Romania is living through a period of moral and institutional change, where freedom exists in law but is not yet fully lived as a personal duty. Habits of obedience and conformity, shaped by a long history of survival through adaptation, now act as quiet tools of balance. They help avoid open conflict and preserve order, but they also block deeper change.

This study looks at how this inner culture of conformity creates a surface stability, a kind of “toxic stability”, kept in place through caution, loyalty, and fear of risk. Against this background, the honest citizen appears as the only genuine source of moral authenticity, able to reconnect freedom with dignity.

The text is part of the series “Anatomy of an Imperfect Democracy: Romania” and invites a clear-eyed reflection on truth, responsibility, and democratic culture in post-authoritarian societies.

Romania’s state and society: the paradox of formal freedom

In the decades after communism, Romania has gone through a wide transformation that changed how the state and citizens relate to each other. The fall of the regime in 1989 opened the way to democracy, but real change depended less on new institutions and more on how people learned to live with freedom. Laws were rewritten, yet social behavior kept following older patterns, born from long practice in adapting to power to survive.

Democracy in Romania grew through slow steps, compromises, and a mix of hope and mistrust. Institutions started to operate, but not always with the real confidence of the people they serve. Many citizens came to see public participation as a formal duty, not as an act of conviction or influence. Over time, critical thinking faded into a careful caution, shaped by long experience with instability and uncertainty.

Within this fragile order, a zone of functional neutrality appeared. It is a narrow corridor of survival where truth still exists, but rarely changes anything. Ideas circulate, values are declared, yet they seldom reshape behavior deeply. Rather than supporting open and honest confrontation, society has often chosen the calm of agreement and the comfort of a steady status quo.

This paper looks at how a democracy that appears stable can become dependent on its own instinct for self-preservation. The focus is not on individual faults, but on the ongoing presence of a culture of rational submission, visible in institutional obedience and social conformism. This culture provides stability, but blocks renewal; it keeps balance, but weakens the appetite for change.

The key question is not whether Romanian democracy will survive, but how it changes when freedom is no longer lived as an ideal and instead is treated as a routine procedure.

Reflexes of obedience and mechanisms of social conformism

Centuries of adaptation have turned obedience into a form of daily wisdom. In a context with low trust, submission became a survival tool, and silence became a way to keep balance. These behaviors took root in social life and slowly formed a culture built on avoiding risk. This was not the outcome of a planned decision, but the result of many generations for whom safety depended on discretion and compliance.

In societies where freedom was won through continuous struggle, civic courage gained the status of public virtue. In Romania, freedom came more as a historical opening, a window suddenly unlocked in a world that had not yet learned how to breathe the air of responsibility. Under these conditions, the instinct to avoid exposure grew into a kind of collective logic: knowing when to keep quiet, who to align with, and how not to disturb the fragile order.

Social psychology shows that obedience is a common human trait, not an exception. Stanley Milgram’s experiments revealed that, within strong institutional settings, people often obey authority even when it conflicts with their conscience. Solomon Asch’s research on conformity showed that group pressure can change perception so much that people deny what they clearly see. Philip Zimbardo’s work on behavior under power demonstrated how quickly roles can overpower personal principles.

These are not abstract theories. They describe accurately how a society works when its citizens learn that survival depends on fitting in. In Romania’s public life, obedience rarely appears as blunt coercion. It looks more like a silent deal between fear and caution. People are not openly forced to agree, but they come to feel that open disagreement has a cost. This mindset of “strategic moderation” turns a lack of courage into something seen as intelligent and prudent, not as a flaw.

Today, obedience shows itself mainly through institutional routines. Every sector has its own style of compliance: in politics through loyalty, in public administration through strict procedural behavior, in workplaces through quiet acceptance. The result is a society that seems orderly on the surface, but remains rigid and slow inside. The initiative looks suspicious, and conformity is rewarded.

In such an environment, freedom does not vanish, but becomes a stage setting for a kind of fake responsibility. Participation turns formal, courage moves inside, and dignity often gets confused with skillful adaptation. Obedience reflexes no longer act only from outside pressure. They move inside people, and work through the need for safety, the reflex to avoid conflict, and the silent belief that keeping quiet can take the place of justice.

The main problem is not that these reflexes exist, but that they often remain invisible to those who follow them. A mature democracy does not try to erase obedience; it transforms it into civic discipline. It does not deny conformity; it places it under the guidance of moral judgment. Collective growth depends on this change of meaning: from fear of authority to respect for fair rules, from self-protective silence to responsible dialogue.

Without such a shift, freedom remains an empty civic ritual, and the citizen becomes a disciplined performer in a script that repeats itself without real change.

Politocracy, the new form of captive democracy

Every political system carries a tension between the ideal of representation and the instinct to hold on to power. In Romania, this tension has settled into what can be called a politocracy: a group of political managers who administer democracy as if it were private property. Politocracy is not a doctrine and not a hidden plot. It grows naturally from a selection process that rewards loyalty over skill and caution over initiative.

