The Hijacked Revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout 0334316 April 2007
The Hijacked Revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
Table of Content Page 1. Introduction
1
2. Lustration versus decommunisation
3
ยง 2.1 Lustration versus decommunisation
3
ยง 2.2 The goal of lustration
3
ยง 2.3 The debate against lustration
4
3. East-European lustration
7
ยง 3.1 Factors contributing to lustration
7
ยง 3.2 Lustration in Eastern-Europe
7
ยง 3.2.1 Radical lustration (or decommunisation)
8
ยง 3.2.2 Lenient lustration
9
ยง 3.2.3 The exclusion of an occupying minority
9
ยง 3.2.4 The ban of the Communist Party
10
4. The Romanian situation
11
ยง 4.1 The rise of communism
11
ยง 4.2 The atrocities committed under Ceauล escuโ s rule
12
ยง 4.3 The revolution
13
5. Romanian and lustration
15
ยง 5.1 Why did Romania not adopt lustration laws?
15
ยง 5.2 Can lustration still be adopted?
17
ยง 5.3 Which kind of lustration will fit the most?
18
ยง 5.4 Will Romania ever lustrate?
19
6. Conclusion
21
List of sources
22
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
1. Introduction
‘Will the twentieth century be most remembered for its atrocities?’ –Martha Minow
Looking back to world history many of the atrocities have taken place the last century. Some have appeared far away, as during the military junta’s in Latin-America or the apartheid regime in South-Africa. Others have taken place within only a day travelling from here, as in the former Yugoslavia, but also in all other post-communistic countries. One of the countries suffering the most during the communistic regimes has been Romania. During the leadership of Ceauşescu the country completely isolated itself, both political and economical. There was a shortage of almost everything and harsh state police action marked the country for decades. After the fall of the Iron Curtain many of the ex-communistic countries took steps to deal with their past. Yet, little was done in Romania. Ceauşescu was shot after the most bloody and disputed revolt in Eastern-Europe and the Communistic Party of Romania (Partidul Comunist Român or CPR), already alienated from Ceauşescu took over state control. Just before the elections it enrolled for elections and successfully won. This ‘reshuffling’ of the Communistic elite lead to internal protest. In the upcoming elections the former communistic party, now divided over two parties, would remain the key player.
Other postcommunistic countries are far more successful in transferring from totalitarianism to democracies. A common ground between those countries is the fact that they all adopted some kind of lustration laws. With those laws they exposed the past of the elite and sometimes even excluded former Communists from public office. Since the less successful countries adopted no lustration, the positive connection between the purification of the elite, by lustration laws, and the transition to democracy has often been made. For Romania, this statement seems to be truth. The question then derives why Romania did not adopted lustration laws and whether it is still possible to adopt them.
In answering this question, the paper will also look why Romania did not adopt such laws earlier. The next chapter, however, will outline the general discussion about lustration. After
Page 1
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
this, the third chapter will look to the different kinds of lustration, as adopted by EasternEuropean countries. Then a short outline of the Romanian situation will be given. In the fifth chapter the lustration and Romanian situation will be brought together and by this the main questions will be answered. Finally a conclusion will shortly recapitulate the findings in this paper.
Page 2
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
2. Lustration versus decommunisation
The word lustration is differently used: in more radical and in more symbolic meaning. Mostly, ‘lustration’ as a word can have different specific aspects, deriving from the context or the country where it is used. Although the real definition is not really disputed, there is disagreement about the concept of lustration.
