Romania: Will The Communist Successors To Ceausescu Permit Truly Free And Fair Elections?

Introduction

The violent overthrow in December 1989 of the long-ruling Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu has been followed by the establishment of a government by former communist officials, called the National Salvation Front. The Front contends that it seeks to establish constitutional democracy and that the elections scheduled for 20 May 1990 will be free and fair.

In the present, highly complex political environment in Romania, however, there are serious questions about whether the new regime is in fact merely a repackaged version of the old government, closely aligned with Moscow and determined to keep power at all costs. Importantly, on May 7th, the U.S. State Department expressed its concern about the fairness of the electoral process, stating that free and fair elections were "crucial" to the "future of U.S.-Romanian relations." And on May 10, the United States withdrew its Ambassador "as a public symbol of…concern." The Center believes that, while such expressions of concern are both well founded and welcome, considerably more must be done and done at once if the upcoming election in Romania is to be a legitimate expression of the public’s will — rather than simply one more in a long line of cynically rigged elections stolen by the communists.

Past as Prelude: The Once and Future Regime?

Romania was an independent kingdom from 1881 until the communist takeover in 1947. As a result of a coup by pro-fascist elements of the military, Romania entered World War II on the Nazi side in 1941. In 1944, King Michael — with the support of elements of the military and civilian political parties — deposed that regime and then added Romania’s forces to the allied side, where they sustained heavy losses.

By March 1945, Soviet occupation forces enabled communist cadres in Romania to force King Michael to appoint a communist-led "coalition government." In keeping with standard Stalinist practice, this so-called "coalition" quickly deteriorated into a full-blown communist People’s Republic. This oppressive, pro-Soviet totalitarian entity was formally declared in December 1947, at which time the king was obliged to abdicate and was exiled. He is still living in Western Europe and remains for some of the Romanian democratic groups a symbol of non-communist legitimacy; he was recently refused permission by the National Salvation Front to visit his country.

Soviet troops left Romania in 1958 and, since 1961, the Romanian regime has been at pains to promote an international perception of independence from the Soviet Union. In 1965, this effort entered an important new stage with Nicolae Ceausescu’s accession to power. Under Ceausescu, a new constitution was adopted which, among other steps, mandated that the Stalinist name for the Romanian government be dropped; it became known simply as the Socialist Republic of Romania.

It is important to note that initially (circa the mid-1960s) there was some slight liberalization under the Ceausescu regime, notably manifested in the release of most political prisoners. This was consistent with trends in Czechoslovakia and Hungary at the time. By the 1970s, however, the Ceausescu regime had become ever more repressive, combining the worst features of communist bureaucratic rule with personalist and nepotistic dictatorship involving an array of corrupt family members and other cronies.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Romania David Funderburk and a senior defector from the Romanian intelligence service, Ion Pacepa, have persuasively argued that the ostensible independence of Romania from Moscow under Ceausescu was, in fact, at least partially a contrivance to permit Romania to provide certain useful services for Moscow. While it is true that during Ceausescu’s tenure there were some significant and constructive deviations from the Kremlin’s line — notably Romania’s refusal to participate in the Soviet-led invasion that crushed the 1968 Prague Spring, its official criticism of Moscow’s 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and, according to recent reports, the sale of Soviet military technology and complete weapons systems that were of interest to the West — the true character of Romanian independence appears to be a rather mixed bag. For example, technology theft and espionage against the West were assiduously conducted by the Ceausescu government; the Soviet Union was a prime beneficiary of these efforts. At the very least, the preceding years of deception illustrate the acute need to avoid being taken in by the post-Ceausescu regime.

The undoing of the regime resulted from its irrational plan to destroy 8,000 villages and move their residents into high-rise apartment complexes and the continuing persecution and forced relocation of many thousands among the 1.8 million (total population of 22 million) ethnic Hungarians. In December 1989, when the feared secret police, the Securitate, began persecuting an ethnic Hungarian protestant pastor who protested these plans, thousands of people demonstrated to support him; in an effort to suppress this protest, hundreds — perhaps thousands — were killed on the orders of Ceausescu.

This slaughter produced an explosion of popular anger in the capital and, when most of the army joined the uprising against the government, Ceausescu fled. He was subsequently captured and executed on 25 December 1989. A particularly pointed manifestation of the peoples’ contempt for his regime, desire for democracy and rejection of communism was the spontaneous removal of the hammer and sickle emblem from thousands of Romanian flags.

Changed Spots?: The National Salvation Front

The leader of the National Salvation Front regime, which grabbed power upon Ceausescu’s fall, is Ion Iliescu. He is also the Front’s candidate for president in the elections currently scheduled for 20 May 1990. The Iliescu government has made some effort to present itself as the protector of Romanian independence and the anti-communist revolution. For example, in describing his government’s objectives, Iliescu said recently: "We have fought to put an end to dictatorship, to bring about a democratic system, to make free elections the basis for this democracy."

