Constructing national history in political discourse: Coherence and contradiction (Moldova, 2001–2009)

Abstract

History is one of the many instruments available for the persuasive construction of a nation. In Moldova, the Party of the Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM), in office from 2001 to 2009, advocated for a Soviet-based version of the Moldovan nation. This “Moldovanism” boasted of the existence of a “Moldovan People” and was relied upon to justify the independence of the former Romanian province. Vladimir Voronin, the party's leader and president of the Republic during this period, promoted this “civic” Moldovan nation and created what seemed to be a coherent and ad hoc construction of an independent Moldovan nation.

This paper focuses on communist political discourse during this eight year period. Through the use of Critical Discourse Analysis, this paper focuses on the discursive construction of the Moldovan nation. It is based on Voronin's official speeches and messages from key occasions such as Independence Day and Victory Day.

This paper demonstrates the varied use of history in these speeches which improves understanding of the process of the construction of a nation. Moreover, it demonstrates that this construction, far from being coherent, was also sometimes contradictory. Indeed, discourse was adapted to the immediate context and audience. Finally, the paper explains how an explicitly “civic” discourse can be implicitly and, sometimes even explicitly, “ethnic” and “exclusive”.

Keywords:

• Moldova
• communists
• nation
• history

Acknowledgements

An early edition of this paper was presented to the 16th Annual World Convention of the Association for the Study of Nationalities in April 2011. I am grateful to Matthew H. Ciscel, Elizabeth A. Worden and Ion Marandici for their enthusiastic and helpful comments.

Notes

According to Way, “Moldova is a case of pluralism by default in which the immediate source of political competition is not a robust civil society, strong democratic institutions, or democratic leadership but incumbent incapacity. In cases of pluralism by default, politics remain competitive because the government is too polarized and the state too weak to monopolize political control in an international environment dominated by democratic powers. Leaders are unable to manage their subordinates or maintain sufficient elite cohesion to limit electoral competition, censor the media, control parliament, or rely on military support.”(2003, 455).

Recent developments in Moldova go in that same direction, as the first measures taken by the newly elected government in 2009 can be seen as “nationalizing” measures (language, culture, state symbols, etc.).

The author worked on the text versions which are available in Romanian and Russian on the website of the Presidency of the Republic of Moldova (www.presedinte.md). The translations are all literal translations by the author.

Wine, a major Moldovan export, is considered a national product. National Wine Day is held every October alongside a fair held in Moldova.

It is cited by 28% of respondents in November 2001, at the beginning of his first term, and by 22.8% in March 2009, at the end of his second term. The President is cited by a maximum of 45% of respondents in March 2002 and a minimum of 13.5% in October 2008. The President remains the most trusted person, well ahead of other party members such as former Prime Minister Zinaida Grecianîi (2.9% in March 2009) or Victor Stepaniuc, historian and former Deputy Prime Minister (0.2% in March 2009), and far ahead of other personalities from other political parties like Dorin Chirtoaca, the liberal mayor of Chisinau (8.3% in March 2009) or Marian Lupu, former parliament speaker who left the Communist Party on the eve of the July 2009 elections and current leader of the Democratic Party of Moldova (5.6% in March 2009). Barometrul de Opinie Publica. Raportul final. Martie 2009, Institutul de Politici Publice, Chisinau, 24 March 2009. Available: www.ipp.md (last access July 2011).

This is a reference to the short civil war which occurred in 1991–1992 opposing Transnistrian and Gagauz separatists and the Moldovan regular army.

The following are the three major founding figures of Moldova: Bogdan the First is seen as the first ruler of Moldova (1359 to 1365). Stephen the Great fought against the Ottomans and is a Moldovan national hero who ruled the country from 1457 to 1504. Dimitrie Cantemir, in power from 1710 to 1711, was appointed by the Ottomans when Moldova was a vassal of the Empire but approached the Russian Empire to get rid of the Ottomans.

Moldova was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth century. After the Russo-Turkish Wars in 1812, Bessarabia, the eastern part of the former Moldovan principality, was ceded to the Russian Empire.

Independence was proclaimed in February 1918 while the local parliament, the Sfatul Tarii, proclaimed autonomy in December 1917. Nevertheless, the parliament voted for unification with Romania in March 1918 and Bessarabia became part of Greater Romania.

The Concept of the State National Policy was adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova in December 2003. It is a description of the policies which, according to the legislator, need to be implemented to reinforce Moldovan statehood and to allow for the peaceful coexistence of the majority of “ethnic” Moldovans with national minorities.

While the conflict between Moldova and Transnistria has never been settled, Gagauz and Moldovan groups reached an agreement and the Gagauz were granted an autonomous region in the south.

A memorial complex was erected at the location of violent WWII battles.

This is a reference to a 1990 Soviet movie, based on a Turkish legend according to which a Mankurt is a man who is used as a slave because somebody has made him forget his fatherland, his history, and his language.

Besides the 2.2% of the citizens who identified themselves as Romanians in the last 2004 Moldovan census, one should note that leading Moldovan historians (Anderson 2007, 281) and, more generally, Moldovan intellectuals (Fruntasu 2002, 287) see themselves as “ethnic” Romanians.

According to the results of the IMAS exit-poll survey in March 2005, the following is the description of the typical communist voters: on the total Moldovan population in age to vote, 44% from rural areas and 36% from urban areas are voting for the communist party; 63% over 60 year-olds, 44% of the voters between the age of 44 and 59, 35% of the voters between 30 and 44, and 25% of the voters between 18 and 29; 43% of the voters who studied until age 14, 30% of the voters who completed secondary education and 29% of the voters who completed higher education; 39% of the total “ethnic” Moldovans, 51% of the Russians and 59% of the Ukrainians. The results of a socio-political barometer by the same pollster in November 2009 presented a similar distribution when one considers which groups have more confidence in the PCRM. See the website of the Institute for Public Policy in Chisinau and the website of IMAS Inc.: www.ipp.md and www.imas-inc.com.