Romanian Review of Political Sciences and International Relations

Transcription

R O M A N I A N REVIEW OF POLITICA L
S C I E N C E S A N D I NTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
VOL. IV
No. 1
2007
CONTENTS
ROMANIAN POLITICS
JOSEF KARL, Das Demokratische Forum der Deutschen (DFDR) als Vertretung
der deutschen Minderheit im postkommunistischen Rumänien 1989–2004 ....
THE EUROPE OF NATIONS
CRISTI PANTELIMON, Ortega y Gasset and the Idea of Nation .........................
CÃLIN COTOI, The Imagining of National Spaces in Interwar Romania.
The Emergence of Geopolitics ..........................................................................
3
59
75
THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT
ANA BAZAC, Kant et Rawls: remarques sur l’évolution des théories idéales
concernant les relations internationales ............................................................
GABRIELA TÃNÃSESCU, Freedom as Projection of Reason in Spinoza ..........
HENRIETA ANIªOARA ªERBAN, “Nature” and “Reason” in the Leviathan ....
WILLIAM J. CONNELL, Machiavelli on Growth as an End ...............................
97
112
120
127
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
YVES PLASSERAUD, The Minorities of Estonia and Their Status ....................
LUCIAN JORA, Historical Knowledge of Europe and the European Dimension...
141
153
IN FOCUS
VIORELLA MANOLACHE, A Form of Re-activating the Political Freedom
— Mass-media (Theoretical Aspects of a Postmodern Simulacrum) ...............
159
BOOK REVIEWS...................................................................................................
185
THE AUTHORS ....................................................................................................
204
ISPRI’s ACADEMIC LIFE ....................................................................................
THE REVIEW OF REVIEWS................................................................................
Pol. Sc. Int. Rel., IV, 1, p. 1–206, Bucharest, 2006.
169
201
TOME IV
R E V I E W RO U MA INE DE SCIENC ES
P O LI TI Q U ES ET RELATION S
I N T ERNATIONAL ES
No 1
2007
SOMMAIRE
POLITIQUE ROUMAINE
JOSEF KARL, Das Demokratische Forum der Deutschen (DFDR) als Vertretung
der deutschen Minderheit im postkommunistischen Rumanien 1989–2004.......
L’EUROPE DES NATIONS
CRISTI PANTELIMON, Ortega y Gasset et l’idée de nation................................
CÃLIN COTOI, Imaginer les espaces nationaux à l’époque de l’entre-deux-guerres
en Roumanie. L’émergence de la Géopolitique ...............................................
HISTOIRE DE LA PENSÉE POLITIQUE
3
59
75
ANA BAZAC, Kant et Rawles: remarques sur l’evolution des theories ideals
concernant les relations internationals...............................................................
HENRIETA ANIªOARA ªERBAN, “Nature” et “Raison” dans le Léviathan .....
GABRIELA TÃNÃSESCU, La liberté en tant que projection de la raison chez
Spinoza ..............................................................................................................
WILLIAM J. CONNELL, Machiavel — de la croissance en tant que fin ............
120
127
YVES PLASSERAUD, Les minorités de l’Estonie et leur statut .........................
LUCIAN JORA, Connaissance historique de l’Europe .........................................
141
153
RELATIONS INTERNATIONALES
IN FOCUS
97
112
VIORELLA MANOLACHE, Une manière de re-activer la liberté politique
— les mass media (Aspects théoriques du Simulacre Postmoderne) ...............
159
COMPTES RENDUS .............................................................................................
185
VIE ACADÉMIQUE ..............................................................................................
REVUE DES REVUES ..........................................................................................
AUTEURS...............................................................................................................
169
201
204
ROMANIAN POLITICS
DAS DEMOKRATISCHE FORUM DER DEUTSCHEN (DFDR)
ALS VERTRETUNG DER DEUTSCHEN MINDERHEIT
IM POSTKOMMUNISTISCHEN RUMÄNIEN 1989–2004
JOSEF KARL
Abstract. The study explores the Romanian political scene after 1989. It
investigates the role of the Democratic Front of the German People in
Romania (F.D.G.R./DFDR) and the inter-party relations within the
democratic Romania. The historical approach is complemented by political
interpretations.
1. Übersicht über Abkürzungen rumänischer Parteien
und Organisationen1
Abkürzung
ADJV
DA
(Wahlbündnis der
PNL und PD 2004)
CDR
F.D.G.R./DFDR
FDSN
(seit 1993 PDSR)
FSN
(seit 1993 PD)
IPP
PD
——————
Rumänisch
Asociaþia Tineretului
German din România
Deutsch
Arbeitsgemeinschaft der
Deutschen Jugendverbände
Convenþia Democraticã
din România
Christdemokratische
Konvention (Wahlen 1996)
Alianþa Dreptate ºi Adevãr
Forumul Democrat al
Germanilor din România
Frontul Democrat al Salvãrii
Naþionale
Frontul Salvãrii Naþionale
Institutul pentru Politici
Publice
Partidul Democrat
Allianz “DA”
(Gerechtigkeit und
Wahrheit)
Demokratisches Forum der
Deutschen in Rumänien
Demokratische Front zur
Nationalen Rettung
Front zur Nationalen
Rettung
Institut für öffentliche
Politik
Demokratische Partei
1 [Weiterführende Informationen in: Lewis, Political Parties in Post-Communist Eastern Europe].
4
JOSEF KARL
Abkürzung
PDSR
(seit 2002 PSD)
Rumänisch
Partidul Democraþiei Sociale
din România
PNL
Partidul Naþional Liberal
PR
Partida Romilor
PNÞCD
Partidul Naþional Þãrãnesc
Creºtin Democrat
PRM
Partidul România Mare
PSD
Partidul Social Democrat
P.U.N.R.
Partidul Unitãþii Naþiunii
Române
PUR
Partidul Umanist din
România
UDMR
Uniunea Democratã
Maghiarã din România
2
Deutsch
Partei der Sozialen
Demokratie (von)
Rumänien(s)
Nationalliberale Partei
Christdemokratische
Nationale Bauernpartei
Partei der Roma
Großrumänien-Partei
Sozialdemokratische Partei
Partei der Rumänischen
Nationalen Einheit
Humanistische Partei
Rumäniens
(sozial-liberal)
Demokratische Ungarische
Union Rumäniens
(“Ungarnverband”)
2. Übersicht über Orts- und Gebietsbezeichnungen2
Deutsch
Siebenbürgen
Agnetheln
Bistritz
Großlasseln
Heltau
Hermannstadt
Kleinschelken
Kronstadt
Mediasch
Neumarkt
Regen/Sächsisch Reen
Schäßburg
Schil
Vierdörfer/Zernendorf
Zeiden
——————
Rumänisch
Transilvania
Agnita
Bistriþa
Laslea
Cisnãdie
Sibiu
ªeica Micã
Braºov
Mediaº
Târgu Mureº
Reghin (-ul Sãsesc)
Sighiºoara
Jiu
Sãcele/Cernatu
Codlea
Ungarisch
Erdély
Szentágota
Beszterce
Szászszentlászlo
Nagydisznód
Nagyszeben
Kisselyk
Brassó
Medgyes
Marosvásárhely
Szászrégen
Segesvár
Zsil
Négyfalu/Csernátfalu
Feketehalom
2 [Ein umfassender Index für siebenbürgische Orts- und Gebietsbezeichnungen findet sich in Mittelstraß,
Ortsnamenbuch und für die Orts- und Gebietsnamen im Banat und in Sathmar kann bei Ács et. alt., Erdély
autótérképe nachgeschlagen werden].
DFDR IM POSTKOMMUNISTISCHEN RUMÄNIEN
3
Deutsch
Sathmar
Bildegg
Capleni
Darotz
Erdeed
Fienen
Großkarol
Josefhausen
Kalmandi
Kleinmaitingen
Petrifeld
Schamagosch
Schönthal
Stanislau
Terebescht
Terem
Thurterebesch
Trestenburg
Banat
Anina-Steierdorf
Billed
Busiasch
Groß-Pereg
Pankota
Perjamosch
Temeschwar/Temeschburg
Tschanad
Wolfsberg
Berweni/Berweli
Rumänisch
Satu Mare
Beltiug
Cãpleni
Craidorolt
Ardud
Foieni
Carei
Iojib
Cãmin
Moftinul Mic
Petreºti
Ciumeºti
Urziceni
Sanislãu
Terebeºti
Tiream
Turulung
Tãsnad
Banatul
Anina
Biled
Buziaº
Peregul Mare
Pâncota
Periam
Timiºoara
Cenad
Gãrâna
Berveni
5
Ungarisch
Szatmárnémeti
Krasnabéltek
Kaplony
Királydaróc
Erdõd
Mezöfény
Nagykároly
Józsefháza
Kálmánd
Kismajtény
Mezöpetri
Csomaköz
Csanálos
Szaniszló
Krasznaterebes
Mezöterem
Túrterebes
Tasnád
Bánság
Stájerlakanina
Billéd
Buziás
Németpereg
Pankota
Perjámos
Temesvár
Nagycsanád
Szörénvordas
Börvely
A. Einleitung: Hinführung zum Thema und Eingrenzung
der Fragestellung
Vorliegende Arbeit soll die Geschichte der einzigen gemeinsamen
Organisation der gesamten deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien nach 1989
analysieren. Unter dem Namen Demokratisches Forum der Deutschen in
Rumänien (DFDR)/Forumul Democrat al Germanilor din România (F.D.G.R.)
versucht sie seit 1989, das kulturelle und politische Leben der nach dem
Massenexodus von 1990–91 noch in Rumänien verbliebenen Deutschen zu
organisieren.
Die Hauptthese der vorliegenden Arbeit ist, dass die Unverträglichkeit der
expliziten Absicht des DFDR, eine Minderheitenorganisation für alle Deutschen
und keine Partei zu sein und seines impliziten Willens, eine aktive politische
Kraft zu sein, das DFDR de Facto mehr und mehr zu einer Art politischen Partei
werden ließ. Dieser Konflikt war die größte Herausforderung des DFDR
während seiner Existenz. Meine Annahme ist daher, dass es der permanente
Diskurs des DFDR (aufgrund des Mangels einer gemeinsamen deutschen
6
JOSEF KARL
4
Identität, eines gemeinsamen Dialekts oder einer gemeinsamen Geschichte in
Rumänien) “einen Verband in Vielfalt und innerer Einheit” zu schaffen und “in
Loyalität zum rumänischen Staat” zu stehen, dem DFDR erlaubte, beide Ziele
trotz ihrer scheinbaren Unverträglichkeit miteinander zu kombinieren. Es deutet
doch einiges darauf hin, dass das DFDR dadurch an die sächsische Tradition des
Strebens in Richtung eines Modus Vivendi mit den jeweils Herrschenden
anknüpft, die in der Vorkriegspolitik von Rudolf Brandsch und insbesondere von
Hans Otto Roth eine große Rolle spielten.3 Auf der rumänischen Seite hingegen
finden sich die spezifisch rumänische Form eines vom Staat monopolisierten
Nationalismus und die Absicht des rumänischen Staates, die deutsche
Minderheit als ein Werkzeug zu verwenden, um Rumäniens schwache Leistungen
bei den Reformen mit Blick auf die EU-Integration zu kompensieren. Beide
Aspekte spielen meines Erachtens nach eine entscheidende Rolle in der
Gesamtstrategie des DFDR.
Diese Arbeit wird erläutern, warum sich das DFDR, das unter diesen Aspekten
auf den ersten Blick wie eine Organisation mit Chamäleonqualitäten erscheinen
könnte, nicht allzu stark wandeln musste, um sich den sehr schnell ändernden
Gesamtbedingungen anzupassen, wie man eigentlich annehmen könnte.
Die Forschungstätigkeit für diese Studie wurde in erster Linie in induktivem
Rahmen durchgeführt. Zunächst einmal kann sich diese Arbeit nicht sehr stark
auf eine bestehende Historiographie stützen, da sich diese hauptsächlich aus
dreierlei Gründen nicht sehr intensiv um das gewählte Thema bemüht hat.4
Erstens, weil das Thema per se nicht durch ein breiteres Publikum entdeckt
worden ist, zweitens weil die Landsmannschaften in Deutschland als Vertretung
der Ausgewanderten den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs nach 1945 maßgeblich
mitprägten und sich erst ganz allmählich mit einer weiteren Existenz von
Deutschen in Rumänien nach 1989 abzufinden bereit waren und drittens, da die
Archivmaterialien im DFDR nur unter Bedingungen zugänglich sind, die viel
Zeit in Anspruch nehmen. Überdies wurde hoch relevantes Archivmaterial
umsortiert, als die Zentrale des DFDR Mitte der 1990er Jahre renoviert wurde.
Dies führte dazu, dass sich einige Akten bis zum heutigen Tage in Umzugskisten
befinden, was einige Geduld und häufiges Nachfragen beim Auffinden wichtiger
Dokumente erforderlich machte.
Darauf aufbauend, wird die allgemeine Arbeitsweise teilweise Entwicklungen
auf nationaler Ebene beschreiben und sich dabei vornehmlich auf Sekundärquellen
——————
3 [Bereits seit den 70er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts war es sächsische Politik gewesen, dass sächsische
Abgeordnete sich den regierenden ungarischen Liberalen anschlossen und auf Konzessionen “von innerhalb”
des regierenden Lagers hinarbeiteten, um exklusiv-sächsische Privilegien zu behaupten und zu erweitern. Im
doch recht engen Rahmen dieser Arbeit soll jedoch diese historische Komponente nicht vertieft werden, es soll
an dieser Stelle vielmehr mit Blick auf eine eventuell weiterführende Arbeit Erwähnung finden].
4 [Diese Arbeit kann sich für den Zeitraum 1989–2004 lediglich auf kurze Aufsätze oder recht kurz
gehaltene Werke wie Azzola, Jüdische und andere Geschichten stützen, weshalb man von einem “aktuellen
Forschungsstand” im eigentlichen Sinne nicht sprechen kann. In der historischen Perspektive kann sich der
Bearbeiter auf Standardwerke über die Zeit von 1870 bis 1933 beziehen, wie Göllner, (Hg.), Die Siebenbürger
Sachsen in den Jahren 1848–1918; Roth, Politische Strukturen und Strömungen bei den Siebenbürger Sachsen
1919-1933; Teutsch, Die Siebenbürger Sachsen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart].
5
7
und auf Primärquellen aus rumänischen und deutschen Institutionen stützen.
Diese Entwicklungen werden mit denen innerhalb des DFDR in Verbindung
gesetzt und die Studie untersucht insbesondere die Wirkungen externer Vorgänge
auf das DFDR, so wie diese sich aufgrund der vorliegenden Primärquellen, wie
Manuskripten, Korrespondenzen und anderer Aufzeichnungen aus dem Archiv
der Zentrale des DFDR in Hermannstadt, darstellen. Als analytische Hilfen
werden hierzu teilweise politikwissenschaftliche Theorien der Demokratisierung
und des Nationalismus herangezogen werden.
Im Detail besteht der Hauptteil dieser Arbeit aus drei Kapiteln, die Faktoren
behandeln, welche die Arbeit des DFDR während der vergangenen 15 Jahre
nachdrücklich beeinflussten.
Da in diesem Zusammenhang die unterschiedlichen sprachlichen und
kulturellen Merkmale der im DFDR geeinten Deutschen Rumäniens für ein
wirkliches Verstehen der inneren Entwicklung des DFDR unerlässlich sind,
werden diese im ersten Kapitel behandelt, das sich darauf konzentriert, die
Ursprünge und die ethnisch-kulturelle Zusammensetzung der deutschen
Minderheit in Rumänien näher zu betrachten. An dieser Stelle werden auch die
rechtliche, politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung, die zur
heutigen Situation der deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien führte, aufgearbeitet.
Im zweiten Kapitel wird sich die Arbeit den politischen Entwicklungen auf
der rumänischen Bühne zwischen 1989 und 2004 zuwenden und diese kritisch
analysieren. Insbesondere das Themenfelder Minderheitenschutz und
Demokratisierung werden in diesem Zusammenhang thematisiert werden, da sie
einen wichtigen Hintergrund zu allen Aktivitäten des DFDR bilden und somit
entscheidenden Einfluss auf Misserfolg oder Erfolg seiner Politik haben. Dies
bildet zugleich die Grundlage für den dritten und gleichzeitig zentralen Teil der
Arbeit, in dem die politischen Aktivitäten des DFDR in den größeren
rumänischen Rahmen eingeordnet werden sollen.
