News

MEMORANDUM Open Letter of Romanian Cultural Institutions to the Government

To: The Prime Minister's Office, Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministry of Culture

In attention: Mr. Prime Minister - Marcel Ciolacu, Marian-Cătălin Predoiu – Deputy Prime Minister, Minister, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Marian Neacșu - Deputy Prime Minister, Kelemen Hunor - President of UDMR, Natalia-Elena Intotero - Minister, Ministry of Culture

Subject: Request for the rejection of the legislative proposal to amend and supplement Government Emergency Ordinance no. 189/2008 on the management of public cultural institutions, with subsequent amendments and completions

Subject: Request for the rejection of the legislative proposal to amend and supplement Government Emergency Ordinance no. 189/2008 on the management of public cultural institutions, with subsequent amendments and completions

We hereby present the observations of the undersigned, managers of public performance institutions, who wish to express their concern regarding this legislative proposal, which does NOT contribute to the improvement of the management of public cultural institutions, contrary to the claims of its initiators – on the contrary.

The legal history of the management of cultural institutions seems closely tied to the idea of urgency – the initial regulatory law for this field took the form of an emergency ordinance.

Over its 16 years of existence, GEO 189/2008 on the management of public cultural institutions has been amended and supplemented on two separate occasions (in 2011 and 2013), each time through an emergency ordinance. Significant further changes from those introduced in the ordinances were made through the laws approving them – including the foundational one from 2008.

If in 2008, the urgency was justified by Romania's accession to the European Union and rapid sociocultural changes, and subsequent amendments were prompted by real litigation and enforcement issues, the fact that the laws approving the ordinances always introduced extensive amendments themselves shows that delegated legislative procedures are ineffective for the complexity of this regulatory domain, and that the needs for legislative intervention and debate are insufficiently met through emergency ordinances.

The last amendment and supplementation of GEO 189 occurred in 2014 (again, through the law approving a 2013 ordinance). In the 11 years since, the cultural and socioeconomic realities of cultural institutions have evolved, and nearly every governing program (by parties during campaigns or by governments) has included the updating of GEO 189/2008 – without it ever materializing.

Under these conditions, promoting yet another amendment to this ordinance through an emergency ordinance is an inefficient response to the need for actual and comprehensive updating – an update that the cultural sector actively supports, provided it is holistic, effective, and realistic, aiming to regulate the entirety of institutional management in line with the decade that has passed since the last legislative changes.

The inadequacy of an emergency ordinance intervention is compounded by the initiator’s failure to justify urgency, not only under the constitutional requirements and mandatory Constitutional Court interpretations, but also in terms of actual circumstances.

A considerable number of Romanian cultural institutions, under the Ministry of Culture or local authorities, have been led for years by interim managers (e.g., all institutions financed by the Local Council of Bucharest), simply because the authorities chose not to organize a management competition. Legislative urgency cannot be motivated, as the Explanatory Note from the Ministry of Culture suggests, by:

“numerous issues particularly regarding the procedures for project-based management competitions, including the composition of the selection committees, methods of evaluating managers,” “insufficient regulation of interim management; lack of clear provisions regarding the qualifications required for specialists in selection/evaluation committees; inconsistent analysis of management projects and activity reports by committee members,”

especially since the Ministry itself has held only two management competitions in the past five years, without encountering any of the stated problems, while continuing to maintain interim leadership for many other subordinate institutions, without any litigation arising.

We remind that, according to Constitutional Court jurisprudence, the adoption of an emergency ordinance requires an objective, quantifiable factual situation, beyond the Government’s control, that threatens a public interest (Decision no. 1008 of July 7, 2009, among others), and that the existence of imminent danger is incompatible with a 30-day public consultation period (for proposals or opinions on the draft law) – while the minimum legally required timeframe for urgent situations is 10 days.

Likewise, the urgency to implement a measure already included in the current governing program (such as limiting interim appointments in cultural institutions) cannot be justified:

“Strengthening the management of public cultural institutions. Increasing the administrative capacity of cultural institutions by reconsidering the legal framework for interim manager appointments and stabilizing centrally subordinate institutions by completing management competitions for vacant positions.”

Furthermore, we emphasize that most of the amendments proposed in the draft GEO are already similarly included in a legislative proposal (PL-x no. 316/2020), currently under review in the Chamber of Deputies after being approved by the Senate. The Government has parliamentary instruments to accelerate the legislative process, and in promoting an emergency ordinance, the delegated legislator cannot invoke its own failure to act.

