Class 8

The War and Changed Fortunes

- Most individuals with any political savvy realized that the communists they
acted accordingly. There was mass enrollment in the RCP and its various
front organizations during the fall of 1944, and the next year as the so-called
progressive coalition was established and widened with increasing
communist influence at every juncture.
- The RCP leaders also had to come to grips with the tension between
nationalism and internationalism , or loyalty to Bucharest versus devotion to
Moscow.
National Communism in Romania
- A great deal of research has been produced on the issue of ruling
communism in Romania during the period 1947 (when the RCP took power
by forcing the King to abdicate) until 1965, when Nicolae Ceausescu came
to power and began to develop a theoretical and practical version of
Marxism-Leninism that is both national and idiosyncratic.
- The Pauker leadership openly acknowledged the leadership of the CPSU in
relations among communist parties and the Romanians also readily accepted
the notion that the USSR must be the leader of the socialist states.
- Gheorghiu Dej loyally handed over Imre Nagy and his entourage after they
had sought refuge in Romania during the second Soviet invasion of Hungary
in November 1956, and the Romanian leader took measures to ensure that
the large and relatively compact Magyar minority in Transylvania would
represent no serious threat to the stability of the Romanian regime and
would remain untainted by the dramatic developments north of the border, in
Hungary proper.
- In socio-economic development of Romania, a Stalinist model was clearly
followed , both under Pauker and Gheorghiu Dej. There was massive, rapid,
extensive industrialization, forced collectivization of agriculture, and a
forceful campaign of mass education.
- The destruction of the entire socio-economic classes, such as the
entrepreneurial middle class, the private peasantry, and the absentee
landlords; and the creations of new classes (or strata) such as a socialist

urban proletariat, an intelligentsia produced by communist-controlled

educational institutions, and a collective and state peasantry, with an overlay
of communist bureaucracy asnd security organs so familiar to any student of
the communist political order. Romania , in this respect, represented strict
adherence to the model that emanated from Moscow.
Ceausescuism
- After the death of Gheorgiu Dej in 1965 , the ascent to power of Nicolae
Ceausescu produced a hybrid form of Marxism-Leninism that is sui
generis in the communist world and represents a blend of traditional values,
elements of Marxist classic, and the particular (and peculiar) personal
aspects that Ceasescu has brought to the development of theory. These are
the basic aspects of Ceausescuism.
- Populist Emphasis. Element of populism, i.e. emphasis on the idea that the
people contain within itself the fundamental values that must become the
basic political guidelines for action and implementation.
- The Man on Horseback. The notion that the masses can only be
activated by a strong leader is an integral part of Ceausescuism.
- Traditional Romanian Nationalism and Chauvinism. As has been pointed
out repeatedly, Ceausescu has incorporated elements of traditional Romanian
nationalism, indeed chauvinism , in his ideology and has , in fact, made
them into key elements of thet package of thought. This is evident from
his constant reference to the great heroes of Romanian history, such as
Stephen the Great and Michael the Brave.
- Under Ceausescu, Romanian nationalism has turned to chauvinism. The
Romanians are no longer just extolling the virtues of their own history. They
are doing so at the expense of others. This is clearly the case in the regimes
nationality policies at home. Specifically, the major ethnic minorities , The
Magyars and the Germans , have experienced policies that are designed to
reduce their ethnic homogeneity in residential areas by dispersion and the
immigration of large numbers of Romanians into formely compact areas of
minority residence.
- anti-Semitic coloration
- Isolationism, Autarky, and Fortress Romania. Ceausescu repeatedly,
and with increasing vehemence, has attacked the moral depravity and ethical