Dieses Kapitel befasst sich schließlich mit den internen und externen
Entwicklungen, die das DFDR von seiner Gründung am Abend der so genannten
“Revolution” im Dezember 1989 bis zum Jahr 2004 genommen hat.
Insbesondere wird hier auch auf seine internationalen Aktivitäten und seine
nationalen und internationalen Partner eingegangen werden. Da der selbst
gewählte Auftrag des DFDR, alle “Rumänen deutscher Nationalität” zu
vertreten, integraler Bestandteil des vom rumänischen Staat propagierten Zieles,
sich auf dem Weg zu einer EU-Mitgliedschaft “modern und europäisch” zu
zeigen, geworden ist, wird auch diese “europäische Dimension” mit in die
Analyse einfließen. Hier werden in besonderem Maße Originaldokumente aus
dem Archiv des DFDR in Hermannstadt Verwendung finden.
Im daran anschließenden Schlussteil werden die aufgeworfenen Überlegungen
schließlich in eine gedankliche Synthese gebracht und es wird ein kurzer
Ausblick auf die Zukunftsaussichten und — optionen des DFDR erfolgen.
Die sich vornehmlich auf Archivmaterialien und Sekundärliteratur stützende
Studie wird überdies mithilfe der modernen Technik der “mündlichen
8
JOSEF KARL
6
Geschichte” anhand von Gesprächen mit wesentlichen Zeitzeugen und
politischen Akteuren ergänzt werden, ohne jedoch allzu sehr auf diesen zu
basieren. Eine Anzahl von persönlichen Erfahrungen von Zeitzeugen soll
vielmehr als Ergänzung mit in die Studie eingeschlossen werden, um sie noch
authentischer zu gestalten.
B. Hauptteil
1.1. Historische Einführung
Gemäß E. A. Freeman ist “Geschichte vergangene Politik und Politik ist
gegenwärtige Geschichte”5. Nimmt man dies zur Richtschnur, so bedarf jede
Analyse der Situation der deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien nach 1989 auch
einer detaillierten Erläuterung der historischen und demographischen
Entwicklung der Deutschen im heutigen Rumänien. Dies ist sehr wichtig, da die
Geschichte der Deutschen in Rumänien relativ unbekannt ist, insbesondere in
Deutschland.
“Deutsche aus Deutschland tendieren oft dazu, ihre Landsleute in Rumänien
für eine mehr oder weniger homogene kulturelle Einheit irgendwo im Osten zu
halten”6, so fasst Professor Paul Philippi, Ehrenvorsitzender des DFDR, diese
Tatsache zusammen.
Die deutschsprachige Gruppe in Rumänien ist ganz im Gegenteil dazu
äußerst heterogen. Sie besteht aus mehreren unterschiedlichen kulturellen
Gemeinschaften mit nur einigen gemeinsamen Merkmalen. Da die
unterschiedlichen Gruppen der Deutschen in Rumänien zum ersten Mal
überhaupt nach der Gründung des modernen Rumänien im Jahr 1918
miteinander verbunden wurden, ist das Wenige, was ihnen gemeinsam ist, ihre
Sprache und einige kulturelle Ähnlichkeiten. Doch sogar diese Muttersprache ist
weit davon entfernt, als homogen gelten zu können. “Während der
Zwischenkriegszeit hielten sich die verschiedenen deutschen Gruppen in
Rumänien lediglich für Einwohner ihrer Regionen. Es gab kein explizites
Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl mit einer gemeinsamen deutschen Identität.”7
Dies zeigt sich auch am Mangel einer zentral organisierten deutschen Partei
zwischen 1918 und 1944. Obwohl es den zwischen 1921 und 1931 von Rudolf
Brandsch geführten “Verband der Deutschen in Rumänien” gab, entwickelte
sich dieser nie so recht zu einer wirklichen Partei im modernen Sinn des Wortes.
Er war lediglich ein loser Verband der unterschiedlichen Organisationen der
Schwaben, Buchenlanddeutschen, Bessarabiendeutschen, der Siebenbürger
Sachsen (Deutsch-Sächsischer Volksrat) und er wurde darüber hinaus nahezu
vollständig durch die Siebenbürger Sachsen dominiert. Hatten die Deutschen im
Anschluss an diese Epoche sogar eine Art Vertretung unter kommunistischer
——————
5 Freeman, E. A. (1823–92), Regius Professor of History in Oxford 1884 bis 1892, Methods of Historical
Study (1886), S. 44.
6 Gespräch mit Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul Philippi, Hermannstadt, 29. September 2003.
7 Völkl, Rumänien, S. 237.
7
9
Herrschaft, so “kann der so genannte “Rat der Werktätigen deutscher
Nationalität” nicht als wirklich repräsentativ für alle Deutschen in Rumänien
angesehen werden.”8
Daher war die Gründung des “Demokratischen Forums der Deutschen in
Rumänien” (DFDR) der erste explizite Versuch, einen einheitlichen Verband in
Rumänien zu gründen, der alle Deutschen vertreten sollte. Vor dem Hintergrund
von 850 Jahren deutscher Geschichte auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Rumäniens
ist dieses Ereignis daher wirklich von historischer Bedeutung.
Nichtsdestotrotz können auch heute noch zentrifugale Tendenzen unter den
Deutschen des Banats bemerkt werden, die Anfang der 1990er Jahre zwei
separate Vertretungen bevorzugten, eine für alle Schwaben des Banats, des
Kreischgebiets9 und in Satu Mare-Sathmar10, zusammen mit den
“Berglanddeutschen” des Banater Berglandes im heutigen Kreis Caraº-Severin
rund um Reschitz, und eine für “den Rest”.
Um diesen Bewegungen entgegenzuwirken, wurde das DFDR in einer
föderalen Struktur organisiert. Seine Zentrale in Hermannstadt stützt sich auf
fünf regionale Bezirke (“Regionalforen”). Einer wurde in Temeschwar für das
Banat (Judeþe Timiº, Arad, Caraº-Severin und Mehedinþi), einer in Satu MareSathmar für Nordwestrumänien (Judeþe Bihor, Sãlaj, Satu Mare und
Maramureº), einer in Bukarest für das “Altreich” (“Regat”, bestehend aus der
Walachei, der Dobrudscha und der Moldau), einer für das Buchenland
(Bukowina, bestehend aus den Judeþen Suceava und Botoºani11) in SuceavaSuczawa und einer für Siebenbürgen (Judeþe Hunedoara, Klausenburg, BistritzNãsãud, Alba, Hermannstadt, Kronstadt, Mureº, Covasna und Harghita) in
Hermannstadt eingerichtet. Die Vorsitzenden der regionalen Foren sind zugleich
auch stellvertretende Vorsitzende des DFDR.12
Das DFDR hat derzeit insgesamt circa 56.000 Mitglieder und besteht aus
einem “Landesforum” (Landesverband mit Sitz in Hermannstadt), fünf
“Regionalforen”, fünf “Kreisforen” (eine Art Kreisverband, deckungsgleich mit
den Judeþen in Bihor, Salaj, Satu Mare, Maramureº und Hermannstadt13), 23
——————
8 Gespräch mit Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul Philippi, Hermannstadt, 29. September 2003.
9 [Das so genannte “Kreischgebiet” umfasst den Nordteil des heutigen Judeþ Arad und die Judeþe Bihor
und Sãlaj].
10 [Die deutschen Ortsnamen werden in dieser Studie nur dann verwendet, wenn sie offiziell vom
rumänischen Staat neben den rumänischen Namen verwendet werden, d.h. wenn sie auf Ortstafeln in
Übereinstimmung mit rumänischen Gesetzen erscheinen, oder wenn sie in der offiziellen Korrespondenz
zwischen dem DFDR und der rumänischen Regierung verwendet werden. Der geläufigere Name wird zuerst
genannt. Die sehr oft verwendeten Ortsnamen Bistriþa, Bucureºti, Braºov, Cluj-Napoca, Mediaº, Reºiþa,
Hermannstadt, Sighiºoara und Timiºoara werden in der gesamten Studie nur mit ihren deutschen Namen als
Bistritz, Bukarest, Kronstadt, Klausenburg, Mediasch, Reschitz, Sibiu, Schäßburg und Temeschwar bezeichnet].
11 [Das historische Buchenland beinhaltete das Gebiet des heutigen Judeþ Botoºani nicht, es wurde dem
Regionalforum Buchenland lediglich beigefügt, um es etwas größer und dadurch leistungsfähiger zu machen].
12 [Gegenwärtig sind dies in Siebenbürgen Dr. Paul-Jürgen Porr aus Klausenburg, in Nordsiebenbürgen/
Sathmar Johann Schwartz aus Satu Mare, im Buchenland Antonia-Maria Gheorghiu aus Suceava, im Banat Dr.
Karl Singer aus Temeschwar und im “Altreich” Dr. Klaus Fabritius aus Bukarest].
13 [Laut Auskunft durch Dr. Paul-Jürgen Porr, den Vorsitzenden des Regionalforums Siebenbürgen, ist die
Gründung von Kreisforen auch in anderen Kreisen Siebenbürgens im Laufe der Jahre 2005/2006 geplant, um
“für die nächsten Kommunalwahlen im Jahr 2008 überall ähnlich gut wie in Hermannstadt aufgestellt zu sein”.
(Rede im Zuge der Vertreterversammlung des Siebenbürgenforums am 12. März 2005 in Klausenburg)].
10
JOSEF KARL
8
“Zentrumsforen”14 (Foren, die mehrere “Ortsforen” umfassen), 5 “Lokalforen”
(Foren mit Mitgliedern aus mehreren Orten der weiteren Umgebung)15, 116
“Ortsforen” (analog eines “Ortsverbandes” in Deutschland), einem landesweiten
Jugendverband (“Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Jugendorganisationen in
Rumänien”, ADJ), fünf regionalen Jugendverbänden16, 141 landwirtschaftlichen
Verbänden (“Landwirtschaftsvereine”) und sieben Stiftungen17.
In § 1 seiner Satzung erklärt sich das DFDR nicht zur Partei, sondern zu einer
kulturellen Vereinigung im Sinne der ganzen deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien
(nicht im Sinne des lateinischen Wortes Pars, also eines Teils). Auf diese Art ist
es seinen Mitgliedern möglich, in politische Parteien Rumäniens einzutreten.
Dennoch ist es den Mitgliedern des DFDR verboten, eine führende Position
sowohl im DFDR als auch in einer Partei innezuhaben. Diese Regelungen
verbessern die allgemeine Position des DFDR maßgeblich, da sie erlauben, so
die Förderung der Interessen der deutschen Minderheit indirekt auch mit Hilfe
großer politischer Parteien voranzutreiben.
Das DFDR ist über seine “Schulkommission” inhaltlich-organisatorisch auch
an 200 Kindergärten und an circa 140 Schulen mit Deutsch als Hauptsprache
beteiligt und hat eine enge Verbindung zu 14 Studiengängen an rumänischen
Universitäten in deutscher Sprache (einschließlich fünf Lehrstühlen für
Germanistik). Erst kürzlich wurde in Hermannstadt darüber hinaus die private
Deutsch-Rumänische Universität (Universitatea Românã-Germanã, UniRoGer)
gegründet, mit der das DFDR zum Teil zusammenarbeitet. Das DFDR besitzt
auch sieben Stiftungen, ist an sechs wöchentlichen und einer Tageszeitung
beteiligt und kooperiert mit zwei deutschsprachigen Theatern, fünf regionalen
deutschsprachigen Rundfunkstationen, einem regionalen deutschsprachigen
Fernsehsender, einem landesweiten deutschsprachigen Radioprogramm und
einem landesweiten deutschsprachigen Fernsehprogramm.
1.2. “Einheit in Vielfalt”?
Die Folgen der historischen Heterogenität für das DFDR heute
Die unterschiedlichen deutschen Gruppen zeigen eindringlich, dass es keine
homogene deutsche Minderheit in Rumänien gibt. Außer den Deutschen des
——————
14 [Gegenwärtig sind dies im “Altreich” Bacãu, Bukarest, Constanþa, Craiova, Galaþi und Iaºi-Jassy und
in Siebenbürgen Bistritz, Brad-Criºcior, Broos-Orãºtie, Deva-Diemrich, Hermannstadt, HunedoaraEisenmarkt, Kalan-Cãlan, Klausenburg, Kronstadt, Mediasch, Sebeº-Mühlbach, Târgu Mureº-Neumarkt,
Petroºani-Petroschen, Reghin-Sächsisch Regen, Schäßburg, Lupeni-Schiltal und Sfîntu Gheorghe-Sankt
Georgen].
15 [Dies ist nur im Buchenland der Fall, da speziell dort die Deutschen sehr verstreut und ländlich leben.
Es sind dies: Vatra Dornei-Dorna-Watra, Gura Humorului-Gurahumora, Câmpulung MoldovenescKimpolung, Siret-Sereth und Suceava-Suczawa].
16 [“Deutsches Forum der Banater Jugend” in Temeschwar, “Deutscher Jugendverein Siebenbürgen” in
Fãgãraº-Fogarasch, “Arbeitskreis Banat-JA” in Arad, “Deutsche Jugendorganisation ’Gemeinsam’” in Satu
Mare und “Jugendforum Buchenland” in Suceava].
17 [“Verein für internationale Kooperation TRANSCARPATICA”, Bukarest; “Banater Verein für
internationale Kooperation ‘Banatia’”, Temeschwar; “Stefan Jäger Stiftung”, Temeschwar; “Adam-MüllerGuttenbrunn-Stiftung”, Temeschwar; “ACI Bukowina Stiftung”, Suceava; “Sathmarer und Nordsiebenbürgische
Stiftung für internationale Kooperation”, Satu Mare; “Stiftung ‘Saxonia’”, Kronstadt].
9
11
Regats und der Dobrudscha kamen alle Gruppen erst nach 1918 zu Rumänien.18
Die Bessarabiendeutschen hatten unter russischer Herrschaft gelebt, während
die Buchenlanddeutschen in einem Teil Österreichs (Zisleithanien) lebten und
die Schwaben des Banat, des Kreischgebietes und aus Sathmar, die Zipser, die
Berglanddeutschen und die Sachsen Siebenbürgens Teil Ungarns (Transleithanien)
waren.
Es dauerte bis in die 1930er Jahre, bis der Ausdruck “Rumäniendeutsche”
überhaupt in Gebrauch kam. Dennoch hat es bis 1945 keine gemeinsame
deutsche Identität gegeben. Im Jahr 1940 übernahm die von Andreas Schmidt
geführte Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) der
Deutschen Volksgruppe in Rumänien die Kontrolle über die übrigen Deutschen
Rumäniens (nachdem Bessarabien und die Nordbukowina von den Sowjets
annektiert worden waren, Nordsiebenbürgen zu Ungarn gekommen war und die
Dobrudschadeutschen im Wesentlichen in den “Warthegau” umgesiedelt worden
waren). Dennoch vermochte nicht einmal die nationalsozialistische Ideologie
die tiefe Spaltung zwischen den Siebenbürger Sachsen und den Banater
Schwaben durch Zwang zu überwinden.
Vor diesem Hintergrund muss man den Versuch, diese internen deutschen
Probleme durch die Gründung einer gemeinsamen Organisation nach 1989
beizulegen, als einen historisch bedeutsamen Schritt betrachten. Natürlich trug
auch die Auswanderung von mehr als 50 Prozent der Deutschen seit 1989 dazu
bei, da unter den Deutschen die Furcht vor einem nachhaltigen Identitätsverlust
allgegenwärtig war. Als man jedoch das DFDR in den stürmischen Tagen des
Dezember 1989 gründete, konnten die Gründer das volle Ausmaß des
bevorstehenden Exodus noch nicht voraussehen. Daher bleibt das DFDR der
erste explizite organisatorische Rahmen, um “Einheit in Vielfalt”19 zu schaffen,
wie Professor Paul Philippi die Anreize der Gründer zusammenfasst. Dennoch
ist dieser Anspruch immer noch kein wirklich leicht zu erfüllender.
In den Parlamentswahlen des Jahres 2000 zum Beispiel gewann das DFDR
einen Sitz in der Camera Deputaþilor20, der zweiten Kammer des Parlaments.21
Sie gewann auch einen Sitz im Senat, der ersten Kammer, über ein indirektes
Bündnis22 mit der nationalliberalen Partei (Partidul Naþional Liberal, PNL)23.
Außerdem stellte es zwischen 2000 und 2004 mehrere Bürgermeister (am
bedeutendsten Klaus Werner Johannis, seit 2002 Landesvorsitzender des DFDR,
Oberbürgermeister von Hermannstadt seit 2000), Mitglieder von Lokalräten
(sechs Sitze im Stadtrat von Hermannstadt und vier im Kreisrat von
——————
18 [Insgesamt lebten 745.000 Deutsche in den zu Rumänien hinzugekommenen Gebieten. in: Völkl,
Rumänien, S. 235].