§ 2.1 Lustration versus decommunisation Lustration comes from the Latin verb ‘lustrare,’ which means ‘to purify ceremonially as a means of removing blood-guiltiness and cleansing a house.’1 It is a way of dealing with the past, being more ritual then legal, aimed at purification. When it is applied to nations lustration is mostly the screening of individuals, having as goal ‘the exposition of real past of the individuals, mainly for their past collaboration with secret police.’2 Decommunisation goes further, for it ‘consist in the removal of ex-members of the Communist Party from prominent positions in a new democratic system.’3 Both terms, however, have intermingled and lustration often comprises of more then just the screening. For the purpose of this paper the wide definition will be used, including ‘the exclusion of individuals from political life… for past actions under a previous regime.’4
§ 2.2 The goal of lustration
Lustration is seen important because it ‘limits the influence of the elite with experience of (and presumably preferences for) non-democratic practices [and] it publicly marks a symbolic break with the past, and thereby specifies and strengthens the democratic consensus within society.’5 Therefore it is said that lustration contributes to the consolidation of democracy.6 The empirical evidence of this statement is found when one compares the lustration laws of 1
Letki, N., Lustration and Democratisation in East-Central Europe, in: Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 54, No. 4 (June 2002), pp. 529-552, p. 530 2 Sadurski, W., “Decommunisation”, “lustration”, and constitutional continuity: Dilemmas of transitional justice in Central Europe, European University Institute Working Paper, LAW No. 2003/15, p. 4 3 Id. 4 Letki, N., Lustration and Democratisation in East-Central Europe, in: Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 54, No. 4 (June 2002), pp. 529-552, p. 530 5 Transitional Justice and Democratization in Eastern Europe, p. 206 6 Letki, N., p. 529
Page 3
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
the former communistic countries. All lustrated countries are advanced democracies, while the non-lustrated countries are less democratic or even non-democratic countries. Although the casual relationship has not been proofed, there certain is ‘a positive link’ between the lustration and the consolidation of democracy. Lustration thus can at least be seen as to ‘aid’ in this process.7
The main argument in favour of lustration consequently claims that it is necessary to get rid of ‘bad’ social capital, which are ‘networks of nomenklatura members interested in maintaining social status and material wealth gained under the older regime.’8 This bad capital would result in bureaucratic elites that also dominate the new free market and a system that is vulnerable to corruption. When this break with the past is done by lustration it would not only purify, but also provides society with a symbolic mean of breaking with the past and strengthens the legitimacy of the new democracy.9
§ 2.3 The debate against lustration
The history of the very nations that can adopt lustration, also offers a strong case against this concept, for it is seen morally unjust to do the same to the elite as the elite has done years to others. After years of repression, based on political exclusion, lustration thus, was met with the phrase ‘we are not as them:’10 the new government refused to do the same as the old regime. Next to this there was a fear, fuelled by the bloody Romanian revolt, that lustration may lead to violence and disorder, as those in power would forcefully hold on to their positions. In practise, lustration did not meet violence in any of the former communistic countries, except for Romania. Thirdly, a practical matter played into the minds of the transitional countries, since they were afraid that they could not replace those people that were to be excluded from political office. Especially when the network of the secret service reached widely to all aspects of civil society. Connected with the secret service is a fourth argument, questioning whether the files of the secret service are reliable, as many of them were falsified for better results or partly destroyed after the revolutions.11
7
Id., p. 549 Id., p. 540 9 Id., p. 541 10 Id., p. 541 11 Id. 8
Page 4
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
Consequently lustration was challenged in constitutional courts. The most strong legal claim states that lustration violates some basic rights as the right to expression. This point was raised by Czech Communists, who faced to be affected by the first national lustration laws. Also Human Right organizations and the International Labour Organization, however, raised this claim. Next to this, they stated that the lustration laws also violated the right to association, the right to be free from discrimination and the right to participate in public life.12 The constitutional courts that reviewed the lustration laws, upheld, except for a few provisions, the laws. Also the European Court of Human Rights upheld the lustration laws, stating that ‘it [the lustration laws] may nonetheless be considered acceptable … in view of the historico-political context which led to its adoption and given the threat to the new democratic order posed by the resurgence of ideas which, if allowed to gain ground, might appear capable of restoring the former regime.’13
Roman David explains, with the help of cases for the US Supreme Court, why lustration laws can override other fundamental rights. He says that ‘[c]onstitutional rights may not be absolute when they encounter some vital government interest… It is not only important that the Government and its employees in fact avoid practising political justice, but it is also critical that they appear to the public to be avoiding it, if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extend.’14 This is strengthened by the fact that the right to public employment was not included in the European Convention of Human Rights.15 Before the Court could give its verdict, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had already issued a resolution,16 in order to prevent widespread uncontrolled use of lustration laws. Wojiech Sadurski attacks this resolution on the ground that it prohibit ‘collective guild’ and asks for prove in each individual case.17 The very use of the lustration laws is however that ‘the very fact of occupying certain positions in the apparatus of the Communist regime is a disqualifying characteristic.’18 This stance of the Council of Europe illustrates the Western view on lustration, which was mostly not in favour of lustration. Westerners, badly informed about the past and current situation in the 12
David, R., Transitional Injustice? Criteria for Conformity of Lustration to the Right to Political Expression, in: Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 56, No. 6 (September 2002), pp. 789-812, p. 790 13 ECtHR: Case of Ždanoka v. Latvia, application no 58278/00, paragraph 133 14 David, R., 797 15 Id. 16 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Resolution 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems 17 Resolution CoE 1096, paragraph 12 18 Sadurski, W., p. 15
Page 5
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
transitional countries, saw ‘corrective justice’ as opposed to democratic and liberal countries. Nevertheless, in practice the very opposite link can be established.