Among the many articles that we believe should be debated and amended — some having negative effects and others with positive potential — we have chosen to highlight two of the most concerning examples:

Art. 3, paragraph 1, letter (c) – We firmly say “NO” to legal and economic studies

Cultural institutions inherently have a dual purpose. On one side is their predominantly aesthetic, artistic, spiritual, and moral mission, and on the other, the material aspects necessary for the organization’s survival: revenue generation, resource management, etc. From this perspective, a cultural organization is a hybrid combining aesthetic and spiritual goals with economic concerns. By nature, this symbiosis requires dual leadership, “dominated by two major categories of imperatives.”

A cultural institution has a unique complexity and specificity that can only be effectively managed by individuals with studies in the institution’s area of activity, complemented by experience and the artistic vision these specialized studies provide — something nearly impossible to substitute with legal or economic education.

Graduates of studies specialized in the institution’s domain have better insight and a deeper understanding of the cultural environment, and a greater ability to meet institutional needs and adapt to its specific changes.

Moreover, such studies are a necessary foundation for enhancing the quality of cultural programs. The skills required for effective management cannot be acquired outside the specific framework of public cultural institutions.

Allowing individuals with education in unrelated fields (legal, economic, etc.) to occupy managerial positions risks operational errors due to their lack of professional training and inability to adapt to the institution’s specific nature. There’s also the danger of making inappropriate decisions for the institutional environment, potentially harming its budget, reputation, and performance standards.

Another essential element for effective management is the quality of communication and how relationships with the institution's employees are handled. In-depth understanding of the cultural system, particularly through specialized studies, allows for better awareness of employee needs, well-founded decision-making, and a more accurate grasp of institutional challenges.

Art. 25 – Maintenance and operating expenses

We also draw attention to the addition of paragraph (2¹) to Article 25. Its content — “Maintenance and operating expenses necessary for the institution until the end of the fiscal year must take priority over all other expenses, including those for the minimal program” — is legally vague and uncertain, as it is unclear who holds this obligation (the manager or the funding authority), what sanctions apply for non-compliance, or whether this provision, considered alongside the clearer obligation for the manager to fulfill the minimal program, effectively reduces cultural institutions to mere rental venues.

Considering these concrete examples — without limiting ourselves to them — we conclude that this proposal to amend the Emergency Ordinance is unjustified, both in terms of urgency and as a viable solution for improving activity, in the absence of a comprehensive study demonstrating the shortcomings and merits of the current ordinance.

We request the cancellation of this legislative initiative and the rewriting of the law in its entirety through all legally required stages.

Address by MEP Diana Riba I Giner
Vice Chair of the CULT Committee of the European Parliament
to Opera Europa’s NEXT GENERATION conference
on Monday 17 March 2025 at Gran Teatre del Liceu

"Thank you for this invitation.

As Vice President of the Culture Committee of the European Parliament, it is a pleasure to be here and participate in your conference.

What would we be without these cultural spaces?

These spaces where we connect, where we are moved, spaces that provoke thought and criticism, exchange, and reflection. In fact, in an essay on opera and politics in 19th-century Italy, an author stated that the most dangerous quality of opera is its ability to ignite passions, not only personal ones, but political ones.

I thought it was a great reflection to open our conversation today because I believe it is always timely to reclaim the political nature of culture and art because art and culture are not just entertainment. As art is profoundly human, it is also always political. I would even say that part of the essence of every artistic expression is its political dimension.

So, to talk about culture, let me frame the context of the current debate:

We are facing a transformation of the global order in which Europe must redefine its place in the world.

This is our context. We live in a time of profound change, in which structures and concepts that until very recently we considered unchangeable are being redefined.

Today, in Europe, we find ourselves defending basic principles and fundamental rights, once again.

And there is a real risk: that culture will be relegated to entertainment, anecdote, or folklore. Sometimes, there is this mistaken idea –which the world of opera unfortunately knows well– that culture is a luxury, a kind of complement.

In Europe, we risk forgetting that culture is a democratic structure, one of the pillars that underpin our societal model.

That is why, in this new global order, Europe should not forget that culture cannot be an add-on; it must be a central element of its strategy.

Culture Action Europe published some very interesting figures to exemplify this challenge. In their report, they said that Russia spent over 1.1 billion euros on media and culture -just in the occupied territories of Ukraine. In contrast, the budget for the Creative Europe Programme for 2024 was 335 million euros.

Here lies the paradox: while we talk about culture, authoritarian regimes invest –and a lot– in cultural policy –their idea of cultural policy, of course– treating and understanding it as a tool of power.

Our democratic response, on the other hand, is often more active in words than in investments.

The EU thus faces an existential choice: either remain on the margins of its limited competence in culture,

while witnessing the erosion of the democratic narratives we have spent decades building, or invest in culture as a strategic pillar in security and resilience.

So, entering this political dimension and considering the current context, it is clear that cultural policy cannot be improvised. We need a clear compass to guide us through this uncertain context.

The European Commission itself has recognized that we need a more strategic political approach to culture, integrating it into our broader political goals. It is in this framework that we talk about the Cultural Compass in the EU. This Cultural Compass must become a global strategic framework to guide and harness the multiple dimensions culture offers.

