need to keep all or almost all the students in the university in order to make it a sustainable system. the result? very low quality of the graduates, of the labor force, of the future teachers, professors and leaders. not only that we are easy in the selection for entering the university (aspect that could be solved by a strict and demanding system once one got in), but it goes on until the student finishes, moment when the university is trying to persuade him/her to remain inside the organisation for continuing the studies. why? because if the number of less competent students give up, there will be fewer paying the taxes, therefore the system dies...result? higher education for mass, double or triple degree, overspecialization and unemployment due to the high amount of young "fake"professionals. the problem of opportunity for all is one that most of the ones present agreed on, but I believe this does not oppose to the quality. promote higher education among all, set it as a value, but education should be understood as knowledge, competence and attitude... solution? invest in inclusion and equality of opportunity projects AND rebuild the colleges!

• startinternship.ro

• how much should we direct the university programmes and the curricula towards the market's demand? what are the risks and the opportunities? what is the national context and the evolution in the last 20 years? what is the role of the state in setting the educational agenda? is it the market, the state, the student or all these actors together that should be involved in forming the curricula? I believe that if it is only the market that has a word in this it could become too adventurous, unequal, centered on profit-making activities and consumerism. However, once the capitalism paradigm moves towards a less profit-oriented and a more lack-of-poverty type, encouraging Muhammad Yunus' model of social business, I trust the market will be able to have a fair and moral negociation with the university. Until then, the state should facilitate the conversation between the university and the private sector for increasing the stability and sustenability of the programmes, while the students should have a wide variety of courses to choose as optionals. This way, you also empower the student and make him/her aware of the responsibility for their own future. solutions? negotiations with the private sector- involve it in the university senate, guvernmental facilitation regarding the trends and the objectives based on research, greater course offer for the students.

• autonomy does not imply lack of respect for the student! if university X promised a programme or a course, keep your promise! do not make changes during the year, do not dissappoint the students, as you represent the first institution following the family that builds the individual and forms his/her values!

• quality can not be measured from the inside; do not hire your own graduates as teachers! if you want to measure your results get them free and see where are they able to fly!

• we keep saying that we don't do and don't have as many internship offers as we should have...check how did the internship market looked like 15 years ago and please stop complaining! yes, we don't have enough internships for all the students today..but maybe we do not need so many students, but only the best ones! equality of opportunity included! :)

• sometimes, the medium is more important than the content...

today's subject consisted in reestablishing the vision, the mission and the strategic objectives of the organisation. here are some conclusions that I reached during the discussions:

• early education matters! we still need to learn to repects ourselves and the others and we need to do it today! - pay attention to reactions, giving time for others to express their ideas and accept them, respect the timetable etc.

• we still need to learn working as a team, to harmonise our actions and "walk" in the same direction

• we need to learn how to start an organisation: vision, mission (which involves the target group), strategy (long, medium and short term), division of departments and setting the short and medium term agenda with concrete projects/programmes; more importantly, start acting today!

• more than talking about huge projects, we need to start doing the small ones that will lead us to the huge one one day...but have always in mind your goal!

• what do we need in Romania today? I believe we don't really lack the initiative, but we need more long-time acting on each problem. I believe we need innovative methods and sustainable moves (see social business). We also need a national civic symbol that could get the vote one day and this could only be done through civic action and networking. My soution? structured, simultaneous movements that share the same vision and follow three stages: development from below, development from above (that is based on the support of the previous) and development from outside (diaspora) - what can diaspora do for the country? start social businesses for developing the country overall, finance the above movement that focuses on advocacy, networking, dissemination and facilitates the communication with romanians abroad. build a long term strategy and gain the power based on your results!