Page 6
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
3. East-European lustration
Although all former Eastern-European socialist states had a common ideological base, the communistic rule was different implemented and so was their way of transition. Some of these differences facilitated the lustration process, while others made it more difficult. This chapter will outline these differences as they occurred in the former communistic states. The lustrated countries that will be dealt with are East-Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States. Albania and Russia have a more ambiguous stance, and will also shortly be discussed. The other former communist countries (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus and Romania) did not lustrate. 19
ยง 3.1 Factors contributing to lustration Wojciech Sadurski20 points to three factors that contribute largely to the adoption of lustration law. First, a harsher regime asks for more severe lustration laws, then those regimes that were more liberal. From the lustrated countries, East-Germany and the Czech Republic faced relative severe regimes. Second, the way of the transition is important. When the old elite negotiated its own exit, it ask for less measures, since the Communists then played an important (if not crucial) role in this transition period. With the exception of Romania, all transitions comprised negotiation between the new and the old elites. In the case of Poland and Hungary real bargaining took place, while the system of East-Germany and Czechoslovakia more or less just collapsed.21 The last factor, closely connected with the second, is the position of the former elite during the first years after the revolutions. A strong position of the Communist elite leads of course to less harsh lustration, since it would only effect themselves. These three factors determine together what kind of lustration laws are adopted.
19
David, R., p. 203 Sadurski, W., p. 17 21 David, R., p. 201 20
Page 7
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
§ 3.2 Lustration in Eastern-Europe
According to Sadurski there are three different forms of lustration applied, being radical, intermediate and lenient. According to him the difference derives from three characteristics: first which positions in the former regime are covered by the lustration laws, second what are the current positions of those people and thirdly the consequence when one belongs to the categories that is affected by the laws.22 I want to elaborated on this by putting two other options of dealing with the communistic past: the exclusion of the occupying minority, as done by the Baltic States, and the ban of the Communist Party, as Russia did after the failed coup of 1991. Since Sadurski put the Baltic States to the intermediate model, and moving them only leaves Albania, this paper merges Albania with the radical lustration. By doing this, radical lustration now means the screening and exclusion of former nomenklatura, or decommunisation, as discussed in the first chapter. The lenient model only screens the former members of the regime and thus is lustration by the true meaning of the word.
§ 3.2.1 Radical lustration (or decommunisation)
In the Czech Republic one of the strongest lustration laws were adopted. Not only had the Republic faced a strong presence of the police state since the Prague Spring, also was the Communist elite rather weak after the revolution. The Czech laws consequently were able to cover a wide range of positions, going down in the chain of command all the way to township level. Persons labelled collaborators were excluded for five year from positions in State institutions, key positions in the military, the judiciary, universities, state-run media and enterprises.23 In order to be employed in a branch covered by lustration a certificate had to be obtained. There were 310 000 of those requests, from which 15 000 were considered ‘positive,’ meaning the persons was seen as a collaborator. Nevertheless, mostly this did not lead to severe consequences as the persons were not part of the elite. 24 Only the East-German lustration law covered a larger group. As part of the unification laws with the Federal Republic screening was adopted for both participation with the former regime and technical incompetence, in order to remove people from office that lack the
22
Sadurski, W., p. 16 Id., p. 19 24 Id., p. 21 23
Page 8
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
adequate skill and got their job by having the right friends on the right places.25 At the end almost 2 million cases were examined. For Germany it was possible to adopt the wide scale lustration, for it had resources coming from West-German. Gaps in the government and academic world could be filled by Westerners. Just as in the Czech Republic the former elite had little to negotiate about. The Albanian lustration did also cover a quite wide range, yet not as large as the other two cases, but still the lustration comprised decommunisation. The Albanians excluded excommunists from parliament, the judiciary, state banks, the army and mass media. People applying for these jobs were screened. Since Albania has not a very advanced democracy some, in self-fulfilling prophecy, leave Albania outside the group of lustrated countries.