shortcomings of the West , emphasizing instead the true values of

socialism and the superiority of moral and ethical education and
socialization in systems under communist rule , especially Romania.
- The emphasis on national values and self-sufficienty in ideological and
cultural matters is repeated in the economic field, where Ceausescu seems to
have become obsessed with the notion that Romania must pay off all its
debts and thus become truly independent.
- The Personality Cult and Megalomania. The conspicuous consumption of
the rulling clan is coupled with a personality cult of the General Secretary,
his wife and his son which exceeds all other cases of the East European
experience, surpassing even the Soviet Union during the height of the Stalin
era, and matched only by the display of personalized leadership found in
North Korea. It is probably no accident that Ceausescu and Kim-il-sung are
close both ideologically and personally; they both run systems which have
been dubbed socialism in one family. The General Secretary is variously
described as the greatest thinker, philosopher, statesman, and scientist the
world have ever seen. Some of the sycophantic prose and poetry written for
him and about him describes this oak of Scornicesti as a living god, the
sun that provides others with warmth and inspiration, and the inspirer for all
mankind. The General Secretary has demolished a substantial part of the
central city of Bucharest for the purpose of constructing an entire new city to
the glory of the achievements of socialism and the epoch of Ceausescu.
- Marxist Elements in Ceausescuism. Ceausescu belives in centralized
power, controlled by a hierarchial party organization, operating under the
auspices of democratic centralism. Ceausescu , like Lenin, distrusts the
masses and belives that they cannot be entrusted with power, because they
are incapable of meaningful political action and must instead by led by a
forceful hand. This is clear from Ceausescus behavior, despite his flowery
rhetoric about the peopleand the organic unity, between himself and the
masses. Thirdly, Ceausescu is committed to the notion of forceful change
from the top down in the political and socio-economic order another
fundamental element of Leninism. This approach is manifested in the
forceful transformation of Romania from an agrarian to an industrial society
at breackneck speed , regardless of costs. Fourthly, Ceausescu ,like Lenin,
adheres to the notion of a frontal attack upon problemes of all kinds, and

often simultaneously. Finally, Ceausescu adheres to all of the basic tenets of

Marxism-Leninist economics and social policy, notably public ownership of
the means of production, rapid and forced industrialization, collectivization
of agriculture, and the relegation of service industries to a tertiary position in
the economy.
- Ceausescuism and Political Legitimacy. It is clear from the discussion
above that Ceausescuism is a theory , a style of operation, and a set of
parameters for acceptable behavior by subelites. As a theory , it is a hybrid
of nationalism, chauvinism , Marxism-Leninism, and idiosyncratic elements
of Nicolae Ceausescu own thought. The enormous discrepancy between the
expanding personality cult and the totally unsubstantiated claimes to
achievement, on the one hand, and the reality of decline and pauperization,
on the other, has removed any vestige of political legitimacy that the regim
may have had in earlier periods, such as the summer of 1968, when
Ceausescus angry defiance of the Warsaw Pact during the invasion of
Czechoslovakis, rallied the masses around him. This was clearly the high
point of the regime. Since then, legitimacy has slowly dwindled.
Ceausescuism as a leadership style , it is sui generis and thus interesting and
tragic at the same time. As a political and socio-economic program, it is a
failure. But as a mechanism for the establishment , maintenance, and
expansion of personal and clan power, it is extraordinarly successful. It is
not national communism, but personal communism, communist nepotism.
As such , it represents a new form, worthy of serious study and commentary.

Romania- Aberrant or Typical?

-Unique Elements. Anotherphenomenon which is found throughout the region
but exhibits its most advanced form in Romania is nepotism. Corruption is not
unique to Romania, but it is arguable thet the amount and extent of it eceed
whatever can be found elsewhere in the region. The greatest cost of corruption
is probably in the loss of public confidence. Widespread malfeasance of this
nature leaves the man and woman in street convinced that everybody is doing
it, so it is time to get into act. Public authorities therefore have no credibility.
The losses that result from such attitudes are enormous, even if incalculable.

The average Romanian has become atomized, detached from his fellow citizens
, concerned with his own little collectivity of family and perhaps a few friends.
It is irrelevant to him what may happen elsewhere, to other people. There is no
way that social science can measure the depth and breadth of this atomization,
certainly not in \a system as closely controlled as Ceausescus Romania. No
other system in Eastern Europe can show this level of atomization. These
factors , taken together, relegate Romania to a unique and unenviable position.
The time-honored concept of the sick man can surely be utilized for a
description of this political and societal system in the late 1980s. Romania is
indeed unique, partly because some elements of this massive and multifaceted
crisis are country-specific, and partly because the intensity and severity of other
aspects are unmatched elsewhere in Eastern Europe , even if the same elements
are present there.
- Romanias Crisis as Part of the Crisis of Ruling Communist Systems.
Nationalism and national forms have become the key to contemporary political life
in East European socialist commonwealth. In this respect, Romania is but an
exaggerated form of the common trend of the entire region. Romania is also in the
mainstream of the East European experience in terms of socio-economic and
political performance. Romania is part of the east European problem of mass
alienation and aphaty. The Ceausescu regime also agrees with its counterparts
elsewhere thet change must take place. But the congruence between Romania and
the rest of the region ends here. Ceausescu is determined to revitalize the citizenry
through increased levels of modernization, exhortation, and indoctrination, not
broadened participation. He redefines the diet rather than providing more food. He
lectures the masses on the need to readjust their values rather than providing more
services. He preaches organic unity rather than the value of diversification,
pluralism, heterogeneity. Nicolae Ceausescu therefore is not part of the solution; he
is, in large measure, the problem.
- Romania as a Laboratory of Politics. Ceausescus Romania illustrates the
sources of power , authority, legitimacy, and the relationship between the
individual and the collectivity, between society and polity, in a way that is highly
informative precisely because it is such a unique case. Contemporary Romania is
characterized by extreme centralization of power. Power in Romania is derived