19 Gespräch mit Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul Philippi, Hermannstadt, 29. September 2003.
20 [Abgeordnetenkammer].
21 [Das war Eberhard-Wolfgang Wittstock im Judeþ Hermannstadt].
22 [Möglich durch §§ 1, 5 und 11 der DFDR-Satzung vom 1. Februar 1991, da Doppelmitgliedschaften
im DFDR und in Parteien möglich sind].
23 [Dabei handelte es sich um den Architekten Dr. Hermann Fabini als Senator des Judeþ Hermannstadt.
Er ist sowohl Mitglied des DFDR, als auch der PNL].
12
JOSEF KARL
10
Hermannstadt)24 und einen “Subsecretar de Stat”25 für “Interethnische
Beziehungen” (Ovidiu Ganã) in der rumänischen Regierung.26
Dieses Ergebnis hat die deutsche Minderheit zusammen mit der wichtigen
Tatsache gestärkt, dass die Auswanderung der Deutschen nach Österreich und
nach Deutschland im Jahr 2000 zu einem Stillstand kam.27 Die rumänischen
Parlamentswahlen vom 26. November 2000 trugen auch zu diesem Erfolg bei,
als das DFDR mit 40.981 Stimmen (1990: 38.768, 1992: 34.685, 1996: 23.888)
auf Platz 19 von insgesamt 69 politischen Formationen und Parteien kam, die in
den Wahlen des Jahres 200028 antraten.
Wieder einmal wurde der Kreis Hermannstadt bei diesen Wahlen zur
Hochburg des DFDR (19.821 Stimmen für das DFDR). Demgegenüber beklagten
die Banater Schwaben wieder einmal die totale sächsische Vorherrschaft
innerhalb des DFDR. Außer Ovidiu Ganã aus Temeschwar, wurden alle anderen
wichtigen Posten des DFDR von Sachsen besetzt. Die Sachsen mussten sich
aber nach 2000 forumsintern sowohl ihren alten Rivalen aus dem Banat
(Schwaben und Berglanddeutschen) wie auch den stärker werdenden Schwaben
aus Sathmar und aus dem Kreischgebiet stellen.
Wie man daher deutlich sehen kann, haben die zuvor beschriebenen
historischen und kulturellen Unterschiede auch heute noch eine sehr große Wirkung
auf gegenwärtige politische Entwicklungen und auch Personalentscheidungen
innerhalb des DFDR.29 Geschichte wird für die Politik entscheidend, und diese
zwei Bereiche können nicht gesondert voneinander betrachtet werden, wenn
man sich mit der deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien bei ihrem Versuch
beschäftigt, “politische Einheit in historischer Vielfalt”30 zu schaffen. Unter
diesem Blickwinkel wird in der Tat “Geschichte zu vergangener Politik und
Politik zu gegenwärtiger Geschichte”31, wie bereits zu anfangs erwähnt.
Das folgende Kapitel baut auf diesen bisherigen Ergebnissen auf und wird die
Rolle der nationalen rumänischen Geschichte und des Nationalismus während
der postkommunistischen politischen Entwicklungen in Rumänien näher
analysieren, insbesondere, da diese für eine Minderheitenorganisation wie das
DFDR von großer Bedeutung sind.
2. Das postkommunistische Rumänien 1989–2004
2.1. Der historische Hintergrund
Rumänien ist mit seinen 238.391 Quadratkilometern und seinen 21,7 Millionen
Einwohnern32 nach Polen der größte der so genannten “postkommunistischen”
Staaten Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Die Rumänen selbst sehen ihren Staat als
——————
24 Forums-Nachrichten, Wahlbilanz des Forums, Hermannstadt (28. Juni 2000), S. 23.
25 [Unterstaatssekretär].
26 Gespräch mit Dipl. Ing. Hansmartin Borger, Hermannstadt, 24. März 2003.
27 Gespräch mit Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul Philippi, Hermannstadt, 1. April 2003.
28 Forums-Nachrichten, Wahlbilanz des Forums, Hermannstadt (28. Juni 2000), S. 23.
29 Gespräch mit Kulturreferent Dr. Florian Rudolph, Bukarest, 5. April 2005.
30 Gespräch mit Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul Philippi, Hermannstadt, 29. September 2003.
31 Freeman, E. A. (1823–92), Methods of Historical Study (1886), S. 44.
32 Archiv-Akte A3, 21. September 2002.
11
13
ihren Nationalstaat, aber de facto ist Rumänien ein Land mit vielen Nationalitäten.
Es gibt ungefähr 1,4 Millionen Ungarn, wohl zwischen 60.000 und 70.000
Deutsche33 zwischen einer und zwei Millionen Roma und kleinere Minderheiten
von Ukrainern, Polen, Russen und Lipowenern (slawischstämmige Bewohner
des Donaudeltas), Serben, Bulgaren, Kroaten, Slowaken, Tschechen, Mazedoniern,
Ruthenen, Türken, Tartaren, Griechen, Albanern, Armeniern, Juden und Italienern.
Insgesamt werden 19 Minderheiten vom rumänischen Staat offiziell erkannt.34
Es wird sogar geschätzt, dass die Minderheit der Sinti und Roma zwischen “2
und 3,5 Millionen Menschen, also bis zu 10 Prozent der Bevölkerung stellt”35.
Der moderne rumänische Staat in seinen jetzigen Grenzen ist ein Produkt des
Ersten Weltkriegs. Vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg bestand Rumänien nur aus den
zwei “historischen rumänischen Fürstentümern, der Walachei und der
Moldau”36 (dem so genannten “Regat” (von Regatul vechi, dem alten
Königreich, oder Königreich von Rumänien), das im Ersten Weltkrieg seit 1916
auf der Seite der Alliierten kämpfte. Nach der Niederlage Österreich-Ungarns im
Ersten Weltkrieg wurde Ungarn (in der Donaumonarchie firmierend als
“Transleithanien”) im “Diktatfrieden”37 von Trianon38 gezwungen, das Banat,
Siebenbürgen, Sathmar (Satu Mare), die Marmarosch (Maramureº) und das
Kreischgebiet (Criºana) an das Königreich Rumänien abzutreten, dem alten
“Regat”.39 Der Reichsteil Österreich (“Cisleithanien”) verlor das Buchenland
(Bukowina) an Rumänien. Auf diese Weise wurde Rumänien ein ethnisch höchst
heterogenes Land, da diese neu gewonnenen Territorien zum Teil überwiegend
von Ungarn, Deutschen, Ukrainern und Juden bevölkert waren. Zwar war
Rumänien auch schon vorher durch seine jüdische Minderheit ethnisch
heterogen gewesen, aber man sträubte sich sehr, dies zuzugeben.40
Von 1965 bis 1989 wurde Rumänien “im Geist des Neo-Stalinismus und des
nationalen Kommunismus”41 von Nicolae Ceauºescu42 beherrscht. Ceauºescu
setzte die nationalen Minderheiten wie Ungarn und Deutsche unter starken
Druck und “beherrschte das Land mit seinen Freunden und Verwandten wie ein
Sultan”43. Im Großen und Ganzen “passte Ceauºescu den Marxismus- Leninismus
mehr an den Nationalismus an, als umgekehrt.”44
——————
33 [Die Volkszählung von 2002 geht von 60.088 Deutschen aus].
34 Ibid.
35 Agh, Emerging Democracies, S. 257.
36 Kolarz, Mituri ?i realit??i în Europa de Est, S. 145 ff.
37 [“Ungarn verlor dadurch 1919 zwei Drittel seines Territoriums” (Kinder, S. 903), sogar junge
ungarische Männer wurden “Trianon” getauft, um an diese ungarische Katastrophe zu erinnern. (Gespräch mit
Egon Erwin Lajos Bunzmann, Regensburg, 6. Januar 2002)].
38 Kinder, Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, S. 415.
39 Leuºtean, România, Ungaria ºi Tratatul de la Trianon 1918–1920.
40 Gespräch mit Dorel Dorian, Bukarest, 7. April 2005.
42 [“Nicolae Ceauºescu, geboren 1918, hingerichtet 1989. Ceauºescu beherrschte Rumänien von 1965–
1989 auf diktatorische Art und Weise und wurde im Dezember 1989 gewaltsam gestürzt. Dies wurde von der
rumänischen Armee gezielt unterstützt. Er wurde in einem Geheimprozess von einem Militärtribunal zum Tode
verurteilt. Das Todesurteil wurde sofort vollstreckt.” (Anger, S. 133)].
43 Gespräch mit Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul Philippi, Hermannstadt, 4. April 2003.
44 Schöpflin, “Rumanian Nationalism”, S. 104.
14
JOSEF KARL
12
Auf der Grundlage dieses historischen Hintergrundes von Rumänien und
seines Erbes der totalitären Vergangenheit wird es offensichtlich, dass Rumänien
vor 1989 mit einer ganz besonderen Form der Herrschaftsform — unterschiedlich
von den Ländern des östlichen Mitteleuropa, zu “kämpfen” hatte: Sultanismus.
Jede Art persönlicher Initiative in diesem “dynastischen Sozialismus”45 wurde
sofort bestraft, und sogar Schreibmaschinen mussten bei der Polizei (jedes Jahr
von neuem!) angemeldet werden46.
Darauf aufbauend, verkündete Ceauºescu noch im November 1989, auf dem
14. PCR-Parteitag, gerade einstimmig als Parteichef wiedergewählt, “während
im restlichen Osteuropa der Kommunismus bereits zusammengebrochen war,
für Rumänien die ‘Verwirklichung des goldenen Traums der Menschheit, des
Kommunismus.’”47 Während im restlichen Ostblock die Reformen und
Umwälzungen ihren Anfang nahmen, stellte sich Ceauºescu an die Spitze eines
Anti-Reform-Blockes, der die Bewahrung der bestehenden Verhältnisse zum
Ziel hatte.
Als es im Dezember 1989 in Temeschwar zu Unruhen gekommen war,
machte Ceauºescu noch einen Staatsbesuch im Iran. Dies zeigt, wie sicher er
sich in seiner Position fühlte. Nach seiner Rückkehr versuchte er mehrmals die
aufgebrachten Massen durch Ansprachen zu beruhigen. Selbst in seiner letzten
Ansprache am 21. Dezember 1989 betonte er die Einheit, Unabhängigkeit und
Souveränität Rumäniens und erhielt dafür Beifall vom versammelten Volk.48
Sogar in ihrer schlimmsten Stunde konnten die Rumänen vom Nationalismus
begeistert und mobilisiert werden. Als Ceauºescus weitere Appelle an sein Volk
jedoch erfolglos waren, floh er mit seiner Frau Elena und die Demonstrationen
griffen auf das ganze Land über. Ceauºescu wurde auf seiner Flucht gefangen
genommen, durch ein Militärgericht zum Tode verurteilt und am 25. Dezember
1989 hingerichtet.
Warum aber war das rumänische Regime unter Ceauºescu das einzige im
ehemaligen Ostblock, das aktiv den Nationalismus in so beträchtlichem Ausmaß
ausnutzen konnte?
Eine genauere historische Analyse des rumänischen Nationalismus hilft bei
der Beantwortung dieser Frage. Diese historische Analyse zeigt, dass für
Rumänien die Unterjochung der Bauernschaft vor der nationalen Vereinigung
der altrumänischen Fürstentümer (Moldau und Walachei) das Aufkommen jeder
Art eines vom Volk getragenen Nationalismus (Popular Nationalism) verhinderte,
den zum Beispiel Serbien und Bulgarien49 entwickelten. Der Mangel eines
bedeutenden Bürgertums schloss eine Entwicklung analog der in den tschechischen
Landen (Bourgeois Nationalism) aus und das mangelnde Interesse des
——————
45 Linz und Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition, S. 350.
46 Gespräch mit Rudolf Rösler, Regensburg, 6. Januar 2002.
47 Oschlies, Ceauºescus Schatten schwindet — politische Geschichte Rumäniens 1988–1998, S. 47.
48 Vgl. www.ceausescu.com/ceausescu_media/ultima.html: Rede von Nicolae Ceauºescu am 21.12.1989:
“(...) Sã demonstram cu toate puterea pentru unitatea în apãrarea independenþii integritãþii ºi suveranitãþii
României (...)”.
49 Roucek, Balkan Politics, S. 43.
13
15
rumänischen Adels an der Regierung des Landes und sein schneller Untergang
nach der Vereinigung, war für die Entwicklung einer Art aristokratischen
Nationalismus nach ungarischem Vorbild (Aristocratic Nationalism) abträglich.50
Diese Faktoren sorgten dafür, dass nur in Rumänien der Nationalismus an die
Bürokratie gebunden war und auf diese Art vom Staat monopolisiert werden
konnte, um den Zwecken der herrschenden Kreise zu dienen. Ein derartiger
Nationalismus ist wenig geeignet dazu, im Sinne einer Mobilisierung der
Gesellschaft zugunsten demokratischer Ziele zu wirken, sondern er wird vielmehr
den Herrschenden dazu dienen, “in Krisensituationen (...) an Emotionen (...) und
schöne Träume von einer glorreichen Vergangenheit und einer guten Zukunft
(...)”51 zu appellieren.
Dennoch wäre es völlig falsch, den Nationalismus für die Fehlentwicklungen
in Gänze verantwortlich machen zu wollen. Eine aktive Zivilgesellschaft “(...)
wird nicht ganz ohne Nationalismus auskommen”52 und Staaten wie Belarus
zeigen, dass eine postkommunistische Systemumwandlung mit nur schwachem
Nationalismus53 noch weniger Erfolg hat, als im Falle Rumäniens mit einem
vom Staat monopolisierten Nationalismus.
Vor diesem Hintergrund wird die Besonderheit Rumäniens den übrigen
kommunistischen Ländern gegenüber deutlich. Da der Kommunismus den
Nationalismus in der gesamten Region Mittel — und Osteuropas nicht “einfror”,
sahen sich die Regierungen anderer kommunistischer Staaten außer Stande, ihn
zu ihrem eigenen Vorteil so zu monopolisieren, während Ceauºescu dies in
Rumänien geschickt tat. Ganz im Gegenteil dazu mussten sich die anderen
Staaten dem Nationalismus vielmehr als ernstem Problem stellen.
In Ungarn sah sich die Regierung mit einer nationalen Revolution konfrontiert.
In der Tschechoslowakei bewirkte der Nationalismus “von der Basis her”
Versuche zu einer Reform der Regierung und Titos Projekt in Jugoslawien blieb
nur dank der Transformation der nationalen Frage vom Vorkriegskonflikt der
entgegen gesetzten nationalen Ideologien in einen Konflikt über die Struktur und
Zusammensetzung der jugoslawischen Föderation erhalten. Tito schaffte dies
durch formale Änderungen in den 1960ern und 1970ern: Partei — und
Staatspräsidentschaft rotierten, der Nationalitäten-Proporz in Partei — und
Staatsorganen auf Republik — und Provinzebene wurde eingeführt und die
Amtsdauer wurde begrenzt.54
Nur in Rumänien nahm die Regierung selbst die Führung der nationalen
Bewegung wirksam ein und unterdrückte ethnische Minderheiten innerhalb der
Staatsgrenzen und beantwortete die sowjetische Vorherrschaft und Bevormundung
durch eigene nationalistische Töne.
——————
50 Prof. Dr. Richard Crampton, Universität Oxford, Tutorium South Eastern European History,
Wintersemester 2003/2004.
51 Macków, Am Rande Europas? Nation, Zivilgesellschaft und außenpolitische Integration in Belarus,
Litauen, Polen Russland und der Ukraine, S. 210.
52 Ibid.
53 Vgl. Ibid., S. 182 ff.
54 Pavlowitch, Tito: Yugoslavia”s Great Dictator: A Reassessment, S. 67-79.
16
JOSEF KARL
14
Wie zuvor argumentiert, war der Nationalismus alleine in Rumänien schon
zu Beginn an bürokratische Eliten gebunden. Weil diese Eliten notwendig
waren, den rumänischen Staat zu gründen, wurde der Nationalismus schnell de
facto zur offiziellen Regierungspolitik. Der Irredenta-Charakter des
rumänischen Nationalismus, den er durch die große Zahl der im damals
ungarischen Siebenbürgen lebenden Rumänen annahm, stellte sicher, dass er
auch weiterhin an den Staat gebunden blieb. Der Nationalismus wurde in
anderen Staaten Mittel — und Osteuropas anfangs von einem bedeutsamen
Bestandteil der Zivilgesellschaft als Argument für politische Ziele genutzt und
jede staatliche Anwendung dieser Rhetorik musste von der Zivilgesellschaft
zuerst als gerechtfertigt legitimiert werden. Dies vollzog sich durch die
verschiedenen Akteure der Zivilgesellschaft in ihren unterschiedlichen
subjektiven Meinungen und Überzeugungen darüber, wer der geeignete
Anführer der nationalen Bewegung sei.