ยง 3.2.2 Lenient lustration
In the countries of Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria the lustration law was to expose the past and find the truth, instead of excluding officials from certain positions in the new regime. In these three countries the former elite had played an important role in the transition or had a strong position directly after the transition. In Hungary the construction was made that the present public office holders would be screened for involvement with the secret police. If a person refused to have the results publicized he had to resign, otherwise he could stay in office. So far no one resigned. Poland adopted a similar regulation, asking state officials to declare whether they had been collaborators or not. When a declaration proved false, the person was denied public office for ten years. The original Bulgarian lustration law clashed several times with the Constitutional Court and repeatedly found unconstitutional. The lustration that was passed stipulated that certain high ranking state officials and members of the parliament would had their past made public if they did not admit their former collaboration.
ยง 3.2.3 The exclusion of an occupying minority
The Baltic states also adopt a more intermediate lustration. However, the position of those states is different, since the countries were occupied by Russia, and most of the lustration was
25
David, R., p. 203
Page 9
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
aimed at the Russian minority. As The Baltic laws excluded former operatives and collaborators of the KGB from parliament and government for ten years.26
§ 3.2.4 The ban of the Communist Party
In August 1991 the anti-reform forces within the Soviet-Union mounted a coup. This, however, failed and president Yeltsin banned the Communist Party. The whole event was taken advantage of by Yeltsin, as the Soviet-Union was disintegrating and he sought to remove some of the Communists within the Party. Therefore in the aftermath of the coup only the discredited elite had to leave, while meanwhile many of the old nomenklatura still hold office, accounts go up to 75%. Although Yeltsin did set a strong signal to the former Communists, in practice the ban was a more political instrument. Yeltsin’s iron fist, with among others this opportunistic rule, hampered the democratic reforms. Consequently Russia failed to adopt and implement the laws in such a way that it would really makes a different. Since the political character, many times Russia is not seen as a country that really had adopted lustration laws.27
26 27
Sadurski, W., p. 23 David, R., p. 206
Page 10
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
4. The Romanian situation
The Romanian history is marked by events of having bad fortune. The old relations with Germany made its position in the Second World War difficult. Directly after the war Romania became under Soviet influence. In the sixties Romania spoke up against Russia and became accepted in the Western World, but then Ceauşescu made some major political and economical errors and he brought the nation to the very edge of existence. After years of oppression, the Romanians finally revolted in 1989. The exact account of this event still remains unclear and many people of the new regime turn out to be former members of the Communist Party of Romania.
§ 4.1 The rise of communism
During World War Two Romania initially chose the side of the Axis states. In 1944 the battle for Stalingrad became the turning point and Russian forces started to recapture occupied territory. In Romania fear arose that the Soviet-Union would not stop at the borders and simply would occupy Romania. The Romanian opposition started to negotiated with the Allies and were willing to topple the leadership if the Allied states would guarantee their territorial integrity. By then the great four had already decided that Romania would be part of the Soviet influence sphere. The coup, however, was initiated when the Soviet-Union indeed passed the borders. The national communists claimed the coup and by strong Soviet support the country became a socialist state.
After this unfortunate event, Romania would even face one of the harshest Communistic regimes. Through good foreign politics the country was accepted to the GATT, IMF and World Bank. This was especially thought the bold stance of Ceauşescu against the Soviet invasion in Czechoslovakia in 1968, which gave Romania international respect. Also nationally the denunciation was received with great enthusiasm, during a large rally in Bucharest. It is stated that for Ceauşescu this weakened ‘an appetite for the excess of the personality cult.’28 The always suspicious Ceauşescu was further influenced by his ambitious
28
Deletant, D., Romania under Communist Rule, Civic Academy Foundation, Bucharest, 1998, p. 161
Page 11
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
wife Helena and two visits to China and North-Korea, which would led to devastating results in his four decades of reign.
§ 4.2 The atrocities committed under Ceauşescu’s rule
By 1982 Ceauşescu was determined to pay off the national debt. By cutting almost all import and increasing the export he ruined his nation. Bread, flour, sugar and milk were rationed. The heavy energy need for factories caused a shortage of petrol and oil. Office temperature was set on a maximum of 14 degrees and hot water was only available one day a week. This later provision was partly lifted, causing a gas shortage which made cooking of meals only possible during night time. Ceauşescu’s megalomania lead to the erection of big farm projects, big factories and forceful movement of peasants from village towns to new build house blocks. In this plan he suggested to reduce the number of villages from 13,000 to some 5,000 to 6,000. The insanity of Ceauşescu’s national politics is best illustrated with the building of the Palace of the People, the building site was so large that it asked for the removal of some 40,000 people.29 After the Pentagon, the Palace of the People is worlds largest building and is build by a nation deeply in debt with a shortage of all kind of products.
