Rewriting and remembering Romanian communism: some controversial issues

Abstract

This article examines the dynamic relationship between the two major dimensions of memory and justice in the context of post-communist countries: truth-telling and retroactive justice. This interdependent and uneasy relationship is illustrated by recent attempts at constructing a new historical narrative of the communist past in Romania in the wake of the de-secretization of the files of both the Communist Party and the communist secret police (Securitate). A systematic analysis of the activity of institutions that have been directly involved in research and public education about the recent past – the National Archives, the National Council for the Study of Securitate's Archives, and the Institute for the Investigation of Crimes of Communism – is undertaken. The work of these three institutional actors shows a direct relationship between truth-telling in its various forms (access to archives, opening the files and exhumations) and any subsequent retroactive justice and restitution. The main argument of the paper is that while deep-seated dichotomies between former communist and anti-communists in addressing the past still persist, a more nuanced way of seeing the regime that explores the ambiguous line that divides outright repression from cooptation is emerging.

Keywords:

• history of Romanian communism
• remembering communism
• retroactive justice

Acknowledgments

The field research for this article was funded by Dr Nuala McGann Affirmative Action/Diversity Leave by the State of New York/ United Union Professionals Joint-Labor Management in the fall of 2009. A shorter version of this article was presented in April 2010 at the Association for the Study of Nationalities Convention at Harriman Institute, Columbia University. I would like to thank Dr Irina Culic the discussant of the panel for her useful remarks. Also, I am very grateful for the ongoing support provided throughout my field trip in Romania by Dr Cosmin Budeanca of the Institute for the Investigation of Crimes of Communism and Dr Cristian Vasile historian and coordinator of the Advisory Presidential Commission for the Analysis of Communist Dictatorship.

Notes

The report should not be interpreted as an ultimate account of the history of the communist regime. The context in which the commission was established and the relatively short period of six months in which it was written resulted in some controversial academic and legal disputes of a conceptual and methodological nature. However, in the long run and as subsequent events demonstrated, it generated a lively and open discussion of the past among the younger generation of social scientists. For a critical analysis of the report see Ciobanu; Stan (“Comisia Tismăneanu intre adevăr si reconciliere”).

Members of the two parties in opposition – the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the Party of Great Romania (PRM) – present in the legislature during Băsescu's speech reacted to with uncivilly. The Liberal Party (PNL), which was in the coalition government at the time but at loggerheads with Băsescu over various issues, failed to respond to the opposition's attacks.

I use the concept of sites of places of memory as the equivalent of “lieux de memoire” used by French historian Pierre Nora. He defines lieu de memoire as “any significant entity, whether material or nonmaterial in nature, which by dint of human will or the work of time has become a symbolic element of the memorial heritage of any community” (Nora 17–18).

The website can be accessed at www.arhivelenationale.ro/index.php.

While such rules and “rights” that concern the patrons of any public library and/or archives seem to be normal practice, in the case of ANR pre-1989 practices and restrictions imposed by an authoritarian communist regime on academics and the public persisted for the next 15 years. This can be explained as the result of: (1) the influential position of historians socialized in the old school who established the terms of academic discourse during communism; and (2) the unwillingness of successive governments to reform the archives (see Dobrincu and Marin, ANR: Raport de activitate).

The text of the proposed law can be accessed at www.arhivelenationale.ro/images/custom/image/Pdf-uri/Proiectul_Legii_Arhivelor.pdf. Web. 23 Feb. 2010.

The details of these events were revealed to me by Alina Pavlescu and Dorin Dobrincu during interviews conducted in October 2009 in Bucharest.

I use the concept of retroactive justice in the context of the analysis of ANR (as well as CNSAS and IICCR) as referring to both material and non-material compensation of the victims of persecution during the communist regime. The latter form of compensation has a more symbolic meaning and consists of a public recognition that harm has been done. However, the former raises more practical and legal difficulties especially in the area of the restitution of property confiscated by the communist regime. Also, monetary redress and preferential treatment for those abused (as in education, healthcare) provides the public an opportunity to question the identity of the victims (“Didn't everyone suffer under communism of restricted opportunities?”). See Elster; Teitel.

Nora distinguishes between material, symbolic and functional lieux de memoire (Nora 14).

O.U.G. no. 16/2006's full title is Ordonanţa de Urgenţă a Guvernului, pentru modificarea si completarea Legii nr. 187/1999 privind accesul la propriul dosar si desconspirarea Securităţii ca poliţie politică [Government Emergency Ordinance for modifying and completing Law no. 187/1999 regarding access to a personal file and revealing Securitate as the political police].

CNSAS: Raport de activitate pe anul 2007 [CNSAS: 2007 Activity Report], at www.cnsas.ro/documente/rapoarte/Raport%202007.pdf. Web. 27 Feb. 2010.

O.U.G. no. 24/2008's full title is Ordonanţa de Urgenţă a Guvernului, privind accesul la propriul dosar si deconspirarea Securitaţii [Government emergency ordinance regarding access to personal file and revealing the role of Securitate].

For an analysis of prevailing myths in East and Central Europe see Schopfin.

I learnt much about the way in which the recommendations of the report were put into practice and about the political resistance that these measures provoked from the historian and coordinator of the Advisory Presidential Commission Dr Cristian Vasile during a personal discussion conducted in October 2009 in Bucharest.

This was the case of Diana Barbu, a history teacher in the town of Mâneciu from Prahova County. She was informed that her students' work could not be recognized because the programs she involved her students in were not approved by the Ministry of Education (Rusan 77).

The total number of classes devoted on weekly a basis to the teaching of history in middle-school and junior high school is one hour for grades fifth, sixth and seventh and two hours for the eighth grade. The high-school history curriculum varies according to its specialization with a higher number of hours allocated to humanities high-schools.

See www.arhivelenationale.ro/index.php?page. Web. 5 Mar. 2009.

Reports of the exhumations can be found on the web page of the institute. www.iiccr.ro. Web. 15 Oct. 2009.

I would like to thank Dr Cosmin Budeancă, chief of the Museums-Memory division at the IICCR, who helped me understand the complexities of the exhumations during a discussion that we had in September 2009 in Bucharest.

Both Oprea and Tismăneanu are well-known intellectual and public figures. Oprea is known through his research contributions to the study of Securitate and as a proponent of the rehabilitation of the victims of communism. Tismaneanu is a professor of international reputation at the University of Maryland in the United States. He chaired the Presidential Commission for the Analysis of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania that released a final report in 2007. Oprea was one of the contributors to the report.

Intellectuals and public figures who endorsed Oprea's position expressed their opinions in the February and March issues of the weekly Observatorul Cultural (www.observatorulcultural.ro). The views of those who voiced their disapproval of Oprea's attacks against Tismăneanu and defended the latter were mostly published in the February and March issues of the weekly Revista 22 (www.revista22.ro).

See www.crimelecomunismului.ro/evenimente/conferinte/2010. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.