Der Kommunismus verstieß gegen diese mittel — und osteuropäische Spielart
des Nationalismus, da er keine Zivilgesellschaft zuließ. Wo die regierenden
Kommunisten sich daher nicht mit Recht an die Spitze der nationalen
Bewegungen zu stellen vermochten, taten sie ihr Bestes, um den Nationalismus
ganz einzudämmen. In Rumänien stand Ceauºescu als Erbe der Führung auch
automatisch an der Spitze der nationalen Bewegung, da der rumänische
Nationalismus nie an eine Zivilgesellschaft gebunden war, sondern einzig und
allein an den Staat. Sowjetische Vorherrschaft über Rumänien kollidierte daher
direkt mit seiner eigenen Position und gefährdete sie potentiell, wenn er nicht die
an ihn “vererbte” Führung der nationalen Bewegung übernommen hätte. Aber
vor dem Hintergrund seiner eigenen Unzulänglichkeit und der seiner Partei,
verschlechterte die von Ceauºescu erstrebte “nationale Autarkie” Rumäniens die
Lebensbedingungen der rumänischen Nation. In dieser Situation geschah dann
das Unvermeidliche: Der Nationalismus steigerte sich als Mittel der Herrschaft
immer mehr, um das Unhaltbare weiter zu verteidigen, wenn auch ohne Erfolg.
Wenn man daher die Änderungen der politischen Strukturen nach dem Sturz
Ceauºescus im Jahr 1989 verstehen will und wenn man nachvollziehen möchte,
warum sich diese nur langsam entwickelt haben, muss man sich vor diesem
Hintergrund und in der Retrospektive noch zusätzlich klar machen, wie drückend
und totalitär die Diktatur Ceauºescus, zusätzlich zu den nationalistischen
Exzessen, wirklich war. Ceauºescu war die allerhöchste Autorität auf jedem
öffentlich relevanten politischen, ökonomischen und kulturellen Feld.55 Dieser
Fakt degradierte die Bevölkerung auf den Rang einer lediglich applaudierenden
Masse.56 Je länger dieser Zustand vorherrschte, desto klarer zeigte sich
allerdings auch, dass sogar Ceauºescu selbst das Opfer seines eigenen
Personenkults wurde und dass schließlich auch sein persönlicher Größenwahn
aufgrund dessen weiter voranschritt.57
——————
55 Gespräch mit Dipl. Ing. Hansmartin Borger, Hermannstadt, 24. März 2003.
56 Gespräch mit Horia C. Matei, Bukarest, 10. März 2005.
57 Gespräch mit StD a. D. Wilhelm Fritsch, Regensburg, 12. Juli 2002.
15
17
Ana Blandiana58, eine charismatische rumänische Schriftstellerin, die in ihrer
Geschichte “Kopie eines Alptraums” eine der beeindruckendsten Beschreibungen
über das Lebensgefühl in Ceauºescus Rumänien wiedergibt, wurde zu einer Art
geheimen moralischen Autorität vor 1989. Sie schreibt über einen gewissen
“psychologischen Bestandteil”, welcher im ganzen öffentlichen Leben
Rumäniens beobachtet werden muss, und welcher dem Benehmen des Volkes
etwas Irrationales verlieh; ein Benehmen, das passend in George Orwells “1984”
beschrieben wird, und das darauf zielt, das kleinste “Fehlverhalten” gegen das
System zu verbergen.
In Verbindung dazu erklärte Ana Blandiana im Bezug auf den Zusammenstoß
zwischen ethnischen Ungarn und Rumänen in Târgu Mureº (Neumarkt) in einem
Fernsehinterview des deutschen Fernsehens: “... diese Schlammschlachten, die
man in Rumänien dann und wann vorfindet, sind das Ergebnis der allgemeinen
Demütigung während Ceauºescus Diktatur. Ein westeuropäischer Beobachter
kann sich keine Vorstellung von ihren Wirkungen auf die Psyche und Mentalität
der Leute machen. Nichts davon ist natürlich, alles ist künstlich. Alles wurde
initiiert, um die verschiedensten Ziele zu erreichen.”59
Dieser Mangel einer Tradition persönlicher Initiative ist eine besondere
Ursache des langsamen politischen Fortschritts und für die zunehmende
ethnische Unruhe. Der hohe Grad der Personalisierung der Macht bis 1989
führte zur Situation, dass es keine institutionelle Autonomie oder keinen
institutionellen Pluralismus in Rumänien gab, und die Anzahl an unabhängigen
Initiativen auf ein Minimum reduziert wurde. Dies war das entscheidende
Defizit in der rumänischen Gesellschaft bezüglich einer Reform-orientierten und
durch Initiativen angetriebenen Bewegung auf eine moderne und demokratische
Gesellschaft zu, die durch zuverlässige Institutionen stabilisiert wird. In einem
solchen modernen institutionellen System gilt: “Need is accepted as a normal
part of social life and institutions reduce uncertainty by providing a structure to
everyday life”60. Diese Institutionen fördern auch Prinzipien, wie von T.H.
Marshall in seiner ziemlich aufschlussreichen Klassifizierung von Bürgerrechten
angegeben wird, die er in drei Hauptkategorien einteilte: “civil, political and
social”61.
Wie mehrere akademische Studien über die politische Transition in Mittel —
und Osteuropa gezeigt haben, ergaben sich die meisten Probleme während des
politischen und ökonomischen Wechsels besonders aufgrund der fehlenden
Entwicklung einer Zivilgesellschaft62, d.h., von unabhängigen Interessengruppen,
einer freien Presse und öffentlichen Initiativen, die helfen hätten können,
——————
58 [Ana Blandiana wurde am 25. Mai 1942 in Temeschwar, Banat, Rumänien, geboren. Sie studierte
Philologie in Klausenburg, Rumänien. Ihr Band mit Gedichten wurde 1964 (Persoana întâi La Plural, d.h.
Erste Person Plural) herausgegeben. Sie hat Gedichte, Prosa und Essays geschrieben, und sie ist die Vorsitzende
des rumänischen Pen-Clubs und Mitglied der europäischen Akademie für Lyrik].
59 Südwest 3: Schauplatz der Geschichte: Siebenbürgen, Sonntag, 6. August 1995, 16.55 Uhr.
60 North, Institutions, S. 3.
61 Marshall, Class, Citizenship, and Social Development.
62 Wydra, Democracy in Eastern Europe as a Civilising Process.
18
JOSEF KARL
16
Korruption durch Protest zu bekämpfen oder zu verhindern.63 Wie William
Beveridge feststellte, “hängt der Erfolg einer guten Gesellschaft nicht vom Staat,
sondern von den Bürgern ab”64.
Deshalb kann die Rolle der staatsbürgerlichen Rechte und Pflichten als eine
der treibenden Kräfte innerhalb der Entwicklung des modernen Staats betrachtet
werden. Eine Vorverurteilung der rumänischen Bürger als “schlechte Bürger” im
Sinne von Beveridge wäre aber äußerst voreilig und nicht im Sinne einer
wissenschaftlichen Analyse, sondern eher im Stile von “Gelegenheitsanalytikern
von Osteuropa wie Klaus von Beyme”65. Vielmehr muss die Geschichte als
prägendes Element gesehen werden, das die Bürger zu dem machte, was sie sind.
Die sich ändernde Bedeutung der Staatsbürgerschaft (“Citizenship”) bereitet
aber den Weg, auf dem der demokratische Staat und die sich liberalisierende
Wirtschaft folgen können. Solange die Zivilgesellschaft in Rumänien ziemlich
schwach sein wird, solange wird auch die Entwicklung in Richtung eines modernen,
demokratischen und wirtschaftlich liberalisierten und funktionierenden Staates
im Sinne einer Transformation sehr schleppend voranschreiten. Im Falle
Rumäniens verlief die Entwicklung einer Zivilgesellschaft und einer modernen
Staatsbürgerschaft noch nicht wirklich viel versprechend. Wie von Ernest
Gellner beschrieben, würde eine wirklich aktive Zivilgesellschaft es erfordern,
dass weder die nicht-politischen Institutionen, noch Personen von politischen
Institutionen oder dem Staat unterdrückt oder unter Druck gesetzt werden.66
In der wohl interessantesten und prägnantesten Formulierung der
Zivilgesellschaft, die Victor Pérez-Díaz in eine enge Definition, begrenzt auf
eine gesellschaftliche Vereinigung von Institutionen ohne Staat, fasst, besteht
diese aus gesellschaftlich-politischen Institutionen, gesellschaftlichen Institutionen
und der Öffentlichkeit.67 In diesem System ist es die Aufgabe des Staates, Recht
und Ordnung sicherzustellen und die Kooperation und Konkurrenz zwischen
den verschiedenen Institutionen zu beaufsichtigen.
Die Fakten im heutigen Rumänien sehen allerdings anders aus, und die oben
genannten Bedingungen sind nur teilweise erfüllt in der politischen Realität. Die
Tatsache, dass die erfahrensten Politiker der heutigen politischen Elite direkt aus
Ceauºescus System der Vergangenheit kommen, verbindet das Problem der
schwachen rumänischen Zivilgesellschaft mit dem noch viel schlimmeren der
politischen Eliten.68 Auf diese Art sind Institutionen nicht in der Lage gewesen,
sich stark zu konstituieren und Rumäniens Institutionalismus kann ziemlich gut
als “schwacher, oder verzerrter Institutionalismus”69 beschrieben werden, der
sich als ein Erbe des Sultanismus und der “revoluþia furatã”, der “gestohlenen
Revolution” von 1989, entwickelt hat.
——————
63 Wallace und Haerpfer, Democratisation, Economic Development and Corruption.
64 Beveridge, Voluntary Action, S. 320.
65 Professor Jerzy Macków, Universität Regensburg, Vorlesung Nation und Gesellschaft in Mittel- und
Osteuropa, Wintersemester 2002/2003.
66 Gellner, Nations and Nationalism.
67 Pérez-Díaz, The Return of Civil Society. The Emergence of Democratic Spain, S. 54 ff.
68 Henkel, “Ostalgie und Heldentod: Was von den Revolutionen übrigbleibt”, in: HZ, Nr. 1827 (16. Mai
2003), S. 3.
69 Wallace und Haerpfer, Democratisation, Economic Development and Corruption, S. 14.
17
19
Nicht nur der Kommunismus per se, sondern auch die Politik an sich im
Sinne eines Forums für öffentliche Angelegenheiten, mit dessen Hilfe konkrete
Anliegen der Bevölkerung behandelt werden können, hatte seine Glaubwürdigkeit
durch Ceauºescus Diktatur nahezu völlig verloren. Wie verbreitet diese
a-politische Einstellung im heutigen Rumänien noch ist, wird sehr anschaulich
durch das Beispiel der Machtübernahme der neuen Führung im Jahr 1989
gezeigt: Ion Iliescu, einer der früheren Chefideologen im Zentralkomitee der
rumänischen Kommunistischen Partei, schaffte es schon während des Sturzes
Ceauºescus, sich als der “Retter der Nation” zu stilisieren, und die große
Mehrheit des Volkes erklärte als Grund für ihre Unterstützung Iliescus:
“...Iliescu hat uns Brot gegeben, er hat uns Elektrizität gegeben ...”70.
2.2. Demokratisierung in Rumänien 1989–2004
2.2.1. 1989 — eine Revolution?
Die demokratische Entwicklung in Mittel- und Südosteuropa nach 1989 kam
nicht wie Phönix aus der Asche. Dem Aufstieg der Demokratie liegt ein langer
sozialer Entwicklungsprozess zugrunde, “interwoven with the collapse of
communism whose origins were long before 1989”71. Dieser Hintergrund wurde
deshalb für den Erfolg der späteren Entwicklung entscheidend. “Democracy
remains the possible outcome of a civilising process that is constantly threatened
by de-civilising turns.”72
Aber genau an dieser Stelle unterscheidet sich der Fall Rumäniens und seines
Transformationsprozesses von dem anderer Länder, wie Ungarn, Polen oder der
ehemaligen Tschechoslowakei. Diese mitteleuropäischen Länder betrachteten
sich nicht als Europäer “zweiter Klasse”, da durch ihre eigenen Beiträge der
politische Wechselprozess des ganzen ehemaligen Ostblocks ins Rollen geraten
war. Dieses sehr weit verbreitete Gefühl der Polen, Tschechen, Slowaken und
Ungarn spiegelt sich in einer der Reden des früheren ungarischen Premierminister
Józef Antall.
“We are not the back-yard of Europe ... I hope ... that they will at least pay
more attention to our region ... and to the fact that the nations of this area, from
the Poles to the Hungarians and others, have viewed the Western World with
unrequited love for centuries. This unrequited love must end because we stuck
to our posts, we fought our own fights without firing one shot and we won the
Third World War for them.”73
Der rumänische Fall hingegen war anders. Ironischerweise kollabierte der
rumänische Staatssozialismus erst nach “dem Zusammenbruch des
Staatssozialismus in der ganzen Region”74. Genau dieser Punkt ist für die
anschließende Entwicklung des rumänischen Falles entscheidend. Ein gutes
——————
70 Gespräch mit Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul Philippi, Hermannstadt, 1. April 2003.
71 Wydra, Democracy in Eastern Europe as a Civilising Process, S. 288.
72 Ibid., S. 303.
73 Ibid., S. 298. Passim: East European Reporter, V (II) (March–April 1992), S. 67.
20
JOSEF KARL
18
Beispiel, um eine Vorstellung zu bekommen, wie anders die rumänische
Entwicklung war, ist die Tatsache, dass es im Juni 1989 nur zwei unabhängige
Bewegungen in Rumänien gab, während es in Ungarn schon 21 waren.75
Überdies erhielt Nicolae Ceauºescu im November 1989 auf dem 14. Parteitag
der kommunistischen Partei Rumäniens noch 67 Standing Ovations für seine
Reden, während in den anderen Ländern die Systemtransformation bereits im
Gange war, oder gerade eingeleitet wurde.76
Deshalb unterschied sich der anschließende Wechsel des politischen Systems
auch ganz entscheidend von dem der anderen sozialistischen Staaten. Rumänien
“profitierte nicht von einem frühen Anfang des Transitions-Prozesses”77 und es
konnte sich nicht auf einen, schon unter dem Mantel des formal noch herrschenden
Staatssozialismus begonnenen gesellschaftlichen Transformationsprozess
stützen. Aufgrund dieser historisch belasteten Ausgangsposition war der
Demokratisierungsprozess in Rumänien weitaus schwieriger als in den so
genannten “Visegradstaaten” und die nationale Geschichte konnte so zu einem
bestimmenden Faktor der Herrschaftslegitimation im Postkommunismus
werden. Ist es daher überhaupt möglich, im Falle Rumäniens von ReDemokratisierung zu sprechen?
Zuallererst muss festgestellt werden, dass Rumänien die demokratische
Erfahrung fehlte. Daher war eine “pacted transition”78 zwischen Hardlinern und
Softlinern des Regimes und Gemäßigten und Radikalen in der Opposition
aufgrund der seltsamen Kombination von nationalistischem Sultanismus und
Totalitarismus79 unter Ceauºescu in Rumänien nicht möglich. Diese
Vorbedingungen machten es unmöglich, dass Rumänien überhaupt einen “Pfad
in Richtung einer echten Demokratisierung”80, wie theoretisch von Alfred
Stepan beschrieben, erleben konnte.