Still specially painful is the memory of Ceauşescu interfering in family planning. In order to raise the number of inhabitants to twenty million, abortion was outlawed (except for women over 40 years, mothers with four children and Roma/gypsies). Since no birth control means were available illegal abortion was literally done on kitchen tables, causing the death of approximate 10,000 women and the birth of many unwanted children, who partly went to overcrowded orphanages.30 Generally speaking the measures ‘not only humiliated the Romanians, but robbed them of their dignity in their everyday lives and reduced them in the 1980s to an animal state concerned only with the problems of day-to-day survival.’31
Opposition was met, among others, by beating, imprisonment and house arrest. Examples are the beating to death of Gheorge Ursu, for his privately-written memoirs, which contained criticism of Ceausescu. Silviu Brucan, who managed to talk with Western journalists and pointed to the ‘crisis… in relations between the Romanian Communist Party and the working
29
Id, p. 209 Children of the Decree, 2004, documentary by Florin Iepan 31 Deletant, D., p. 166 30
Page 12
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
class’ was silenced by house arrest. Four agents of the secret police, Securitate, guarded his house and accompanied him once a week to go shopping, during which the agents discouraged everyone to talk with him. Other less known people ended up in prisons. Needless to say that the situation in prisons was even worse then the general situation of the country. The Sighet prison, famous since it became a memorial for the victims of Communism, which included a large number of political dissidents, reported a death rate of one-fourth of the prisoners. 32
§ 4.3 The revolution
Although the heavy oppression, more and more protest was heard within Romania. The first great strike was as early as 1977 by the mine workers of Jiu Valley. By the end of the 1980s more and more strikes were held. It was in Timişoara that the revolution would eventually start. A Hungarian pastor, who for years tried to better the situation of the Hungarian minority started to speak against the plan of dispelling villages and tried to unite both Hungarians and Romanians. Consequently he was heard by the Securitate and then expelled to a remote village in the north. However, the pastor refused to move. While members of his congregation were heard, beaten or even murdered, others were still able to support their pastor by bringing food to his home. When some carpenters came to repair the broken windows and doors, this attracted so many viewers that a crowd, mostly students, was filling the streets. What started with Hungarians only, became a national uprising when an old Romanian anthem was song. The crowd then seized the Party headquarters and the army was needed to make an end to the revolt, causing the death of 122 citizens. Ceauşescu’s wife showed her crudeness and that of the regime by ordering the removal of 40 bodies to be burned, so they could not be identified. The next days the industrial workers, being tens of thousands, hold a strike. Within two more days they declared Timişoara a free city. Ceauşescu totally misinterpreted the situation and called for a public meeting in Bucharest with led to a complete disaster. Many of the crowd stayed on the street for the night, were shot upon and the next day they revolted. Ceauşescu fled but was captured and after a trail of two hours he and his wife were shot.33
32
http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/istoric_cladire_sighet.asp Website last visited on 4-7-2007, actually site visited in September 2005 33 Deletant, D., p. 229
Page 13
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
During the last day of the revolt the National Salvation Front (Frontul Salvarii Nationale or FSN) was established to take over state control after the dead of CeauĹ&#x;escu. The FSN also organized the first elections. The very last moment the FSN enrolled as the 27th party to these elections of 1990 and they gained two-third of the votes. Internal struggle within the FSN led to the creation of the Democratic National Salvation Front (FDSN), which did not only included old FSN members, but also old members of the former Communistic Party. The FDSN became the largest party in the 1992 elections, with 35 percent of the seats. The leader of the FDSN, Ion Iliescu, was elected as president. Due the lack of organized opposition he formed a loose coalition in which he dominated. In 1996 for the first time the election was won by a party that had no basis in the FSN. The new coalition was formed out of three parties, that themselves also consisted out of coalitions and still included the FDSN. The many coalitions led to an instable government that resigned after two years. After the 1998 elections there was a new coalition formed, with no clear major party, but again with old Communists involved. The whole situation of the Romanian politics is instable, since the parties are fragmented and rely strongly on personalities. In the meanwhile extremist parties gain popularity, which mostly is a sign of dissatisfaction with the current system or parties.34
34
Romania the unfinished revolution, p. 85
Page 14
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
5. Romanian and lustration
In the first chapter it is already established that lustration laws in Eastern-Europe contribute to the democratization of a country. It turned out that only advanced democracies have applied lustration laws. Since the Romanian situation has not derived at that stage yet,35 lustration laws could have provided for a better stage in the development to a democracy according to Western-European standards. For this reason it is not interesting to look whether Romania should have applied lustration laws, but rather, why it did not apply them. The factors that determine whether lustration takes place are, as seen before, the harshness of the regime, the way of the transition and the role of the former elite during the transition years.
