Monica Ciobanu

Criminalising the Past and Reconstructing Collective Memory: The Romanian Truth Commission

Abstract This article analyses the report issued by the Presidential Commission for the Analysis of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania in January 2007 within the context of the politics of memory and justice in post-communist Romania. Crucial aspects of the work of the commission, such as its history and formation, mandate and make-up, methodological and conceptual framework, and the political reactions that it generated are examined. This leads to the conclusion that while the publication of the report brought some progress in revealing the truth, it is less likely to have a similar impact on transitional justice policies.

Rewriting and remembering Romanian communism: some controversial issues

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 Securitates 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.

Romania's travails with democracy and accession to the European Union

Abstract The defeat of the Social Democratic Party (PSD, Partidul Social Democrat) in the 2004 elections in Romania by the liberal centre – right coalition, the Alliance of Truth and Justice (DA, Alianta Dreptate si Adevar), and the countrys membership of the European Union (EU) seem to indicate the end of a troubled post-communist transition. However, the reforms mandated by the EU in the justice system have not fundamentally altered the nature of the political elite. For the past two years the political establishment has been unstable and political parties continue to hinder the development of an accountable and transparent political system. The EUs emphasis on speedy implementation of reforms has resulted in an inconsistent application of political conditionality, which has left Romanias democratisation process incomplete.

Communist regimes, legitimacy and the transition to democracy in Eastern Europe

The purpose of this article is to clarify the relationship between forms of political legitimacy employed by communist regimes in East and Central Europe and subsequent models of revolutionary change in 1989. The conceptual basis of the analysis lies in Max Webers theoretical framework of legitimacy. The four cases selected for comparison are Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania. The attempts of de-Stalinization and reformation of these party-state regimes through the introduction of paternalistic and also more goal-oriented measures could not prevent their disintegration in the 1980s and their subsequent collapse in 1989. But, I argue, it was the withdrawal of ideological support by elites that ultimately brought communism to an end. The differences in revolutionary scenarios and transitions to democracy in the four cases indicate the importance of a shift in both rulers and masses towards interest in dialogue and compromise. Hungary and Poland represent the clearest scenarios in which communist parties acted as agents of regime change in a rational-legal direction. The Bulgarian case stands as an intermediary case between these two and Romania. Finally, Romania represents an extreme case of violent revolution and the overthrow of a traditionalist and sultanistic regime and illustrates the difficulties following a complete collapse of political authority.

Reconstructing the History of Early Communism and Armed Resistance in Romania

This article examines the role played by the armed resistance in Romania during the period of Sovietisation and Stalinisation (1944–1962) and its significance within the politics of memory and justice after 1989. One conclusion of the analysis is that opposing interpretations by political actors each in search of legitimacy correspond to attempts to manufacture plausible narratives of the specific historical discontinuity posed by the revolutionary break of 1989. A second conclusion reveals how memory and identity conflicts at group and individual levels can easily result in the translation of historical myths into enduring historical facts.

Recent Restorative Justice Measures in Romania (2006-2010)

Because politicians have exploited recent attempts to implement restorative justice policies in Romania for political gain or to enhance their own legitimacy, these efforts have failed to promote reconciliation and to provide moral and legal redress for victims of the communist regime.

The End of the Democratic Transition? Analyzing the Quality of Democracy Model in Post-Communism

The problem addressed in this article is the adequacy of the recently developed quality of democracy model in analyzing post-communist democracies in the context of their recent accession into the European Union. In order to provide some clarification of this question, the conceptual framework is utilized in light of past and recent political developments in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Several procedural and substantive dimensions of the model are examined, particularly participation and competition, accountability, governance, rule of law, corruption and aspects of popular legitimacy. The main conclusion is that while the model proves its ability to understand some of the specific dynamics and peculiarities of these cases, it is less successful in showing how democratic legitimacy becomes institutionalized.