In Rumänien spielten vielmehr Gewalttätigkeit und internationaler Einfluss81
eine große Rolle beim Systemwechsel. In diesem innenpolitischen Umfeld ohne
funktionierende Zivilgesellschaft, de facto ohne unabhängige Organisationen,
erfüllt von Gewalt und materiellen Nöten, war es ein Leichtes für die etablierten
Machteliten, an nationale Gefühle als “Ventil” der angestauten “Wut” zu
appellieren und dadurch ausgesprochen antikommunistische Kräfte unter
Verweis auf deren angeblich “antinationale Einstellung” von den Schaltstellen
der Macht fern und sich selbst in diesen zu halten.82 Eben diese ausgesprochen
antikoFmunistischen Kräfte wären allerdings an den Stellen der Macht notwendig
——————
76 Crampton, Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, S. 399.
77 Baleanu, Romania — Resources for the Region, S. 210.
79 Schöpflin, “Rumanian Nationalism”, S. 95.
80 Stepan, Paths toward Redemocratization, S. 64.
81 Vgl. Brandstätter, Schachmatt — Strategie einer Revolution, ARTE Fernsehen (Mittwoch, 25. Februar
2004, 20.45 Uhr). [In dieser Dokumentation wird ein ganz neues Licht auf die Ereignisse in Rumänien im
Herbst 1989 geworfen. Der Tenor der Sendung ist, dass Ceauºescu in Kooperation von KGB, CIA und
französischem Geheimdienst gestürzt wurde, da er und sein Regime nicht mehr in die Wendezeit passten, aber
nicht von alleine zusammenbrechen wollten. Ceauºescu war zum einzigen noch verbliebenen Hindernis des
Zusammenwachsens Europas geworden und musste daher gestürzt werden, so die Dokumentation].
82 Gespräch mit Edward Hicks, Oxford, 24. Juni 2002.
19
21
gewesen, damit die Chance erhalten blieb, eine echte Demokratisierung
durchzuführen.83
Dennoch fand eine bestimmte Art Systemwechsel auch in Rumänien statt.
Dies soll jetzt analysiert werden. Für die Analyse der Demokratisierung muss
man allerdings festhalten, dass Rumänien und die “rumänische Demokratie
anders ist als die aller anderen Staaten Mittel- und Südosteuropas”84, weshalb es
auch immer noch an seinen historischen Lasten in sehr hohem Maße leidet.
Die Krise des rumänischen Staatssozialismus begann auch aufgrund der
zuvor beschriebenen Eigenheiten Rumäniens. Der Startschuss fiel, als die
Securitate den ungarischen Priester Lászlo Tökés in Temeschwar, der Hauptstadt
des am ethnisch gemischtesten Teils Rumäniens, dem Banat, festnehmen wollte.
Man könnte deshalb dieses Detail auch als Indiz dafür werten, wie der heterogene
ethnische Charakter des Landes die demokratische Initiative unterstützte und
somit die ethnischen Minderheiten als “vaterlandslose Gesellen” in das Visier
der “Herrschafts-Erhaltungs-Waffe” Geschichte manövrierte.85
Es ist sogar ziemlich wahrscheinlich, dass die Entwicklung nach 1989 eher
das Produkt solcher struktureller Besonderheiten war, als das der demokratischen
Erfahrungen der rumänischen Bevölkerung. Agh, der Ungar ist, nimmt sogar
den Standpunkt ein, dass es überhaupt keine rumänische Revolution im Jahr
1989 gab.86 Die Parteigranden entfernten Ceauºescu mehr oder weniger von der
Macht. Dieses Schicksal teilte er mit Todor Schiwkow in Bulgarien und mit
Erich Honecker in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, obwohl
Ceauºescus Los bei weitem das blutigste war. Aghs Theorie unterstützend,
wurde die erste Stufe (die “Zerstörung”, die “Krise” oder einfach der “Zerfall”)
von drei entscheidenden Faktoren initiiert. Erstens, dem Massenaufstand,
zweitens der Armeerebellion und drittens dem “Palace Coup”.87
Der tatsächliche Kern einer demokratischen Revolution jedoch, die eine
nachhaltige Demokratisierung Schritt für Schritt erzwingt, fehlte im
rumänischen Umsturz von 1989 eindeutig. Im absoluten Gegensatz zu einer
“wirklichen” Revolution wurde diese Änderung durch etablierte Parteigrößen
“unterstützt” und initiiert, um ihre eigenen Positionen behalten und sichern zu
können.88 Um dies zu kaschieren, brauchte man einen “dramatischen” Abgang
Ceauºescus á la Exekution, um sich selbst dann anschließend als “Retter des
Vaterlandes” stilisieren zu können.
Ein gutes Beispiel in diesem Zusammenhang ist Ceauºescus Nachfolger, Ion
Iliescu89, der zur alten rumänischen kommunistischen Nomenklatur gehörte, die
——————
83
Macków, “Der Wandel des kommunistischen Totalitarismus und die postkommunistische
Systemtransformation”.
85 Gespräch mit Helmut Kahr, Hermannstadt, 18. Juli 2002.
87 Câmpeanu, Ceauºescu anii num?r?torii inverse, S. 294 ff.
88 Crampton, The Balkans since the Second World War, S. 134 ff.
89 [“Ion Iliescu war rumänischer Präsident von 1990 bis 1996, als er die Präsidentschaftswahlen an seinen
Nachfolger und Vorgänger Emil Constantinescu verlor. Da Constantinescu 2000 auf ein neuerliche Kandidatur
verzichtete, wurde Iliescu wieder Präsident ...” (In: von Baratta (2002), S. 904). In seinem veröffentlichten
Lebenslauf wird er ganz im Gegenteil dazu wie folgt charakterisiert: “Er wurde schon [vor 1989] für einen
Politiker gehalten, dem man zutraute, den Kampf gegen Totalitarismus, für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und
Demokratie führen zu können.”].
22
JOSEF KARL
20
Rumänien bis 1989 unter Ceauºescus Führung ruinierte. Iliescus “Front der
Nationalen Rettung” (NSF, FSN auf Rumänisch) ergriff die Macht und behielt
sie bis 1996.
Iliescus so genannter “Palace Coup”90, der der “vorgetäuschten Revolution”91
oder der “gestohlenen Revolution”92 folgte, war wegen der desorganisierten
Masse, die politisch unerfahren und untätig in der Konfrontation mit Rumäniens
“politischen Mandarinen” war, erfolgreich. Der eigentliche Coup selbst war die
Tatsache, dass die NSF in der Lage war, sich erfolgreich als de facto
monopolistische Vereinigung aller Anti-Ceauºescu-Kräfte darzustellen. Durch
sein geschicktes Anknüpfen an die nationalistischen Parolen Ceauºescus gelang
es ihm überdies, sich als “nationaler Retter” zu profilieren.
Iliescu nutzte so geschickt das Fehlen einer funktionierenden Zivilgesellschaft
und er torpedierte ihr — für ihn herrschaftsbedrohliches — Entstehen überdies
durch das gezielte Schüren von Nationalismen und Geschichtsmythen.93 Dieses
Kunststück gelang während der entscheidenden Wochen gegen Ende des Jahres
1989.94 Dank dieses erfolgreichen “Tricks” konnte die alte Elite die Macht
behalten. Eben dies war in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik oder in
Bulgarien nicht erfolgreich. Das Rückgrat von Iliescus System waren die
Bergarbeiter, die er im Jahr 1990–91 zu fünf Anlässen in die Hauptstadt rief, um
rebellische Studenten und widerspenstige Intellektuelle zusammenschlagen zu
lassen.
Zusammenzufassend kann man sagen, dass Rumäniens Entwicklung
während der ersten Stufe der Demokratisierung nicht zu einem “wirklich”
demokratischen System, sondern zu einer “Fassadendemokratie” führte, die im
Folgenden beschrieben wird.
2.2.2. Die Transition zur “Fassaden-Demokratie” — Erster Versuch (1992–1996)
Das Jahr 1990 war für die Zukunft Rumäniens entscheidend, weil einige
Vorbedingungen zugunsten oder gegen eine nachhaltige weitere demokratische
Entwicklung gelegt wurden. Die NSF “gewann” geradezu leicht aufgrund der
organisatorischen Defizite der anderen, frisch gegründeten Parteien die Wahlen
im Mai 1990.95 Sie vereinigte mehr als 60 Prozent der gültigen Stimmen auf
sich.
Die zweite erfolgreiche Organisation war der Verband der ungarischen
Minderheit, DAHR-RMDSZ, oder UDMR96 auf Rumänisch, der ungefähr
denselben Prozentsatz wie den Anteil der ungarischen Bevölkerung an der
Gesamtbevölkerung Rumäniens (7,5 Prozent) gewann. Auch dies unterstreicht
die tiefe ethnische Spaltung Rumäniens. Zusätzlich dazu gewann Iliescu im Mai
——————
91 Macków, Parlamentarische Demokratie und Autoritarismus, S. 54 ff.
93 Sislin, “Revolution Betrayed? Romania and the National Salvation Front”.
94 Câmpeanu, Ceauºescu, anii num?r?torii inverse, S. 293 ff.
96 [In dieser Arbeit kommt nur die rumänische Bezeichnung zur Anwendung].
21
23
1990 auch die Präsidentschaftswahlen.97 Deshalb wurde die zweite Stufe der
demokratischen Entwicklung, die Einführung von demokratischen Institutionen,
nur oberflächlich verwirklicht.
Die NSF war in der Lage, das Land nahezu ungefährdet und unkontrolliert zu
beherrschen. Aufgrund der ausgeprägten regionalen Disparitäten Rumäniens
unterstützte die öffentliche Meinung in Rumänien Iliescu und sein NSF-Regime
in unterschiedlichem Maße. In den westlichen Landesteilen, wie in
Siebenbürgen und im Banat, wo viele Angehörige ethnischer Minderheiten
leben, war die Unterstützung für Iliescus Regime schwächer als in den
rumänischen “Kernregionen” der Walachei und der Moldau.
Bis 1991 wurde diese Fassadendemokratie von zwei Männern, Ion Iliescu
und seinem Kollegen aus früheren — und jetzt verdrängten — Zeiten, Petre
Roman, symbolisiert. Iliescu war Präsident, während Roman Premierminister
war. Jedoch hatten beide verschiedene “Visionen”, wie Rumänien sich
entwickeln sollte. Roman war ein überzeugter(-er) Europäer und Modernisierer,
während Iliescu nationalistisch und traditionsgebunden war. Im September 1991
kam es schließlich zum ultimativen Konflikt zwischen beiden, der sich am
Privatisierungsgesetz Romans und seiner Reformpolitik an sich entzündete.
Die “Bergarbeiter aus dem Schiltal, dieselbe Gruppe, deren Brutalität Roman
und Iliescu im Jahr zuvor gerettet hatte, kehrten nach Bukarest zurück und
Iliescu nutzte diese Gelegenheit und die Schlagkraft “seiner” Bergarbeiter, um
Roman loszuwerden.”98 In der Dezemberverfassung von 1991 wurde ein
Präsidentenamt in Anlehnung an das in Frankreich eingeführt, das den
Präsidenten dazu ermächtigt, den Premierminister zu ernennen und den Vorsitz
bei Kabinettsbesprechungen innezuhaben. Der Staat wurde weiter zentralisiert.
Jetzt wurden sogar Gemeinden und ihre direkt gewählten Bürgermeister von der
Zentralregierung abhängig, da diese einen Präfekten an der Spitze jedes Bezirkes
(“Judeþ”, d.h. “Gerichtsbezirk”)99 ernannte, dem sie untergeordnet wurden.
Hierzu bemerkte der East European Constitutional Review:
“...Overall 133 mayors have been dismissed by government-appointed
prefects ... Of the 62 mayors who appealed to the Court of Justice only four
received redress. Despite the reaction of the parliamentary opposition,
international organisations and the electorate, the executive seems determined to
carry on its program of purging mayors.”100
In den Septemberwahlen von 1992 gewann die frühere NSF, die sich jetzt
DNSF (Demokratische Nationale Rettungsfront) nannte, zwar die relative
Mehrheit, aber jetzt musste sie mit der neuen Oppositionspartei Petre Romans,
der “neuen” NSF, konkurrieren, die etwa 10 Prozent der Stimmen gewann.101
Da diese Wahlen dem Premierminister Nicolae Vãcãroiu keine absolute
Mehrheit im Parlament bescherten, musste die DNSF Kooperationen suchen, die
——————
97 Völkl, Rumänien vom 19. Jhdt. bis in die Gegenwart, S. 217–8.
99 Baleanu, Romania — Resources for the Region, S. 210.
100 Linz und Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition, S. 364. Passim: Constitution Watch: Romania,
In: East European Constitutional Review 4, Nr. 2 (1995), S. 22.
24
JOSEF KARL
22
am leichtesten mit nationalistischen (PRM und PUNR) und neo-kommunistischen
Gruppen (PSM) möglich waren.102 Um durch diese Herrschaftsbasis besonders
im Ausland keinen schlechten Eindruck zu erwecken, änderte die DNSF im Juli
1993 ihren Namen wiederum, dieses Mal von DNSF zu PDSR (Partei der
Sozialen Demokratie in Rumänien).103 Aber diese kosmetische Veränderung
hatte weder die Art der Herrschaft, noch die herrschende Klasse an sich verändert.
Diese Fassadendemokratie reichte bis zu den nächsten Präsidentschaftswahlen
im Jahr 1996, die von Emil Constantinescu gewonnen wurden. Im Jahr 1996
wurde die dritte Stufe der Demokratisierung, die Konsolidierungsphase
schließlich begonnen. Die Fassadendemokratie wurde — zumindest an der
Oberfläche — von einer echten Demokratie abgelöst. Unter der Oberfläche
änderte sich allerdings so gut wie nichts.
2.2.3. Demokratisierung — Zweiter (1996–2000)
und Dritter Versuch (2000–2004)
Linz und Stepan zufolge kombiniert die dritte Phase der Demokratisierung
alte und neue Teile einer politischen Ordnung in einem neuen, homogenisierten
System. Die Wahlen von 1996 markierten einen Meilenstein in der rumänischen
Geschichte, obwohl einige Probleme, besonders im ökonomischen Bereich,
blieben.104 Die Taten der neuen Regierung waren “von historischem Wert für die
demokratische Entwicklung Rumäniens”. Minderheitenrechte wurden
anerkannt, Verträge mit Ungarn und der Ukraine wurden geschlossen und es
begannen Gespräche mit der EU und der NATO. Sogar die Minderheit der
Ungarn in Rumänien, vertreten durch den UDMR, trat in die Regierung ein und
schickte zwei Minister nach Bukarest.
Jedoch hatte Rumänien immer noch eine sehr schwache Zivilgesellschaft, die
für eine wirklich stabile Demokratie notwendig gewesen wäre105. Ein zweiter
Aspekt, der ziemlich aufschlussreich über die politischen Realitäten in
Rumänien ist, war die Tatsache, dass ein frustrierter Constantinescu nach nur
einer Amtszeit auf eine erneute Kandidatur verzichtete. Er musste sich den
undemokratischen Realitäten und der Last der sultanistischen Vergangenheit
stellen, die ihn scheitern ließen.
Deshalb waren besonders die Präsidentschaftswahlen des Jahres 2000 ein
Schritt rückwärts in der demokratischen Entwicklung Rumäniens, weil Iliescu
nach Constantinescus Verzicht wieder zum rumänischen Präsidenten gewählt
wurde. Ein zweiter interessanter Faktor bei den Wahlen des Jahres 2000 ist die
Tatsache, dass Vadim Tudor, der Führer der Großrumänien Partei (PRM), einer
klar antisemitischen und nationalistischen Partei, auf den zweiten Platz, direkt
hinter Iliescu, kam. Dieses Ergebnis verrät die unangenehmste Wahrheit über die
rumänische Demokratie: Sie ist weder stabil noch widerstandsfähig gegenüber
extremistischen politischen Kräften, sowohl von links als auch von rechts.
——————
102
Gespräch mit dem Professor Dr. Petre Þurlea, Bukarest, 29. März 2005 und vgl. auch Þurlea, Din
Culisele Parlamentului României.
103 Crampton, Eastern Europe In The Twentieth Century, S. 451.
104 Gespräch mit Egon Erwin Lajos Bunzmann, Regensburg, 20. Dezember 2001.
23
25
In der Terminologie Attila Aghs kann zusammengefasst werden, dass
Rumänien weit von wahrer demokratischer Konsolidierung entfernt ist. Zwar
hat sich die Demokratie entwickelt und Erfolge sind erreicht worden, aber es ist
noch ein langer Weg zu einer stabilen Demokratie und einer Integration
Rumäniens in Europa. Die Wiederwahl Iliescus verbesserte die demokratische
Struktur nicht. Ganz im Gegenteil dazu marginalisierte die regierende PSD die
anderen Parteien geradezu und ein Ende ihrer Dominanz war bis Anfang des
Jahres 2004 kaum abzusehen.106
Auch Parteineugründungen wie die im Mai 2003 durch den ehemaligen
Präsidenten Emil Constantinescu begründete christdemokratische Sammelbewegung
“Acþiunea Popularã” (Volksaktion) konnten wenig an dieser Situation ändern.107
Erst die Lokalwahlen vom 6. Juni 2004, die ein Erstarken der Oppositionsallianz
DA aus PNL und PD mit sich brachten, änderten die Lage grundlegend.108 Die
PSD war auch in der Wahrnehmung der Bürger verwundbar geworden.109
2.2.4. Der Regierungswechsel im Dezember 2004:
Neue Hoffnung für Rumänien, oder Rückkehr der Geschichte?