§ 5.1 Why did Romania not adopt lustration laws?
The harsh regime in Romania asked even more for adequate dealing with the past. As such the stage was set for lustration laws, that at least disclosed what happened during the socialist years and who was responsible for it. It is still unclear for many Romanians what even happened during the revolution. Records direct after the revolution showed an increase of ‘Russian tourist’ mostly young athletic men travelling in cars to Yugoslavia, where they were refused to cross the border, due to possession of weapons. As such Soviet influence in the overthrow of Ceauşescu is expected and many Romanians still think that ‘their’ revolution was largely performed by foreigners and they consequently question the need for the many victims.
The revolution itself abruptly ended the communist rule in Romania. The leader for the last four decades was effectively eliminated. His enemies had all cooperated together to end his ruling, at least internal and maybe also with possible foreign help. It was already clear that Hungarians and Romanians worked together, taken into account the difficult ethnic situation in the Balkan this is a highly remarkable fact. But also within the communist party Ceauşescu had made enemies. His suspiciousness and distrust had lead him to make a rotation system within the party and offices, to ensure his own position. From within the Communistic Party some prominent members and criticizers of Ceauşescu wrote an open letter, which was 35
Letki, N., p. 532
Page 15
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
attributed to the underground organisation the FSN. Indeed, the same FSN that was official established after the revolution to take over state control. This lead to some furious reactions of the original revolutionaries: ‘Timişoara started the revolution against the entire communist regime and against its nomenclatura and not in order to provide an opportunity for political advancement to a group of anti-Ceausescu dissidents from within the Romanian Communist Party.’36 The revolution itself, thus, was ‘hijacked’ or there had occurred a ‘theft,’ as some of the revolutionaries stated. What started as a revolt of the people, ended in a Communistic coup. Since the FSN, after this, controlled also most of the media, during the first elections, most parties had not the change of effective campaign.
The communist elite stayed thus in charge after the revolution, as a leading party or as part of the coalition. Lustration laws could have simply been stopped from the very outset. From the opposition the call for lustration came strongly, as indicated by The Proclamation of Timisoara: ‘[W]e suggest that the electoral law should deny the former party workers and Security officers the right to be nominated as candidates on any list for the first three running legislatures. Their presence in the country's political life is the chief source of the tensions and suspicions that worry the Romanian society nowadays. Their absence from public life is absolutely necessary until the situation has been settled and national reconciliation has been effected. We also demand that in a special clause the electoral law should ban the former party activists from running for the position of President of the country. Romania's President ought lo be one of the symbols of our divorce from communism.’37 Demonstrations against communist involvement in Romania, however, met oppression by police and the army, and even the very mineworkers of Jui Valley were called to save the ‘besieged democratic regime.’ This resulted in successive violent encounters, known as the Mineraids. Needless to say, the FSN stayed in charge. 38 Traian Băsescu, from the Democratic Party, stated before the 2004 presidential elections: ‘You know what Romania's greatest curse
36
Deletant, D., p. 239 The Proclamation of Timisoara, found on http://www.timisoara.com/timisoara/rev/proclamation.html, last visited April 8th, 2007 38 Roper, S.D., Romania the unfinished revolution, Harwood Academic, Amsterdam, 2000, p. 69 37
Page 16
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
is right now? It's that Romanians have to choose between two former Communist Party members.’39
The ‘bad’ social capital thus remained and even infected the other parties, as corruption still flourish. Illustrative is the ‘Aunt Tamara’ scandal of 2006, were the former Prime Minister, then being the President of the Chamber of Deputies, claimed to have inherited a million euro from an aunt. This aunt, however, always had lived rather poor in a one-room flat and it was widely considered that he tried to launder his money.40 Rumour has is it that even the whole parliament enacted laws to enrich themselves, most notably in this regard is the law that lifts taxes from four wheel drive car, by putting them in the same category as tractors. This law was recalled only after most members had bought a new jeep. Although not all stories like this can be verified, the general opinion remains that the first goal of those in office is to enrich themselves. With this opinion the government faces a legitimacy problem, leaving many people to think that after all not that much changed after the revolution.