For now, we don’t know the details of this European Cultural Compass, but we must be clear.

We can no longer afford only to defend cultural diversity. We need a strategy that helps it grow, makes it sustainable, and connects it better with society – especially in the world of digitalization and artificial intelligence. AI and digitalization can be powerful tools to democratize access to culture, preserve heritage, and open new forms of creation, but we also face major challenges: who controls the algorithms that decide what we see, read, or listen to?

How do we ensure that languages don’t disappear in a digital universe dominated by English?

How do we protect the rights of creators so that AI is an ally, not a threat?

Technology must be a driver of diversity, not a filter that reduces or erases it.

And we will only achieve this if we put it at the service of culture and not the other way around.

In this sense, Opera Europa is an example of how collaboration enriches and strengthens the sector.

Initiatives like OperaVision show us that digitalization can expand access to culture, making it more inclusive and democratic.

The question is: will we have the resources to continue this path?

And this brings me to a second point of political reflection. We don’t only need strategic vision, we need resources.

The future of funding for the cultural world and the new EU budget, including the future of Creative Europe, will be decisive. The funding framework we adopt will shape the sector’s future for almost the next decade. And let me be clear: We cannot accept cuts. We cannot accept the disappearance of programmes like Creative Europe.

Because funding for culture is also an investment in democracy, in shared values, in fundamental rights.

A Europe without culture is a project without a soul. It is no longer a political project.

We have often asked member states for 2% for culture. The ambition of the European Union itself should not be less.

2% for culture and the conviction that this 2% is an investment that will not only impact the great contribution to the economy already made by cultural and creative sectors, but will also be an investment in future generations.

We need a strong budget to ensure that cultural spaces like this one, like those you represent, are resilient and, above all, to ensure they continue to help define our future.

I began by saying that art is political because art is human. And I want to end my speech by placing what is most human at the centre of political reflection.

There is no debate about the future of culture in Europe if we forget who is at the center of the sector: singers, musicians, composers, artists, creators, the professionals of the cultural world. You are the true core and backbone of culture.

Unfortunately, in many member states, but also in the EU, we still have an unresolved challenge:

We need to build legislative, regulatory, and administrative frameworks that understand the reality of the sector, a true “Status of Artists” that guarantees that artists can work throughout Europe without administrative obstacles, with dignified conditions.

A framework that recognizes particularities such as intermittency or mobility.

Because – and although we appreciate it – culture cannot depend solely on the passion and vocation of its creators. Artists need dignified conditions. But not only that, they also need the raw material of their work: freedom of artistic expression.

And here we must look at ourselves in the mirror. Unfortunately, across the continent, we are witnessing a worrying trend: the rise of anti-democratic movements, the growing influence of far-right parties, polarization, and authoritarian narratives.

In Europe, which has been a refuge for artists facing repression, we are now seeing increasing restrictions on free expression. The autonomy of our cultural institutions is at risk. This is not an abstract issue.

We see: Political interference limiting artistic and operational decisions; financial pressure to influence the functioning of cultural institutions and facilities; Dismissals for political reasons aimed at eliminating critical voices.

We have seen it in Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Austria. In Spain, we have an artist serving a prison sentence simply for his lyrics about the monarchy. We also see book withdrawals and attacks on libraries.

Often, these events seem anecdotal. But when we connect them, we see they are not isolated.

Art must be free to challenge, to question, to provoke discomfort.

And I believe I don’t need to convince you of this. You know better than anyone how opera has historically been a force of political critique, an unyielding mirror of society. From Mozart to Shostakovich, opera has defied norms, exposed injustices, and given a voice to the voiceless.

Therefore, we cannot —and will not— accept silence.

But I don’t want to end on a note that invites despair. On the contrary, I want to end my intervention by giving us a shared task:

We must build alliances. We will need each other.

We will need to build stronger connections between artists, cultural institutions, and policy makers to protect artistic freedom and resist the growing pressures.

Know that you will have us by your side, but we will need the whole cultural sector. This collaboration will be essential to safeguard culture, cultural spaces, and cultural institutions.

For all these reasons, we must also push at the European level. The EU will not find its place in the world if it leaves culture behind. Without culture, Europe would be nothing more than a market. Without culture, there can be no integration project, because culture gives soul and heart to this political project.

So, in the face of Musk’s empty noise, Trump’s authoritarianism, and Le Pen’s far right: a Europe with more opera, with full theaters, with the freedom to create, to provoke, and to challenge when necessary.

A Europe that fosters imagination, that embraces its diversity, and that is not uncomfortable with freedom of expression.

A Europe where culture does not merely survive but leads the way.

And it is for this Europe that we will continue to work.

Thank you very much."