Wie nicht anders zu erwarten war, trugen Präsident Iliescu und Premier
Nãstase als Angehörige der alten Nomenklatur während ihrer gemeinsamen
Regierungszeit zwischen 2000 und 2004 nicht dazu bei, eine echte demokratische
Konsolidierung zu verwirklichen.
Ganz im Gegenteil dazu waren sie beide damit beschäftigt, die Macht der
PSD dauerhaft zu verankern und keine ernst zu nehmende politisch-demokratische
Konkurrenz hochkommen zu lassen. Am deutlichsten wurden diese Versuche
durch das gezielte Unter-Drucksetzen von Oppositionspolitikern, zur PSD zu
wechseln. Die regierende PSD verwendete alle ihr zu Gebote stehenden
Patronagemöglichkeiten — und in einem derart zentralistischen Staat wie
Rumänien bieten sich der Regierung jede Menge davon —, um ihren Einfluss
über die zentral von der Regierung eingesetzten Präfekten dazu geltend zu
machen, “Kommunalpolitiker zu ihren Gunsten umzudrehen”.
Dieses Phänomen, in Rumänien als “politischer Tourismus” bezeichnet,
stärkte die Position der regierenden Partei noch mehr. Eine Studie des Instituts
für Öffentliche Politik (IPP), die die Parteiangehörigkeit von Bürgermeistern in
Rumänien im Jahr 2000 mit der im Jahr 2003 verglich, zeigte eine massive
Wanderung von Bürgermeistern von anderen Parteien zur PSD. Nach den
——————
106 Lucaciu, “Autoritatea Electoralã Permanentã subordonatã PSD?”, in: România Liberã, Nr. 670
(15.–21. Mai 2003), S. 3.
107 Curierul de Vest, “Fostul preºedinte al României ºi-a lansat noul partid”, Nr. 22 (28. Mai 2003), S. 2.
108 ADZ, “PSD erzielte die meisten Mandate, PNL und PD die meisten Stimmen”, Nr. 2906 (23. Juni
2004), S. 1.
109 [Es sollte bereits an dieser Stelle nicht unerwähnt bleiben, dass sogar das Deutsche Forum als politisch
recht schwache Vertretung der kleinen deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien, einen überwältigenden Sieg gegen
die seit 2000 völlig dominierende PSD davontragen konnte. So besiegte der Bürgermeisterkandidat des DFDR
für Hermannstadt, Klaus Johannis, den Kandidaten der PSD schon im ersten Wahlgang mit knapp 90 Prozent
zu 6 Prozent für die PSD und auch im Stadtrat der 160.000-Einwohner Stadt standen 16 gewählten Stadträten
des Forums von insgesamt 23 Stadträten lediglich 3 der PSD gegenüber]. Aus: ADZ, “Totales
Vertrauensvotum”, Nr. 2896 (9. Juni 2004), S. 8.
26
JOSEF KARL
24
Kommunalwahlen des Jahres 2000 waren 1.050 von insgesamt 2.957
Bürgermeistern (35,5 Prozent) Mitglieder der damaligen PDSR. Nur drei Jahre
später stellte die PSD 1.947 Bürgermeister (65,4 Prozent, was einem Plus von
29,9 Prozent entspricht), 897 mehr als im Jahr 2000. Außer der PSD gewannen
nur der UDMR (+1,5 Prozent) und die sozial-liberale PUR (+1,0 Prozent), eine
Art “Anhängsel” der PSD110, geringfügig.111
Diese Vorgänge zeigen überdeutlich, dass Linz und Stepans dritte Phase, die
“Konsolidierungsphase”, in der die Relikte des alten politischen Systems mit
den frisch eingeführten Teilen des neuen politischen Systems kombiniert und in
einem homogenen System miteinander verbunden werden sollen, noch bei
weitem nicht erreicht ist. Die vorher beschriebenen Ereignisse zeigen zwar, dass
die alte Nomenklatur im neuen System angekommen ist, dies aber beständig
nach ihren Bedürfnissen auszuhöhlen versucht.
Diese Erkenntnis wurde durch die Wahlen vom 28. November 2004 und die
Präsidentschaftswahlen noch eindrucksvoller bestätigt. Während schließlich der
Kandidat der Opposition, der Bukarester Bürgermeister Traian Bãsescu (PD), in
der Stichwahl der Präsidentschaftswahlen mit 51,23 Prozent gegen Premierminister
Adrian Nãstase (PSD) (48,77 Prozent) siegte, blieben die Mehrheitsverhältnisse
in beiden Kammern des Parlamentes recht unübersichtlich. Beide in den
Wahlkampfbündnisse, die Allianz DA (PNL und PD) und die Union aus PSD
und PUR lagen nahezu gleich auf mit insgesamt 161 zu 189 Sitzen.
Noch am 7. Dezember 2004, nur fünf Tage vor der entscheidenden Stichwahl
um das Präsidentenamt, hatte sich das Zünglein an der Waage, der UDMR mit
seinen insgesamt 32 Sitzen auf eine Unterstützung Nãstases und eine
Regierungsbildung mit der PSD und der PUR festgelegt. Am 21. Dezember
2004 sah die Sache schon ganz anders aus und der UDMR entschied sich nach
der Niederlage Nãstases nun für eine Zusammenarbeit mit der DA.112 Sogar die
PUR schwenkte nun um und schloss mit der DA ein Koalitionsabkommen, wie
auch die Fraktion der 18 kleinen nationalen Minderheiten, seit jeher
Manövriermasse der jeweiligen Regierungen.113 Der Weg war frei für Cãlin
Popescu Tãriceanu (PNL), Bãsescus Wunschkandidat als Premierminister, und
er wurde schließlich am 28.12.2004 mit 265 zu 200 Stimmen durch das Parlament
gewählt, 20 Stimmen mehr als die Koalition im Parlament Sitze hat.114
Was war geschehen? Das starke Präsidentenamt, das unerwartet in die Hände
der Opposition gefallen war und das die alte Nomenklatur in der Verfassung
——————
110 [Die PUR ist eine Art “Privatpartei” des Medienmoguls Dan Voiculescu. Sie konnte nur ins Parlament
gelangen, da sie auf den Listen der PSD mitkandidiert hatte. Die PSD war das Bündnis mit der PUR
eingegangen, um für sich eine loyale Berichterstattung in dem großen TV-Privatsender Antena 1 und in der
Zeitung Jurnalul Na?ional zu sichern]. HZ, Opposition rebelliert”, Nr. 1906 (3. Dezember 2004), S. 1–2.
111 ADZ, “Wie demokratisch ist die Sozialdemokratische Partei?”, Nr. 2832 (10. März 2004), S. 3.
112 ADZ, “Eine Regierung um die Liberalen und Demokraten zeichnet sich ab”, Nr. 3034 (21. Dezember
2004), S. 1.
113 ADZ, “Minderheiten-Fraktion unterstützt die Bildung einer Regierung PNL-PD”, Nr. 3036 (23.
Dezember 2004), S. 1.
114 ADZ, “Vereidigung der neuen Regierung und Investitur durch das Parlament”, Nr. 3040 (30.
25
27
verankert hatte, um zur Not autoritär handeln zu können falls der
Transformationsprozess nicht nach Wunsch verlaufen sollte, wurde nun zum
Verhängnis der PSD, da der neue Präsident Bãsescu sich weigerte, die PSD trotz
ihres Status als stärkste politische Kraft mit der Regierungsbildung zu betrauen.
Sagte Bãsescu noch scherzhaft in einer Wahlkampf-Talkshow zu seinem
Konkurrenten Nãstase, “was für ein Fluch muss auf dem rumänischen Volk
liegen, dass es zwischen zwei ehemaligen Kommunisten zu wählen hat”115, so
zeigt der Ablauf der Regierungsbildung doch eindeutig, wie gut die ehemalige
Nomenklatur im neuen Rumänien angekommen ist.
Was “der amerikanische Soziologe David Stark bereits 1992 als den Weg
vom Plan zum Clan beschrieben hatte und was Katherine Verdery 1996 auf den
griffigen Terminus “entrepratchik” brachte — eine Zusammenziehung aus
Entrepreneur, Unternehmer und Apparatschik — scheint auch in Bukarest
denkwürdige Realität geworden zu sein.”116 Die weitestgehende politische und
auch moralische Austauschbarkeit der Parteien zeigt sich insbesondere bei der
Mehrheitsbeschaffung für die neue Regierung, die sogar soweit führte, dass sich
ein so genannter “Gewerkschafterblock” von der ultranationalistischen PRM
abspaltete, um die DA zu unterstützen.117
Die Art und Weise der Kungelei um die Macht, fern jeder inhaltlichen
Auseinandersetzung zeigt nicht nur den Mangel und die Instabilität der
Parteienlandschaft in Rumänien, sie weist überdies auch beträchtliche Parallelen
zum Rumänien der Zwischenkriegszeit auf, in der neben exklusivem
Nationalismus auch Nepotismus, Korruption und politische Instabilität ganz
oben auf der Tagesordnung standen.118
Die Tatsache, dass der scheidende Präsident Iliescu kurz vor seinem
Ausscheiden aus dem Amt beinahe schon täglich noch Begnadigungen und
Ordensverleihungen vornahm und nicht einmal davor zurückschreckte, die
höchste rumänische Auszeichnung, den “Stern von Rumänien”, an den
Antisemiten Vadim Tudor zu verleihen und zugleich den berüchtigten
ehemaligen Anführer der in Iliescus Namen marodierenden Bergarbeiter, Miron
Cozma, zu begnadigen, zeigt, dass Iliescu bis zur buchstäblich letzten Minute,
die er im Amt war, versuchte, die Macht der PSD auch über den Machtverlust
hinaus zu sichern. So hoffte er, der neuen Regierung möglichst viele Stolpersteine
in den Weg legen zu können, bzw. potenzielle Verbündete in der bevorstehenden
Opposition, wie Tudor, langfristig an sich zu binden.119
Genau so hatte er es auch nach seinem ersten Ausscheiden aus dem
Präsidentenamt 1996 gehandhabt, was ganz entscheidend zum Scheitern der
nachfolgenden bürgerlichen Regierung beigetragen hatte. Der angerichtete
Schaden, wie, dass der Nobelpreisträger Elie Wiesel seinen “Stern von Rumänien”
——————
115 Wagner, “Die neue Regierung”, in: Banater Zeitung, Nr. 581 (12. Januar 2005), S. 1.
116 Ibid.
117 Ibid.
118 Roth, Politische Strukturen und Strömungen bei den Siebenbürger Sachsen 1919–1933.
119 ADZ, “Scheidender Präsident Iliescu hat berüchtigten Bergarbeiterführer Miron Cozma begnadigt”,
Nr. 3033 (18. Dezember 2004), S. 1.
28
JOSEF KARL
26
nach der Verleihung an Tudor unter Protest zurückgeschickt hat, gehen Iliescu
nicht nahe120, da es ihm — ganz in kommunistischer Tradition — nicht um den
Staat und Werte, sondern nur um seine Partei und seine eigene Macht geht. Es
bedarf größten Optimismus, vor diesem Hintergrund eine bessere Zukunft und
eine wirkliche Konsolidierung der Demokratie in Rumänien zu erkennen.
Es bleibt abzuwarten, ob die neue Regierung trotz der Hypothek ihrer
eigenen Schwäche und Inkorporation der PSD-treuen PUR wirkliche Reformen
wird anpacken können. Es besteht eine gewisse Wahrscheinlichkeit dafür, dass
sie sich wie ihre zwischen 1996 und 2000 regierende Vorgängerin im Gestrüpp
der von der PSD hinterlassenen Seilschaften verheddern und zu Fall kommen
könnte. Eine echte demokratische Konsolidierung ist vor diesem Hintergrund
jedenfalls sehr schwer.
Es scheint doch möglich, dass Rumänien sich “zurück in die Geschichte”
entwickeln könnte, wenn es nicht gelingt, die Demokratie dauerhaft mit gleichen
und verbindlichen Spielregeln für alle politischen Kräfte zu konsolidieren. Diese
Sorge wird auch von der EU-Kommission geteilt, die eine ungewöhnliche
Sonderklausel für Rumänien zur Anwendung gebracht hat, nach der, analog zum
Beitrittsverfahren der Türkei, die “Notbremse” gezogen werden kann, falls der
Reformprozess nicht weiter vorankommt.121 Die Wettbewerbskommissarin der
EU, Neelie Kroes, fasst die fehlenden Reformen in Rumänien so zusammen:
“Rumänien bereitet mir Kopfschmerzen.”122
Sorgen sollten sich vor diesem Hintergrund auch die 18 kleinen Minderheiten
machen, die bei einer derartigen politischen Praxis mit großer Skepsis in die
Zukunft blicken müssen. Man sollte überdies nicht vergessen, dass trotz nicht
unerheblicher Stimmverluste im Vergleich zu den vorhergehenden Wahlen von
2000 die Großrumänienpartei (Partidul România Mare, PRM) Vadim Tudors
immer noch als drittstärkste politische Kraft im Parlament ist. Sie wird umso
gefährlicher, seit sie geschickt das seit 2000 bestehende Fehlen einer wirklich
starken bürgerlichen Partei für sich auszunutzen versucht und sich vom Radikalismus
der 1990er Jahre zumindest in der Öffentlichkeit verabschiedet hat.123
In diese Richtung muss man auch die Umbenennung der Partei in “Partidul
Popular România Mare” (PPRM) (Großrumänische Volkspartei) und Vadim
Tudors Rückritt als Vorsitzender der PPRM und seinen Rückzug auf den extra
für ihn geschaffenen Posten des “Preºedinte de Onoare” (Ehrenpräsident)
werten. Die PPRM versucht, sich gezielt als bürgerliche Alternative darzustellen
und wird dadurch für die etablierten Parteien erst recht gefährlich, da sie die PD
und die PNL, im Verbund mit der PSD von links, in der Mitte zu erdrücken
droht. Es scheint sich die absonderliche indirekte Koalition zwischen der PSD
und der PPRM aus den Jahren 1996 bis 2000 fortzusetzen, mit der beide
erfolgreich den bürgerlichen Regierungsblock zerschlagen hatten.
——————
120 ADZ, “Iliescu kriegt weitere Orden zurückgeschickt”, Nr. 3034 (21. Dezember 2004), S. 1.
121 ADZ, “Sonderklausel für Rumänien ist viel strenger als bei Bulgarien”, Nr. 3028 (11. Dezember
2004), S. 1.
122 Ibid.
123 Gespräch mit Lilla Balázs, Bukarest, 7. April 2005.
27
29
Nun scheinen beide Parteien wieder zusammenzuarbeiten und auf die
Vernichtung des nationalliberal-demokratischen Regierungslagers hinzuwirken,
um sich selbst als Erben der PD und PNL in Stellung zu bringen. Dabei würde
die PD als ehemals von der FSN/DFSN, alias PDSR, alias PSD “abtrünnige”
Vereinigung langfristig von der PSD “aufgesaugt” werden und die PNL als
nationalliberale Partei wohl von der PPRM, sollte diese sich wirklich dauerhaft
als bürgerlich-konservative Kraft etablieren können.
In einem Gespräch mit dem Berater Vadim Tudors und der PPRM im
rumänischen Parlament, dem Professor für Geschichte an der Universität
Ploieºti, Professor Dr. Petre Þurlea, wurde diese Taktik eindrucksvoll bestätigt,
als Herr Professor Þurlea ausführte, dass “die PPRM intensiv nach europäischen
christlich-konservativen Parteien als zukünftigen Partnern Ausschau halte.”124
Für das DFDR und für Rumänien insgesamt verheißt dies nichts Gutes. Zwar
bewegt sich Rumänien mit großen Schritten in die EU und der Beitritt zum
1.1.2007 ist seit April 2005 eine ausgemachte Sache125, aber dennoch bleiben
zahlreiche Punkte, die den objektiven Betrachter und Analysten nachdenklich
stimmen. Immer noch befinden sich die Minderheiten im rechtlich de facto
luftleeren Raum, da ein Minderheitenschutzgesetz zwar durch die
Verfassungsreform vom Oktober 2003 verpflichtend gefordert wird, aber immer
noch nicht verabschiedet ist, obwohl es seit 1993 diskutiert wird.