from the ability of one individual to gather into his own hands the crucial
organizational ties that keep modern society together and moving.
- Ceausescu has retained his capability to examine and judge performance.
Ceausescus Romania also provides us with a graphic illustration of the fact that
those who determine the political agenda determine the actual operation of the
system itself. Only the Leader knows what the basic elements of this doctrine are
at any one time.
- There are two other sources which greatly enhange the power of any leader,
namely authority and legitimacy. Authority, I take it, is the right accorded to the
leader of leaders by politically active and aware public , to make binding
decisions ; legitimacy is the acceptance by that public of the decisions made. In
contemporary Romania, authority and legitimacy are largely lacking for substantial
parts of the public, the societal elites, and also parts of the political elite. When
Nicolae Ceausescu came to power in 1965 , he was a consensus candidate with
support from the most important elements of the RCP elite because it was believed
the he would be a moderate leader, possibly controllable by the old guard who
had formed around Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej. Nicolae Ceausescu dramatically
expanded his sources of authority through a continuation of skill , luck, and actual
policy during the next few years. His emphasis on nationalism, national
sovereignty, and political and socio-economic autonomy made his rule palatable,
indeed acceptable. To widening strata of the societal elites and the general
population. The RCP leader was doing the right thing by standing up to the
Russians.
-Beginning in 1971 , and continuing to the present tiome , Nicolae Ceausescu
launched a series of policies that gradually reduced his authority and legitimacy to
the point where few individuals or groups in contemporary Romania can be said to
accord either of these presumably crucial elements of regime maintenance. Support
for actual policies dwindled as the socoi-economic performance of the system
deteriorated, and the Ceausescu leadership responded to each years failures with
increased production quotas, personnel changes, and various schemes designed to
skim revenue from increasingly pauperized population. This process of gradual
loss of both authority and legitimacy continued for a decade and a half, and it has
accelerated during the last three years, since the middle of the 1980s.

- Now , in the latter half of the 1980s ,the Ceausescu regime survives with a
minimum of authority and legitimacy. This is a phenomenon of considerable
interest to political scientists because it demonstrates that a political system can
survive for a period of time despite the virtual loss of these key ingredients. The
Ceausescu regime survives because of the nature of its power. Ceausescus
Romania demonstrates that a regime cand maintain itself for a considerable period
of time as long as the elements of coercion remain loyal to the regime. The
Ceausescu clan is itself is a product of Romanian political culture, and thus this
leadership knows instinctively , or in some other way , what the breaking point of
tolerance may be at one time. The crisis deepens, but the regime survives.
- A regime can survive without authority and legitimacy provided that the socioeconomic conditions are so serious that individuals are primarly concerned with
phisycal survival and thus are unable to effectively form groups that can act
politically. This is the security of crisis, provided the crisis is deep enough and
comprehensive enough to reduce the masses and the non-clan elites to a scramble
for survival. This is the success of minimal performance.
-While it is generally true that regimes power is enhanced through political and
socio-economic performance , contemporary Romania shows that power can also
be enhanged through non-performance or poor performance in the same ares of
activity. The level of such performance must be low enough so that the population
is cosumeed by its quest for survival and possible personal enhancement, rather
than collective needs and wishes. Thus, low performance in these sectors becomes
superior political performance, because it reduce or eliminates any organized
challenge to those in charge of the political order. If we accept these notions,
Nicolae Ceausescu in not a failure but a startling success.
Romania and Western Scholarship: A Bibliographic Essay
- Romania represents a fascinating example of the interplay between old and
new, West and East, communism and traditional nationalism, and between
the institutional mechanisms of Marxist-Leninist systems and personalized
political rule.
- Romanian foreign policy has been examined in some detail , because in
many ways it represents the most interesting face of Romanian politics. It is
here that Ceausescu has been the most active and had the greatest success,

which has brought Bucharest to a position of influence in the world far

beyond that normally attributed to medium-sized powers. But it is also in the
arena of foreign policy that the fall from grace, has been the most
spectacular, as the irrational domestic policies of the Ceausescu clan and the
regimes dismal civil rights record finally alienated most governaments of
the world.