It is noteworthy, however, that Iliescu studied agricultural techniques in the Soviet Union and is reportedly a former classmate and personal friend of Gorbachev. More troubling still, virtually all senior members of the Front regime are long-time members of the Romanian communist party. No pro-democratic leaders have had any significant role in the National Salvation Front government.

Skilled observers of Romania believe that there may have been a significant Soviet role in preparing a military coup against Ceausescu designed to install a pro-Soviet regime in Bucharest. According to this theory, such a plan was simply put into train when the events of December 1989 unexpectedly provided a catalyst.

The Hijacking of an Election?

Whether the Soviets are complicitous in the installation of the National Salvation Front or not, the Romanian people have grown increasingly anxious about the Front’s actual commitment to democracy. For weeks, there have been nearly continuous, mass demonstrations by citizens who contend that the election as currently being conducted cannot be free and fair and that the Front simply intends to rig it so as to maintain a communist dictatorship. On 30 April 1990, the five leading democratic opposition parties said they would boycott the elections unless they were postponed to provide them with a better chance to organize and compete.

Among the serious grounds for concern about the continuing dictatorial character of the Front and about whether the election can be fair are the following:

• The Front is using all the resources of the government and unlimited public funds in its campaign and its members have decades of practice in holding rigged elections.

 

• The Front has for months been using a tactic of intimidation employed widely by the communists during "the terror of 1945-47."(1)

For example, the government has transported bus-loads of the regime’s supporters to opposition rallies for the purpose of intimidating and physically harassing the democratic groups.

 

• "Free Romanian Television" — which played such an important anti-Ceausescu role during the violent events of 1989 — is, according to recent a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty analysis, losing its credibility because its programming seems strongly to favor the Front regime and gives very little coverage to the democratic opposition parties.(2)

 

• The dreaded secret police were transferred to the Ministry of Defense in late December 1989 by President Iliescu. Thereafter, all televised (i.e., officially sanctioned) criticism of the Securitate suddenly stopped. Moreover, foreign reporters and others noted months later that, in many places, the plainclothes Securitate officers were going about their work as before the fall of Ceausescu.

 

• In late April 1990, the Front officially announced that it was establishing a "new" intelligence service; in all likelihood this is simply another case of adopting a new name in order to mask continuity between the present regime and its predecessor. In any event, there is abundant evidence that the National Salvation Front regime has continued to employ and rely upon the secret police and that very few among its tens of thousands of agents have been removed.(3)

Recommended Policy Approach

Until May 7 there had been virtually no official U.S. commentary about — let alone any action taken in response to — these disturbing indicators and trends, all of which have, to one degree or another, been in evidence for months. It is, therefore, high time for the United States to take specific steps designed to help the genuinely democratic opposition parties. In that connection, the Center believes the Bush administration should do the following:

• Give immediate public support to the call of the five Romanian democratic parties for a delay of at least sixty-ninety days in the scheduled 20 May election in order to permit the opposition to compete on a more equal footing. The United States should encourage all NATO and friendly European countries — of the East as well as West — to do the same.

 

• Propose that a multiparty delegation from NATO and EC countries make an immediate visit to Romania to assess the complaints of the five democratic parties about the electoral process. If these charges are found to be valid, the delegation should recommend that all governments represented make a joint demarche to indicate that economic opportunities and aid will be severely restricted for Romania unless the election is delayed and other steps taken to ensure that, when held, it is a free and fair vote.

 

• Assure that the National Endowment for Democracy and other appropriate Western organizations provide aid to the genuinely democratic parties and institutions in a timely and energetic way.

 

• Compile and distribute publicly — and to the Romanians themselves — a brief analysis of the events in Romania since the overthrow of Ceausescu and an assessment of the fairness of the electoral process to date. Western governments have a great deal of information not readily available to the people of Romania which, if presented in an appropriate form, could be of extreme importance to an informed vote and a salutary outcome in the upcoming elections.

 

• Disclose and criticize any continuing links between the KGB or other Soviet security apparatuses and elements of the Romanian Front regime and any hostile international actions on the part of the Romanian secret police or the latter’s involvement in activities inimical to a free and fair election.

1. See Juliana Pilon, "A Revolution Hijacked," Uncaptive Minds, January-February 1990, pp. 36-38.

2. See Crisula Stefancescu, "’Free Romanian Television’ Losing Its Credibility," Report on Eastern Europe, 23 March 1990, pp. 24-29.

3. Mihai Sturdza, "How Dead is Ceausescu’s Secret Police Force?" Report on Eastern Europe, 13 April 1990, pp. 28-36.