Over time, the political structure learned to protect itself through two main filters. The first is bureaucratic, made of regulations, committees, and paperwork that confirm procedure but rarely measure real performance. The second is psychological, built from networks of personal dependence that keep stability through gratitude, favors, and silence. Together, these filters shape a conservative democracy, focused more on self-preservation than on meaningful reform.

Politocracy proves effective precisely because it does not need open authoritarian control. It does not forbid debate; it simply weakens its effect. It does not fully block new ideas; it redirects them into safe and harmless directions. Power does not appear as raw force, but as the management of routine and expectations. In this setting, personal competence can appear dangerous, and clear-sighted judgment can lead to isolation.

A captive democracy is not marked by the lack of formal freedom, but by the lack of consequences. Any serious act, no matter how grave, tends to be absorbed by a dense network of excuses, procedures, and mutual protections. Responsibility spreads so thin that it almost disappears, and shared guilt turns into a strange type of solidarity. Institutions shield each other, while citizens adjust to this ongoing balancing act, telling themselves that real change would only disturb public order.

This stability is toxic because it does not destroy openly; it neutralizes. Politocracy does not generate big crises; it swallows them. It is not troubled by scandal; it converts scandal into a controlled spectacle. Power keeps itself through small things, through everyday complicity, through careful distribution of favors and paid silence. On the surface, it looks like a calm democracy. At its core, it is a finely tuned system of traded interests and quiet fears.

In this frame, citizens no longer act as real participants, but as conditional users of stability. They hold formal rights, but hesitate to fully use them for fear of disturbing the fragile peace. Beyond voting, civic action often turns into a public gesture for the cameras, and criticism into a ritual outburst that leads nowhere. Politocracy accepts protest, but drains its energy by integrating it into the system: dissent becomes a paid position, revolt turns into a TV show, and indignation becomes routine content.

This mechanism helps explain how Romania can remain a democracy without having enough democrats in practice. Laws exist and are largely respected, but they are not applied evenly. Institutions operate, but rarely take the risky decisions that could bring real change. People vote, yet those votes dissolve inside a system that stays structurally the same. Politocracy feeds on continuity, not on open conflict.

Paradoxically, the lack of major breakdowns keeps this pattern alive. Nothing is dramatic enough to force a deep reset, yet nothing is solid enough to generate trust. The system floats in a permanent balance, a balance that does not strengthen society but lulls it.

To understand politocracy means to see more than the flaws of politicians. It means recognizing a wider culture of functional mediocrity that spreads through all public fields. The real capture is not just institutional, it is mental. It shows in the habit of lowering standards, of confusing loyalty with merit, and of mixing simple resignation with a sense of balance.

Toxic stability and the illusion of competence

Stability is one of the strongest collective desires, but also one of the easiest illusions. In young democracies, it often becomes a goal in itself, not the result of good governance. In Romania, stability has slowly turned into a shield for the political and administrative system. It no longer works primarily for citizens; it works to protect its own continuity.

This stability is “toxic” not because it is openly forced, but because it is staged. It gives the image of a coherent institutional order while hiding a deep reliance on improvisation. Behind every crisis, the same safety nets appear, the same balancing tactics between groups, the same ability to contain conflicts without solving them. The structure does not transform; it merely adjusts its surface to keep looking functional.

Attached to this self-balancing mechanism is a culture of fake competence. In a society where merit does not stand at the center, competence becomes more a style of speech than a real standard. Public actors constantly refer to expertise, but in practice, they choose predictability. They speak of professionalism, but they promote those who fit the system, not those who perform.

This illusion of competence is a powerful tool of symbolic control. It helps the system excuse its own inertia with nice phrases about stability: “it is not great, but it works”, “it is not ideal, but it is balanced”. In truth, this balance usually comes from general fatigue. Citizens stop asking for change and start asking only for a basic order. They no longer look for real leaders; they look for someone who will keep things from getting worse.

Toxic stability keeps itself through an alliance between weakness and caution. Incompetent actors are rarely removed because they do not threaten the structure. Brave or independent people are seldom brought inside, because they might shake the comfort of others. Instead of fair competition, there appears to be a form of permanent cohabitation, where every level of the system protects its own comfort zone.

The result is a reversed meritocracy. Success is measured less by results and more by survival and loyalty. Real competence seems risky, and innovation looks dangerous. In this climate, performance becomes suspicious, and stagnation appears as proof of balance. Society internalizes this logic and starts viewing stability as a value in itself, even when it blocks progress.

This pattern can be seen most clearly in public administration, the economy, and cultural life. In administration, promotions often follow loyalty, not skill. In business, success often depends on access and connections, not only on creativity or efficiency. In culture, recognition comes more often through belonging to influence circles than through clear public merit. Step by step, these practices build a system of negative selection, where mediocrity becomes both norm and safety guarantee.

Politocracy rests on this pattern: a balance between dependence and comfort, where almost no one has a real interest in disturbing the calm surface. Power is managed, not challenged. Criticism generates noise, not change. The system stays in a state of “controlled movement”, enough to look active, never enough to transform itself.

To understand toxic stability does not mean to reject order. It means recognizing that a balance kept through fear, fatigue, and resignation cannot support development. Real stability grows from trust in fair and predictable rules. Without this step, society stays trapped in a circle of excuses, in which every level defends its own comfort, all in the name of the public good.

