Lustration in Romania (EN)

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 Frank Stout

Romania and lustration: what went wrong? April 2007

Table of Content

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Lustration versus decommunisation 3

§ 2.1 Lustration versus decommunisation 3

§ 2.2 The goal of lustration 3

§ 2.3 The debate against lustration 4

3. East-European lustration 7

§ 3.1 Factors contributing to lustration 7

§ 3.2 Lustration in Eastern-Europe 7

§ 3.2.1 Radical lustration (or decommunisation) 8

§ 3.2.2 Lenient lustration 9

§ 3.2.3 The exclusion of an occupying minority 9

§ 3.2.4 The ban of the Communist Party 10

4. The Romanian situation 11

§ 4.1 The rise of communism 11

§ 4.2 The atrocities committed under Ceauşescu’s rule 12

§ 4.3 The revolution 13

5. Romanian and lustration 15

§ 5.1 Why did Romania not adopt lustration laws? 15

§ 5.2 Can lustration still be adopted? 17

§ 5.3 Which kind of lustration will fit the most? 18

§ 5.4 Will Romania ever lustrate? 19

6. Conclusion 21

List of sources 22



Page 1

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 2

this, the third chapter will look to the different kinds of lustration, as adopted by Eastern-

European 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 3

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 4

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

8 Id., p. 540

9 Id., p. 541

10 Id., p. 541

11 Id.



Page 5

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 6

transitional countries, saw ‘corrective justice’ as opposed to democratic and liberal countries.

Nevertheless, in practice the very opposite link can be established.



Page 7

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

§ 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 20

Sadurski, W., p. 17 21

David, R., p. 201



Page 8

§ 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


Id., p. 19 24

Id., p. 21



Page 9

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 ex-

communists 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 10

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


David, R., p. 206



Page 11

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 12

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 30

Children of the Decree, 2004, documentary by Florin Iepan 31

Deletant, D., p. 166



Page 13

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 14

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 Ceauşescu. 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 15

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 16

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 37

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



Page 17

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 18

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 19

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 20

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 21

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 22

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

Lustration in Romania (EN)

Documents

radical lustration

lenient lustration

goal of lustration

kind of lustration laws

easteuropean lustration

hijacked revolution

excommunistic countries

postcommunistic countries