§ 5.2 Can lustration still be adopted?
With the revolutions of 1989 far gone, and hardly in the memory for the new generation of scholars the question is whether lustration laws can still be applied some 18 years after the actual revolution. This paragraph will argue it can indeed, for three reasons. First, some crimes do never become barred by the lapse of time. The serious crimes that have been committed during the communist regimes are of such grave character that limitations are not applicable. Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for instance states that ‘[t]he crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.’41 The jurisdiction covers crimes against humanity, which includes among others forced disappearance, torture, murder and some other crimes that has been committed by communist regimes. Since limitations are not applicable for those crimes, action can be still take even after 18 years. Important in this regard is the second argument, that applying lustration laws still makes sense, since some former Romanian Communist Party members are still in office or even run for president. As was pointed out earlier, during the 2004 39
http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/P/1367/Dezbatere-cu-invingator-Traian-Basescu, original quote: ‘Ce blestem o fi pe poporul asta de a ajuns pina la urma sa alega intre doi fosti comunisti?’ 40 www.transparency.org/content/download/6360/37746/file/TOL_Nastase_23Jan06.doc An event widely discussed during one of my stays in Romania 41 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, entry into force July 1, 2002
Page 17
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
presidential elections the Romanians had the choice between two former Communist Party members. Adrian Năstase, one of those running for presidency, had even been a public defender of the Ceauşescu regime. The current Romanian head of state is Traian Băsescu, claims to have been a CPR member only to promote his navy career, yet rumor has it that he was an informant of the Securitate. Since Băsescu is 56 year old, and the revolution has been 18 years ago, it is clear that he at least spend a considerable part of his life as part of the Communistic regime. With the average age of American presidents being 55 year, and the top five runners for Romanian presidency around the same age, it is clear that lustration law would still effect high ranking officials, and thus still would be effective. Still today lustration law would screen the Romanian elite and make place for people that have not been involved in the Communist Party. The third argument in favour of still applying lustration laws rather long after the revolution, is the fact that some other Eastern-European countries waited long too. Although East-Germany and the Czech-republic were rather quick, Albania waited six years, Poland eight and Lithuania nine years. Court review took until 1999 in some states, modifying the applicable law to its final version ten years after the period they aim to screen. By start of the 21st century all states had determined which path they followed. Now, with new sight on the differences between lustrated states and those states that did not lustrate, evaluation can take place, leading to the fact, as stated in the first chapter, that lustration was the best way to follow. That much time has elapsed makes lustration more difficult, than when it would have been applied earlier. However, since the Romanian people still have many unanswered questions it is about time to find the truth, both about the revolution and about the nomenklatura that took over state control directly after.
§ 5.3 Which kind of lustration will fit the most?
In the third chapter four kinds of lustration were dealt with: radical lustration (or decommunisation), lenient lustration, the exclusion of an occupying minority and the ban of the Communist Party. Since the Communist Party of Romanian consisted of Romanians the third option can be eliminated from the outset, leaving three possible options.
Although the ban of the Communist Party is mentioned as last option, when applied correctly it is the most severe. Yet, it is not completely applicable in Romania, as the Communist Party was dissolved during the revolution. Many CPR members joined however in the FSN. This party later split in two, being the Democratic National Salvation Front and the Democratic Page 18
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
Party. A ban then would simply ban those two parties. This would, however, not only be very controversial for a democratic regime, but also largely ineffective, as other parties involve former CPR members as well. Most notably is the leader of the rightwing Greater Romanian Party, who has been writer of the communistic newspaper and official speaker of the CPR, disciple of one of Ceauşescu’s trusted advisors and brother of a Securitate informant. Banning only the direct successors of the CPR leaves room for other or new parties to include the Communists again.