The honest citizen and the moral boundary

Any political order, no matter how complex, rests on people’s belief that justice can still happen. When that belief fades, democracy does not fall overnight; it slowly empties of meaning. Institutions keep running, procedures stay in place, but the moral value of taking part in public life grows thin. In such a context, the honest citizen becomes more than a private figure. This person becomes a condition for the inner health of the whole community.

To remain honest in a system shaped by politocracy does not mean to act as a hero. It means refusing to join in the comfortable lie. Honesty rarely shouts. It works through steady behavior and a clear refusal to abandon lucidity. This type of conduct does not transform the system at once, but it keeps the door open for possible change. Without it, public responsibility shrinks into mere ceremony.

In a society that praises adaptation, the honest citizen looks like a paradox. This person stays in the system, but does not melt into it. He or she follows the rules, but never allows them to replace conscience. By simply existing, such a citizen brings a healthy tension between legality and morality, between what is allowed and what is right. This tension is a sign that democracy is still alive. Where it disappears, decay has already started.

Honesty is less an act of open resistance and more a way to stay whole in a fragmented world. It asks for continuity, not spectacle. It feeds not on outbursts of anger, but on clarity and calm. In a space crowded with image and pretence, moral lucidity becomes a kind of public hygiene, a simple readiness to see things as they are and not confuse them with their excuses.

There is a fine line between guilty silence and prudent silence. Guilty silence hides fear. Wise silence protects judgment. The honest citizen does not have to speak loudly all the time, but has the duty not to give inner consent to wrong. This person understands that freedom is not the absence of limits, but the capacity to internalize fair limits without giving up dignity.

In Romania, this moral figure is not a rare abstraction. It appears in many ordinary roles. It is present in professionals who do their work well when no one watches, in teachers who still believe that education has meaning, in officials who respect the law even when pressured to bend it. These people do not change the system with grand gestures, but through the quiet persistence of decency.

The real limit of a democracy does not come from laws alone; it comes from behavior. It is not imposed from outside; it grows from within. When honest citizens become the quiet norm, the system starts to heal in a slow but steady way. When such people are pushed aside or mocked, public power loses its sense and slips into a game without rules.

Democracy is not measured only by how many institutions exist, but by the quality of relationships among people. Honesty, in this sense, is not just a personal virtue. It is a form of public order. It does not set the individual against the state; it invites the person to take part consciously in shaping a shared future.

In an age tired of noise and false shows, the silence of honesty becomes one of the last solid forms of resistance. It is a silence that does not mean surrender, but a refusal to turn truth into a performance. From such quiet persistence, a new kind of public dignity can grow, one that does not seek applause but builds trust.

Epilogue, on truth and dignity

Democracies do not fail first because of flawed laws, but because trust collapses. When trust shifts into suspicion and truth becomes a matter of convenience, institutions keep their shape, yet lose the moral compass that guides them. Romania has spent many years in this fragile state, between hope and exhaustion, between clear sight and accommodation.

Since 1989, many citizens have confused freedom with procedure and responsibility with obedience. Conviction has often been replaced by reflex, critique by irony, and solidarity by suspicion. Over time, democracy has turned into a system that functions but seems to lack breath. Truth no longer leads; it is used mostly to excuse or decorate.

Still, inside this shared fatigue, a quiet resource endures: individual dignity. No decree and no public campaign can produce it. It appears in small acts, in refusing convenient lies, in staying faithful to principles even when they bring no quick benefit. Dignity is not a form of heroism. It is a way of remaining human in a world that constantly suggests compromise.

Truth, in its deeper sense, does not win by force. It is lived. It survives through the constancy of those who use it not as a weapon against others, but as a guide for their own choices. Societies that manage to rebuild themselves are not those that shout the truth the loudest, but those that live it with quiet consistency. In this light, the calm honesty of ordinary people has more weight than the noise of any demagogue.

Democracy is not a finished structure, but a shared state of awareness. It does not belong to buildings and formal offices; it belongs to people who decide, day after day, not to give up reason and decency. A community becomes truly free not when its laws look perfect on paper, but when it forms people who do not need fear to act fairly.

Faced with this clear fact, Romania still has a chance. This chance lies in turning fatigue into discernment, cynicism into higher standards, and raw silence into thoughtful reflection. It does not require miracles. It calls for a return to proportion and for the simple understanding that dignity is also a form of public order.

Truth cannot be imposed from above, but it can be relearned through example. Here begins the growth of an imperfect democracy: in the gestures of those who choose not to lie and not to be afraid.

About the author

Col. (ret.) Dr. Cătălin Balog is an analyst and trainer with long experience in intelligence, information security, and strategic communication. He holds a PhD in Military Sciences, based on a thesis on security risk management in cyberspace, and served for over twenty years in structures of the Ministry of National Defense.

He now teaches as an associate professor at the University of Bucharest, where he leads courses on information management. His work focuses on contemporary social and political mechanisms, with special attention to the links between ideology, technology, and the simulation of democracy.

Related News:

Peace Prize Awarded to Venezuela’s María Corina Machado