In the 22 years that have elapsed since the fall of the Ceaușescu regime in Romania, free market and privatisation have turned into cure-all mantras invoked by almost everybody in power. President Traian Băsescu, who has been in office since 2004, is one of the main advocates of withdrawing state influence from a variety of fields – most recently, the Romanian health system.

Last week, the draft law on the reformation of the healthcare system triggered the resignation of Raed Arafat, an extremely popular, high-ranking state official, and intensive care physician. This sparked a series of protests, which quickly morphed into protests against the regime itself. Arafat, a naturalised Palestinian, is the founder of one of the most successful emergency systems in eastern Europe. Many hospitals in Romania may be anterooms to death, but the system he founded is one of the few things many Romanians think works properly – it literally saves lives. Băsescu's hectic and arrogant live phone intervention during a TV show – in which he accused Arafat of holding "leftist views" for his opposition to the transformation of the emergency system into a "market" where private companies would be allowed to access state funds – led to the physician's resignation and, more importantly, to a national wave of support on his behalf. Politically apathetic Romania, the country of no protests, rediscovered street demonstrations overnight.

In front of such societal opposition, Băsescu announced on Friday that the draft law should be withdrawn. Yet he once again displayed an unbelievable degree of arrogance, saying: "I reckon that very many are happy with the current health system," interpreting the public opposition towards turning the health system into a market as opposition towards improving it in general, betraying a deep lack of connection with reality. Following his address the protests have continued, showing an overt scission between the country's political class and the people on the street; the resignation of Arafat was only the spark enabling political mobilisation. People continued to gather in big cities over the weekend, protesting in the name of a variety of causes. For the first time since the early 1990s, Bucharest's University Square once again became the locus of critical public manifestations.

Dissatisfaction with the current leaders is, of course, what pushes people to take the streets. But it would be a mistake to regard the demonstrations as being simply directed against Băsescu and his government. Protesters need figures to vent their anger against, yet the opposition's reluctance to capitalise on the demonstrations until now highlights a lack of trust in the entire political class; opposition leaders, such as "champagne socialist" Victor Ponta or the liberal Crin Antonescu – an MP who rarely attends the parliamentary sessions – are all too aware that any straightforward attempt to capitalise on the public discontent and transform it into a pro-opposition movement would probably fail.

Băsescu and the leaders of the governing Liberal Democratic party were absent from the public space this weekend, too, suggesting that they care about the protesters just as much as they do about silkworm breeding. The most visible state representatives in the past two days were from the police, implying that the situation is regarded first and foremost a law-and-order issue. The apparent violent hijacking by "football hooligans" of the otherwise peaceful protests in Bucharest – a suggestion disseminated by both the police and mass media – fits this approach perfectly. Protests did indeed turn violent, yet violence has by no means been the prerogative of protesters. The police have been excessively brutal, as several YouTube videos and firsthand accounts suggest.

The minister of foreign affairs, Teodor Baconschi, referred to the protesters as the product of "inept and violent slums" on his blog, while MP Iulian Urban, another Liberal Democrat blogger, suggested that those who did not agree with the health system draft law were "worms who deserve their fate". By failing to address the socio-political causes of the protests, Romanian officials have adopted the discourses used by authorities in other European countries in similar situations. It is very much reminiscent of Nicolas Sarkozy's position with respect to the 2005 riots in the French banlieues, or of David Cameron's stance with respect to the London riots.

The demands of Romania's protesters are political, and political demands need serious political responses. If Romanian authorities stubbornly continue to behave as if this were not the case, the "inept and violent slums" might force Romanian politicians to be accountable to their electorate.