Zwar ist die Situation des Minderheitenschutzes in Rumänien “insgesamt in
der Theorie gut”126, aber es sind trotzdem mitunter minderheitenfeindliche und
antisemitische Tendenzen in der Presse und im öffentlichen Leben zu
beobachten.127 Auch die Einschätzung des Abgeordneten des DFDR in der
Abgeordnetenkammer, Professor Ovidiu Ganþ, dass “niemand den Bestand der
jetzigen Minderheitenregelungen über den Tag hinaus garantieren könne”128
stimmt nicht gerade zuversichtlich. Dazu kommt noch die von der
Bundesregierung in Aussicht gestellte “Überprüfung der finanziellen Hilfen
durch Deutschland nach dem EU-Beitritt Rumäniens”129, was einer drastischen
Kürzung entsprechen und ebenfalls beträchtliche existenzielle Probleme für das
DFDR aufwerfen dürfte und bereits jetzt Umplanungen notwendig macht.130
Positiv stimmen auf der anderen Seite wiederum die Beteiligung der
Minderheitenvertreter an der Regierung und die Ernennung von aufgeklärten,
weltoffenen und besonnenen Politikern wie dem ehemaligen Außenminister
(1996–1999) Professor Dr. Andrei Pleºu zum Berater von Präsident Bãsescu, die
Einbeziehung des Oberbürgermeisters von Hermannstadt in die bilateralen
Beziehungen zu Deutschland, die stetig verbesserten Beziehungen zu Ungarn
und die Beteiligung des UDMR an der Regierung. Nichtsdestotrotz gibt es noch
zahlreiche Herausforderung für die Minderheitenverbände und das DFDR, die
im abschließenden Teil dieser Arbeit analysiert werden sollen.
——————
124 Gespräch mit Professor Dr. Petre Þurlea, Bukarest, 29. März 2005.
125 [Bei schwerwiegenden Verstößen könnte er um ein Jahr bis zum 1.1.2008 verschoben werden].
126 Gespräch mit Andrei Oi?teanu, Bukarest, 4. März 2005.
127 Ibid.
128 Gespräch mit Professor Ovidiu Ganã, Bukarest, 28. März 2005.
129 Gespräch mit Kulturreferent Dr. Florian Rudolph, Bukarest, 5. April 2005.
130 Planungskonferenz des Regionalforums Siebenbürgen in Klausenburg am 12. März 2005.
30
JOSEF KARL
28
Das Demokratische Forum der Deutschen (DFDR)
als Vertretung der deutschen Minderheit
im postkommunistischen Rumänien 1989–2004
3. Die Entwicklung des DFDR seit 1989
3.1. Einführung
Aus offensichtlichen Gründen verringerte der Massenexodus der Deutschen
während der 1980er und der frühen 1990er Jahre die deutsche kulturelle Präsenz
in ganz Osteuropa und insbesondere in Rumänien. Dennoch hat sogar die kleine,
heute noch in Rumänien verbliebene deutsche Gemeinschaft auch nach 1989
noch eine spürbare Wirkung auf das kulturelle und politische Leben Rumäniens
und der gesamten Region.
Im akademischen Bereich wurde sogar ethnischen Minderheiten und
Gemeinschaften, die noch viel kleiner als die noch in Rumänien lebenden
60.000–80.000 Deutschen sind131, gezielt Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet, da jede
ethnische Gemeinschaft, so klein sie auch sein mag, immer eine gewisse
kulturelle Ausstrahlung besitzt, die ihre kleineren oder auch größeren Effekte
nach außen zeitigen kann.132
Da die deutsche Minderheit in Rumänien die drittgrößte Minderheitengruppe
in einem Land von knapp 22 Millionen Einwohnern und 19 anerkannten
ethnischen Minderheiten bildet, kann sie selbst vor dem Hintergrund ihrer
drastisch reduzierten Zahl nicht als eine “Phantomminderheit” betrachtet
werden. Würde man sie nicht beachten, so würde man einen wichtigen
Bestandteil rumänischer Minderheitenpolitik vernachlässigen. Diese Tatbestände
gilt es zu berücksichtigen, zumal diese Studie die erste wissenschaftliche
Langzeitstudie der politischen Aktivitäten des DFDR nach 1989 ist.133
Die vorhandenen akademischen Arbeiten über die Deutschen in Rumänien
beziehen sich vor allem auf die Zeit vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg oder noch davor,
oder auf die kommunistische Periode. Zwar erwähnen einige Autoren den
Exodus der Deutschen aus der Region vor und nach 1989, sie unterlassen es aber
——————
131 [Daten von: Abgeordneter Wolfgang Wittstock, Brief an das Deutsche Bundesministerium des Inneren
(BMI), 20. Juli 1999, in: DFDR-Archivakten B6, Juli 1999].
132 [So zum Beispiel bei Rossitza Guentcheva, State, Nation and language: the Bulgarian community in
the region Banat from the 1860s until the 1990s, Doktorarbeit. Nr. 24624 (Universität Cambridge) 29. Mai
2001. Die bulgarische Minderheit im Banat zählte bei der Volkszählung aus dem Jahre 2002 nur 8.092
Angehörige. Daten von: Rumänische Regierung, Populaþia dupã etnie — la recensãmântul din anul 2002,
März 2003, S. 5–6, in: DFDR-Archivakten A5, März 2003].
133 [Einer der wichtigsten Gründe, warum diese Art von Studie selten ist — besonders in Deutschland —
ist die Tatsache, dass es äußerst schwierig ist, eine derartige Arbeit zu verteidigen. Dr. Gerhard Seewann fasst
es mit folgenden Worten zusammen: “Das Risiko, als rechtslastig diskreditiert zu werden, war sehr hoch und
das ist der Grund, warum solche Themen von Nachkriegshistorikern in Deutschland absolut gefürchtet
wurden”. Daher ist es umso ermutigender, festzustellen, dass nach einer langen Zeit der akademischen
Abstinenz deutsche Minderheiten in Osteuropa wieder zum Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Studien von über
jeden Zweifel erhabenen Autoren werden (z.B. Roth, Gündisch und andere). Aus: Seewann, “Kommunismus
und Minderheiten”, in: HZ, Nr. 1835 (11. Juli 2003), S. 5].
29
31
zum größten Teil, auch die Gegenwartsgeschichte nach 1989 abzudecken. Wenn
diese jüngste Vergangenheit bearbeitet wird, dann geschieht dies meist nur in
einem kurzen Beitrag in einer Zeitschrift134, oder auf ein paar zusammenfassenden
Seiten am Ende einer langen Beschreibung der bis zu 850-jährigen Geschichte
der Deutschen auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Rumänien.135
Deshalb fehlt im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs zur Analyse der Vor- und
Zwischenkriegsära der Siebenbürger Sachsen, wie sie von Göllner, Roth und
Teutsch vorgelegt wurde, immer noch das akademische Äquivalent für die
postkommunistische Geschichte der Deutschen in Rumänien.136 Diesen
Umstand vor Augen, wird es relevant, sich auf die Wirkungen der kulturellen
und politischen Aktivitäten der Deutschen Rumäniens zwischen 1989 und 2004
zu konzentrieren.
Die Rolle des DFDR während der postkommunistischen Systemtransformation
wird im Folgenden unter Berücksichtigung der verschiedenen rumänischen
Regierungen und auf das zweite Kapitel aufbauend, beleuchtet werden. Wie
haben diese zum Teil frappierend großen politischen Diskontinuitäten in der
jüngeren politischen Geschichte Rumäniens die Ziele des DFDR beeinflusst?
Musste das DFDR seine Ziele den sich ständig wandelnden Umständen stets
anpassen, oder konnte es seine Ziele “in innerer Einheit und in Loyalität zum
rumänischen Staat” verwirklichen, ohne sich allzu sehr verändern zu müssen?
Während bei der Beantwortung dieser Fragen der Fokus der Analyse auf der
staatlich-rumänischen Seite vor allem auf den Prozessen der Demokratisierung
liegt, werden auf der Seite des DFDR vor allem die Situation innerhalb des
DFDR, seine Hierarchie und seine internen Entscheidungsfindungsprozesse
unter die Lupe genommen werden.
3.2. Der Rückgang der deutschen Bevölkerung in Rumänien
Es ist geschätzt worden, dass im Jahr 1948 343.913 Deutsche in Rumänien
lebten. Bis zur Volkszählung im Jahr 1956 war die Zahl auf 384.708 gewachsen.
Diese Zahl änderte sich nicht entscheidend, bis die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
ab dem Jahr 1978 begann, jene “auszukaufen”, die sie als deutsche
Staatsangehörige anerkannte.137
Ceauºescu bemerkte dazu zynisch, dass “die Deutschen und die Juden sein
bestes Kapital seien”138, es waren nämlich nicht nur Deutsche, die der
rumänische Staat bereitwillig verkaufte, sondern auch Juden. Für die nächsten
Jahre wurde eine Quote von bis zu fünfzehntausend Deutschen pro Jahr
——————
134 Zum Beispiel: Gabanyi, “Bleiben, Gehen, Wiederkehren?”.
135 Zum Beispiel: Gündisch, Wahrung der Eigenständigkeit trotz wechselnder Staats-Zugehörigkeit. Eine
850-jährige Geschichte im Überblick; Hochstrasser, Die siebenbürgisch-sächsische Gesellschaft in ihrem
strukturellen Wandel.
136 Göllner, (Hg.), Die Siebenbürger Sachsen in den Jahren 1848–1918; Roth, Politische Strukturen und
Strömungen bei den Siebenbürger Sachsen 1919–1933; Teutsch, Die Siebenbürger Sachsen in Vergangenheit
und Gegenwart.
137 Daten aus: Illyes, Nationale Minderheiten in Rumänien- Siebenbürgen im Wandel, S. 39–60 und
Totok, “Rumänisierung”, S. 128 ff.
138 Hoffstadt und Zippel, Reiseland Rumänien, S. 76.
32
JOSEF KARL
30
festgelegt. Das Ergebnis dieser Politik war bis 1989, dass über 160.000 Deutsche
Rumänien verließen. Die absolute Abnahme der deutschen Bevölkerungszahl
durch Auswanderung seit der Volkszählung von 1956 überstieg diese Zahl noch,
wobei eine genaue Zahl hierfür nicht bekannt ist. Die publizierten Daten für den
Zeitraum zwischen 1956 und 1987 sprechen von ungefähr 300.000 ausgewanderten
Juden und Deutschen und deuten so die Größenordnung an.139
Nach dem Fall des Kommunismus setzte sich diese Tendenz weiter fort. In
der letzten kommunistischen Volkszählung von 1977 wurden 359.109 Deutsche
in Rumänien gezählt.140 Bis 1989 hatte die Zahl auf etwa 200.000 abgenommen,
von denen 111.150 Ende 1990 offiziell als “Aussiedler” registriert wurden.141
Schon im Jahr 1989/90 hatten 132.400 Deutsche während der ersten acht
Monate nach dem Umsturz im Dezember 1989 Rumänien in Richtung
Deutschland und Österreich für immer verlassen.142 Bis 1992 war die deutsche
Bevölkerung in Rumänien um zwei Drittel gesunken und im Jahr 2002 betrug
sie gerade noch rund 0.3–0.4 Prozent der knapp 22 Millionen Einwohner des
Landes, was ungefähr 60.000–80.000 Menschen entspricht.143 Was ein
ständiger, aber langsamer Rückgang der deutschen Bevölkerung vor Dezember
1989 war, entwickelte sich schlagartig zu einem reißenden Auswanderungsstrom
nach dem Sturz Ceauºescus.
Fünf Gründe lassen sich für diesen Massenexodus der Deutschen identifizieren.
Erstes fanden es viele Deutsche aufgrund ihrer bitteren Erfahrungen der
Vergangenheit sehr schwierig, in Rumänien zu bleiben, da sie nicht glaubten,
dass die Ereignisse von 1989 eine bessere Zukunft bringen würden.
Zweitens bewirkten die politischen Änderungen von 1989 auch einen
Massenexodus der Deutschen aus beinahe allen früheren kommunistischen Staaten
Osteuropas. Deutschland, das auf dieses Ausmaß der Auswanderung nicht
vorbereitet war, versuchte, das Problem durch Gesetze “zu lösen”, um die
Einwanderung aus dem Osten “zu regulieren”.144 Aus Furcht, dass das Tor nach
Deutschland durch eben diese Gesetze vielleicht für immer verschlossen werden
könnte145, bemühten sich viele Deutsche aus Osteuropa sogar noch entschiedener,
auszuwandern.
Drittens wurde keine der Hoffnungen und Erwartungen der Deutschen
Rumäniens in den Monaten unmittelbar nach der Revolution erfüllt. Die Inflation
war immens und die Verbraucherpreise stiegen unerbittlich. Obwohl die
Knappheit an Waren in den Läden aus propagandistischen Gründen behoben
worden war, verhinderte nun die Inflation eine höhere Kaufkraft.
——————
82.
139 Illyes, Nationale Minderheiten in Rumänien- Siebenbürgen im Wandel, S. 39–60.
140 Seewann, “Die Ethnostruktur der Länder Südosteuropas aufgrund der letzten Volkszählungen”, S. 78–
141 Schreiber, “Demographische Entwicklungen bei den Rumäniendeutschen”, S. 204.
142 Gabanyi, “Bleiben, gehen, wiederkehren?”, S. 493.
143 Paduraru, German Novels, 11. Februar 2004.
144 [Insgesamt wanderten 1.291.112 Deutsche aus der UdSSR, Polen, der Tschechischen Republik, der
Slowakei, Ungarn, Rumänien und dem zerfallenden Jugoslawien zwischen 1990 und 1994 nach Deutschland
ein]. Daten von: Bundesverwaltungsamt, Statistik.
145 Vgl. Reichrath, “Wem gilt die Empfehlung 1201?”.
31
33
Viertens wurden diese ökonomischen Probleme durch einen wichtigen
psychologischen Faktor noch verschlimmert: Die Unsicherheit, eine Minderheit
in einem Staat wie Rumänien zu sein. Die blutigsten Ereignisse der
“Revolution” von 1989 fanden zwischen Pro-Ceauºescu Kräften und der Armee
in Temeschwar, Hermannstadt und Kronstadt statt, Städten mit einem relativ
hohen Anteil an deutschen Einwohnern.146 Dieses Gefühl der Unsicherheit
wurde weiter intensiviert durch die rumänisch-ungarischen Zusammenstöße in
Târgu Mureº im März 1990 und dem Wandalismus der von Präsident Iliescu
nach Bukarest gerufenen Bergarbeiter aus dem Schiltal im Januar und Juni 1990
und im September 1991.
Schließlich fügte die rasch steigende Zahl von Morden, Plünderungen und
Brandstiftungen, begleitet von Einbrüchen, die vor allem gegen die angeblich
reicheren Deutschen aus Siebenbürgen und dem Banat gerichtet waren, einen
weiteren “Push-Faktor” hinzu, der die deutsche Minderheit in ihrer Mehrheit
dazu bewegte, Rumänien endgültig den Rücken zu kehren.147
3.3. Die Gründung des DFDR im Jahr 1989
Im Kontext dieses Rückgangs der deutschen Bevölkerung wurde am 28.
Dezember 1989 das DFDR in Hermannstadt gegründet. Seine Gründer wollten,
dass das DFDR eine Organisation sein sollte, die die Deutschen in Rumänien
vertritt, die aber auch allen ethnischen Deutschen und auch Nicht-Deutschen, die
die Ziele des DFDR teilten, zugänglich sein sollte. Das DFDR sollte sich als eine
Art a-politische kulturelle Organisation und nicht als eine politische Partei
formieren.148
Der wichtigste Grund, warum das DFDR gerade im Dezember des Jahres
1989 gegründet wurde, war die Absicht der Deutschen, die Revolution als eine
Art Gelegenheit zu nutzen, den unter dem Ceauºescu-Kommunismus schon
beinahe zur Gewohnheit gewordenen rumänischen Nationalismus zu überwinden.
Als er im Jahr 1965 die Macht übernahm, hatte Ceauºescu die schon von
Gheorghiu-Dej übernommene nationalistische Politik noch intensiviert und, als
sich die allgemeinen Bedingungen in Rumänien verschlechterten, wurde der
Nationalismus in der Folgezeit in immer stärkerem Maß herangezogen, um das
Regime zu legitimieren und zu stabilisieren. Als die allgemeinen
Lebensbedingungen nach 1989 nicht besser wurden, fürchteten die Minderheiten,
dass sich dieser Trend fortsetzen und sogar vielleicht noch verstärkt werden
könnte.149
Diese nationalistischen Tendenzen waren einer der ausschlaggebenden
Faktoren, die zur Entwicklung von nationalen Minderheitsorganisationen in
——————
146 [Sogar Professor Dr. Hans Klein, Dekan der Theologischen Fakultät an der Lucian Blaga Universität
Hermannstadt, wurde verwundet].
