Beginning with 1997, there was initiated a series of meetings dealing with the problem of revealing the files of Security as political militia, actually a crucial problem for the organization of the civil society in the attempt to create a modern Romania.
The creation of an ideological movement in this direction was an important task assumed by The Group for Social Dialogue.
Then, there followed ?Bucharest and Its Spiritual Referential Points?, a discussion on the project dealing with The Cathedral of the National Redemption and also discussions on the alternative manuals and the reforming of the secondary school education according to European standards. Of course, there are many things worthy of being mentioned and I may have accidentally left out certain themes. According to the necessities, there were organized conferences or round tables. I don?t think that there was any programmatic regularity. When a crucial issue for the Romanian society came up, there was a meeting.
The influence of The Group for Social Dialogue was important. In the first years it actually generated a sort of fascination among the Romanian cultural milieu. If I were only to mention it, starting with Victor Ciorbea, Emil Constantinescu and ending with president Traian Băsescu, I might say that more or less all the important political actors have faced the G.D.S? ?panel of judges?. This turned G.D.S into a sort of entity with moral and intellectual posture. At the same time, it became a kind of court of justice for the civil society. The politicians wanted to be acknowledged, to be endorsed by those pertaining to the G.D.S. This has been Iliescu?s major frustration, that of not having been legitimised by the Romanian intellectuals. Miron Mitera represented one of the interesting experiments of the G.D.S, since they thought that they might turn him into a sort of indigenous Lech Walesa. It didn?t work.
The Romanian society was so ill so that it was only normal to express great opposition against the civil society. I think that this is the reason why The Group for Social Dialogue has been lately given more or less the second place. Gabriel Liiceanu was saying last night, during a TV show, that he was going to try to relaunch
The Group for Social Dialogue, even if the members had changed and the group hadn?t been spared some inner conflicts. I would only like to mention Gabriel Andreescu, who was excluded from The Group for Social Dialogue because of a press conference where he sustained the fact the main reason why the truth regarding the former Security political militia couldn?t be exposed in time was Andrei Pleşu. Having no evidence to sustain this theory, he obviously placed himself in a difficult situation and was excluded.
Then, there is Dan Oprescu, whom was later exposed as Security stool-pigeon and even as fervent sneak of his good friend Stelian Tănase.