This leaves radical and lenient lustration as option. It was already concluded that at least one of them will be adopted. Since radical lustration includes the lenient form it is for sure some symbolic lustration has to be adopted. For the Romanian people it is needed to finally disclose what has happened before and during the revolution. For this reason lustration needs to have an informative character at least. Information about the past can have a negative effect on elections as well, turning the cards finally in favour of a new generation, which had no part in the Communistic regime. The problem in Romania, however, is the lack of opposition. During Communist times there was hardly any opposition and the last elections showed no serious candidate without a CPR record. The Romanians are facing, election after election, candidates with disputed backgrounds, both on participation in the former regime as with scandals involving large scale corruption. Although Ceauşescu may be dead, the communists are still in charge. Since there is no room in Bucharest for a new elite, the best way is a more radical lustration, calling for screening and large scale disclosure and exclusion of former CPR members. The harsh regime, as seen before, asks for harsh lustration. The question then is only whether Romania will be able to adopted any kind of lustration.
§ 5.4 Will Romania ever lustrate?
In order to lustrate by national laws, political will is needed. The still strong position of the communists makes lustration thus impossible nowadays. Even the more lenient form can not be expected from within the government. Although Romania is a democracy, the electorate can not be blamed, since the party system does not leave enough choice and real opposition meets lack of resources and consequently can hardly gain a strong foothold. Looking back to Romanian history the revolutionaries of 1989 should have made a stronger call for lustration from the beginning. However, with the promise of fair elections, although influenced by the media monopoly of the FSN, and with the strong suppression of any revolt-like movement the Page 19
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
revolutionaries are hard to blame neither. Today’s generation now faces the need and challenge to finish the revolution and end the rule of the former communist. Living in a democracy, the right path will be the difficult way of trying to form a strong opposition and pushing through lustration. The longer however it takes to form this opposition, the less lustration will be successful in banning CPR members, since they will retire. Meanwhile however, the ‘bad’ social capital will spread and effect more and more the people who enter Romania’s corrupted nomenklatura. The stronghold of communism still holds many aspects of Romanian life, and will remain so the next years.
Page 20
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
6. Conclusion
Lustration is the symbolic purifying of a nations past by screening the members of former Communistic regimes. Sometimes these collaborators are asked to give only their account of the history, but in more harder forms of lustration collaborators are banned from public office. Empirical evidence, as far as it excises, shows that countries that lustrate are further developed with their democratic system, then countries that did not lustrate. Therefore a positive link is suggested between lustration laws and the development to an advanced democracy. As such it is regrettable that Romania did not lustrate, especially since Romania faced a harsh regime under Ceauşescu. Directly after the revolution, dissidents from within the Communistic Party of Romania (CPR) took over state control. With a virtual monopoly on broadcasting they organized elections and enrolled themselves, leading to an enormous victory. Until these very days former CPR members are participating in the government and even running for president. The strong influence of the former CPR leads to ‘bad social capital’ which corrupts many of the ruling elite, causing numerous scandals. Next to this, the Communistic nomenklatura still can effectively end all propositions to lustration, as it had done directly after the revolution by violently ending a demonstration. ‘Ceauşescu may be death, but his spirit is still alive.’42
42
Said by a Canadian missionary about the situation in Romania
Page 21
The Guilt of the Nations
The hijacked revolution Romania and lustration: what went wrong?
Frank Stout April 2007
List of sources
Literature Brown, J.F., Hopes and shadows: Eastern Europe after communism, Duke University Press, Durham 1994 David, R., Transitional Injustice? Criteria for Conformity of Lustration to the Right to Political Expression, in: Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 56, No. 6 (September 2002), pp. 789-812 Deletant, D., Romania under Communist Rule, Civic Academy Foundation, Bucharest, 1998 Letki, N., Lustration and Democratisation in East-Central Europe, in: Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 54, No. 4 (June 2002), pp. 529-552 Roper, S.D., Romania the unfinished revolution, Harwood Academic, Amsterdam, 2000 Sadurski, W., “Decommunisation”, “lustration”, and constitutional continuity: Dilemmas of transitional justice in Central Europe, European University Institute Working Paper, LAW No. 2003/15
Legislation The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, entry into force July 1, 2002 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Resolution 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems
Case law ECtHR: Case of Ždanoka v. Latvia, application no 58278/00
Documentary Children of the Decree, 2004, documentary by Florin Iepan
Websites http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/P/1367/Dezbatere-cu-invingator-Traian-Basescu www.transparency.org/content/download/6360/37746/file/TOL_Nastase_23Jan06.doc
Page 22