147 Vgl. Gabanyi, “Bleiben, gehen, wiederkehren?”.
148 [Das ist aufgrund von §§ 1, 5 und 11 der Satzung des DFDR vom 1. Februar 1991 möglich. In: DFDRArchivakten A3, Februar 1991].
149 z.B. Gilberg, Nationalism and Communism in Romania: The Rise and Fall of Ceauºescu”s Personal
Dictatorship; Shafir, Romania: Politics, Economics and Society; Political Stagnation and Simulated Change.
34
JOSEF KARL
32
Rumänien führte. Wie schon in Kapitel 2 dieser Arbeit gezeigt wurde, ist das
Phänomen des Nationalismus in Rumänien historisch so zu erklären, dass die
Unterjochung der Bauernschaft vor der Einigung der Fürstentümer das
Aufkommen einer Art von “Volks-” Nationalismus verhinderte, die Serbien und
Bulgarien150 erfuhren. Der Mangel eines bedeutsamen Bürgertums schloss einen
“bourgeoisen” Nationalismus analog zum tschechischen Fall aus und der
Mangel an Interesse des Adels an der Regierung Rumäniens und sein schnelles
Verschwinden nach der Vereinigung des Landes war für die Entwicklung einer
Art ungarischen “aristokratischen” Nationalismus abträglich.151
Diese Faktoren sorgten dafür, dass allein in Rumänien der Nationalismus an
die Bürokratie gebunden war und auf diese Art vom Staat monopolisiert werden
konnte, um dem Zweck zu dienen, das Land zu beherrschen.152 Jedoch ist es
wichtig, in diesem Zusammenhang zu bemerken, dass Rumänien das einzige
Land in Südosteuropa war, das seine deutschen Staatsbürger nach 1945 nicht
vertrieb oder auswies.
3.4. Die Anfangsjahre des DFDR zwischen 1989 und 1996
In den Anfangsjahren wurden viele der Entscheidungen des DFDR
hierarchisch von oben nach unten getroffen, da seine Mitglieder entweder damit
beschäftigt waren, das Land zu verlassen, oder in ihren Gedanken dabei waren,
sich dem anzupassen, was die demokratische Realität des Postkommunismus in
Rumänien war.
Unter diesen Umständen setzte die Führung des DFDR unter ihrem
Gründungsvorsitzenden Dr. Thomas Nägler, einem Historiker aus Hermannstadt,
und ihrem Abgeordneten, Ingmar Brandsch aus Mediasch, den Schwerpunkt auf
das Schaffen einer organisatorischen Einheit, die für alle Deutschen Rumäniens
innerhalb der Beschränkungen des rumänischen Gesetzes sprechen konnte.153
Einer der ersten Schritte war hierbei, die Kommunikation und Kooperation
zwischen den verschiedenen deutschen Gruppen Rumäniens zu verbessern und
einen wirksamen, föderal organisierten Apparat zu schaffen, der in der Lage war,
die heterogene Struktur der Deutschen in Rumänien widerzuspiegeln.
Diese Politik war dazu bestimmt, die Erwartungen und den Sicherheitsbedarf
der noch verbliebenen Deutschen zu erfüllen und ihnen zu einer unsicheren Zeit
——————
150 Roucek, Balkan Politics, S. 43.
151 Vgl. Jelavich, History of the Balkans; Berend und Ránki, Economic Development; Molnar, A Concise
History of Hungary.
152 Vgl. z.B. Fisher-Galati, “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism” in the Twentieth Century: The
Romanian Case”.
153 Tontsch, “Der Minderheitenschutz in Rumänien”, S. 160. [Gemäß der rumänischen Gesetzgebung
sind die Organisationen der nationalen Minderheiten keine Parteien, sondern Organisationen im Sinne von
Vereinen. Das hat als Konsequenz stärkere Kontrollen durch den Staat zur Folge. Die gleiche Taktik wurde
durch Reichskanzler Bismarck in Deutschland angewandt, als er alle politischen Organisationen in den Rang
von eingetragenen Vereinen (e.V.) einordnen ließ. Wenn es jedoch zu Kommunalwahlen kommt, werden die
Minderheitenorganisationen dennoch de facto wie Parteien behandelt. in: Artikel 4, Kapitel 2 des Gesetzes Nr.
68 vom 15. Juli 1992 bezüglich der Wahlen zur Abgeordnetenkammer (Camera Deputaþilor), in: Ibid., S. 195–
6].
33
35
eine “kulturelle und politische Heimat” zu bieten; sie wurde aber auch darauf
ausgerichtet, die Erwartung des rumänischen Staates zu erfüllen, der mit einem
einzigen Partner in allen Angelegenheiten der deutschen Minderheit verhandeln
wollte.
Die doch relativ gespannte Situation für die Minderheiten direkt nach der
Revolution von 1989 machte, gemeinsam mit den Zusammenstössen zwischen
ethnischen Ungarn und Rumänen in Târgu Mureº und dem Exodus von mehr als
50 Prozent der Deutschen Rumäniens, die erste Präsidentschaft Ion Iliescus
(1989–1992) zu einer sehr problematischen Periode für das DFDR. Seine
Organisationsstruktur musste noch ausgebaut und vertieft werden und nur Teile
der deutschen Gemeinschaft, wie zum Beispiel die Siebenbürger Sachsen,
erkannten das Forum als ihre rechtmäßige Interessenvertretung an. Die Schwaben
aus dem Banat waren wenig geneigt dazu, diese “sächsische Organisation” voll
und ganz anzuerkennen; die Sathmarer Schwaben waren gerade noch dabei, sich
als Deutsche zu “re-definieren” und die Buchenlanddeutschen und die
Deutschen aus dem Regat waren politisch zutiefst inaktiv.
Deshalb waren während der ersten drei Jahre die Aktivitäten des DFDR
größtenteils auf Siebenbürgen beschränkt und hier hauptsächlich auf
Hermannstadt. Diese Tatsache war auch für den Mangel einer richtigen
Machtbasis des DFDR und seine dementsprechend schwache Stellung
gegenüber der rumänischen Regierung verantwortlich. Während andere
Minderheitengruppen wie die Ungarn154, die Roma155 und die Ukrainer Büros in
Bukarest eröffneten, taten die Deutschen dies nicht.156
Dies geschah aus verschiedenen Gründen, wie zum Beispiel den historischen
Siedlungsgebieten der Deutschen, aber auch aufgrund der sächsischen Dominanz
innerhalb des DFDR. Daher legte das DFDR seine Organisationszentrale nach
Hermannstadt. Diese Entscheidung machte jedoch die Kommunikation mit
führenden Kreisen in Bukarest und mit den anderen Minderheitenorganisationen
noch schwieriger. In einem derart zentralistischen Staat wie Rumänien, der nur
über ein recht unzulängliches Verkehrs- und Infrastruktursystem verfügt,
verschlechterte dies die Gesamtsituation zusätzlich.157
Unter diesen Bedingungen überrascht es nicht, dass das DFDR während der
Zeit zwischen 1989–92 nicht viel ausrichten konnte, um seine Interessen
——————
154 [Der Ungarnverband UDMR wurde am 25. Dezember 1989 gegründet. Vgl.: Kendi,
Minderheitenschutz in Rumänien].
155 Vgl.: Barany, “Minorities in Romania”, S. 28–30; Erich, “Roma in den ehemaligen Staaten Ost — und
Südosteuropas”, S. 35 ff.
156 [Erst seit dem Jahr 2004 gibt es aufgrund der bisher gemachten Erfahrungen im zentralistisch
geführten Rumänien konkrete Pläne (auch im Haushaltsplan des DFDR), für das DFDR in Bukarest ein Haus
zu kaufen und ein Verbindungsbüro zu eröffnen].
157 [Nach Auskunft durch Chefredakteur Emmerich Reichrath muss die Allgemeine Deutsche Zeitung
(ADZ) ihren Sitz in Bukarest nehmen, da sie nur so ihre Tageszeitung im ganzen Land und ins Ausland
vertreiben kann. Alle großen Presseagenturen sind überdies in Bukarest ansässig. Die dadurch geschaffene
Unflexibilität wird noch dadurch verstärkt, dass man durch das alte, noch aus der Ceauºescu-Zeit stammende
Einwohner-Meldegesetz, das es auch heute noch indirekt sehr schwer macht, innerhalb Rumäniens von einem
Ort zum anderen umzuziehen, soweit man kein Grund- oder Wohneigentum vorweisen kann, immer in seinem
Geburtsort meldepflichtig ist. So gibt es wohl mehrere hunderttausende von Fällen, in denen (vor allem)
36
JOSEF KARL
34
erfolgreich zu verfolgen. Ein nachhaltiges Auftreten als Interessengruppe der
Deutschen war damit nahezu unmöglich. Diese an sich schon wenig positive
Situation wurde noch zusätzlich durch den Mangel eines direkten “Drahtes”
nach Deutschland und Österreich verschlechtert.
Außerdem trugen die klar minderheitenfeindlichen Tendenzen in der
rumänischen Politik, die während der ersten drei Jahren der postkommunistischen
Ära in Rumänien allgegenwärtig waren, zur zunehmenden Entfremdung
zwischen dem DFDR und der rumänischen Regierung bei. Die rumänische
Politik wurde während dieser Zeit sehr stark durch die rumänischen Erfahrungen
mit der ungarischen Minderheit158 und auch durch die Vorgänge im Nachbarland
Jugoslawien beeinflusst. Daher war man in Bukarest bezüglich jeglichen
Anzeichens von Autonomie, ganz zu schweigen von wachsender Unabhängigkeit
einer Gruppe oder einer Region, äußerst sensibel. Das Hauptziel Bukarests war
es deshalb, solche Tendenzen so rasch und vollständig wie möglich einzudämmen.
Vor diesem Hintergrund war es vor allem “Loyalität” gegenüber Rumänien,
was als Haltung einer ethnischen Minderheit von rumänischer Seite her am
besten geschätzt wurde. Im Gegensatz zu den Ungarn, die ihre natürlichen
Interessen als eine sehr große ethnische Minderheit zu verwirklichen suchten
und zum Beispiel eine Änderung der rumänischen Verfassung herbeiführen
wollten, um die Definition Rumäniens als “homogenen Nationalstaat” zu
ändern, oder einen Volksentscheid über eine territoriale Autonomie in den
Szekler-Gebieten der Kreise Covasna und Harghita159 abhalten wollten, stellte
das mit internen Problemen beschäftigte DFDR keine “Bedrohung” dar.
Ihre durchaus verschiedenen Ziele entfremdeten die Deutschen vielmehr von
den Ungarn, die ihrerseits die deutsche Haltung gegenüber Bukarest als
“Kollaboration” und als “Preisgabe gemeinsamer Interessen” betrachteten.
Diese Spannungen mit den Ungarn, zusammen mit der rumänischen Politik
gegenüber den Ungarn, die ihre Wurzeln in der antiungarischen Politik
Ceauºescus vor 1989 hatte, und die sich nach der “Revolution” von 1989 nicht
sehr änderte, erschwerte es dem DFDR noch zusätzlich, als demokratische
Organisation einer ethnischen Minderheit während dieser Jahre Fuß fassen zu
——————
(continuation) Bukarester in alle Landesteile fahren müssen, nur um ihre Steuererklärungen, ihre
Gewerbeanmeldungen oder auch alle anderen persönlichen Amtsgänge erledigen zu können, da sie sich, wenn
sie nur zur Miete wohnen, nicht an ihren eigentlichen Wohnort ummelden können. Durch die äußerst geringen
Einkommen und die horrenden Immobilienpreise ist es allerdings für “Otto Normalverbraucher” de facto
unmöglich, auf legale Weise Wohneigentum zu erwerben, da die Preise in Ballungszentren annähernd den
deutschen Preisen entsprechen, das durchschnittliche Monats-Bruttoeinkommen aber nur bei circa 300–400
Euro liegt. Überdies bekommt man ohne ausreichende Sicherheiten (in der Regel Immobilien) auch keine
Bankkredite, um Eigentum erwerben zu können. In kommunistischen Zeiten wollte man durch diese heute
noch gültige Regelung Vorsorge dafür treffen, dass die Niederlassung der Bevölkerung staatlich gelenkt
werden kann, um unter anderem gezielt die Wohngebiete der nationalen Minderheiten “rumänisieren” zu
können. Heute sorgt diese Regelung dafür, dass einer kleinen und wohlhabenden, und zum großen Teil aus der
alten kommunistischen Nomenklatur hervorgegangenen, sozialen Schicht ein maßgeblicher
Flexibilitätsvorsprung auf wirtschaftlichem Gebiet erhalten bleibt. Dieser Unterschied kann in Rumänien
äußerst entscheidend wirken, da man für entsprechend gleich lange Fahrtstrecken mit der mindestens
doppelten Fahrtzeit rechnen muss, die man in Deutschland dafür einplanen müsste].
158 Vgl. Þurlea, Din culisele Parlamentului României und Idem, U.D.M.R. ºi Societatea Româneascã.
159 Archiv der Gegenwart, 8. Dezember 1991, 36286.
35
37
können. Ceauºescu war zwar von der Macht entfernt worden und hingerichtet
worden, sein System hatte allerdings in wesentlichen Teilen überlebt.160
In den Wahlen vom September 1992 wurde dies noch verstärkt, da die frühere
FSN, die sich jetzt “Demokratische Front zur Nationalen Rettung” (FDSN)
nannte, die absolute Mehrheit im Parlament verfehlte und Premierminister
Nicolae Vãcãroiu von der FDSN eine Art Kooperation mit anderen
Parlamentsfraktionen und -Gruppen suchen musste, die er am leichtesten mit
nationalistischen und neokommunistischen Gruppen fand.161
Diese teilweise nationalistische Regierung war verständlicherweise nicht
sehr vorteilhaft für das DFDR. Darüber hinaus stand das DFDR auch vor einem
internen Wechsel, da Professor Dr. Paul Philippi162, Professor für protestantische
Theologie an der Lucian Blaga Universität Hermannstadt zum neuen
Landesvorsitzenden des DFDR gewählt wurde, da sein Vorgänger Dr. Thomas
Nägler aufgrund von ernsten Gesundheitsproblemen nicht mehr als Vorsitzender
zur Verfügung stand.
Professor Philippis Hauptziele für sein neues Amt waren zum einen, die
Einigkeit unter den Deutschen Rumäniens zu verbessern, zum anderen, die
Beziehung des DFDR zum rumänischen Staat auf eine bessere Grundlage zu
stellen, das Verhältnis zu den Ungarn und anderen Minderheiten zu entspannen
und die Anerkennung des DFDR als Verhandlungspartner in Deutschland und
Österreich zu erreichen.
Als Erfolge während seiner Amtszeit konnte das DFDR verbuchen, dass die
interne Organisationsstruktur des DFDR gefestigt wurde und die Spannungen
zwischen den Schwaben und den Sachsen verringert werden konnten. Außerdem
wurde die Gesamtsituation des DFDR auch durch die relativ herzliche
Beziehung zwischen Deutschland und Rumänien verbessert. Der deutschrumänische Vertrag vom 21. April 1992 enthielt relativ großzügige Bedingungen
für Deutschland, um die Situation der deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien aktiv
verbessern zu können. Obwohl das DFDR im Vertrag nicht expressis verbis
erwähnt wird, beziehen sich doch Artikel 15 und 16 indirekt auf das DFDR, da
sie das Recht der deutschen Minderheit garantieren, sich ohne ungebührliche
Staatsinterventionen zu organisieren. Artikel 16 gibt Deutschland sogar das
Recht, die deutsche Minderheit mit allen für notwendig erachteten materiellen
und monetären Mitteln zu unterstützen, um ihre Zukunft in Rumänien zu
sichern.
Ein weiterer wichtiger Faktor, der die Position des DFDR verbesserte, war
die Tatsache, dass es sein Mandat im rumänischen Parlament aus eigener Kraft
durch den Erhalt der notwendigen Anzahl an Stimmen in den Wahlen von 1992
——————
160 [Am 6. Dezember 1992 brachte Iliescus FSN sogar einen Antrag/Erklärung in das rumänische
Parlament ein, die den Ungarnverband UDMR als “extrem gefährliche Organisation” bezeichnete]. Aus:
Archiv der Gegenwart, 6. Dezember 1992, 37399.
161 [Um einen negativen Beigeschmack in der Öffentlichkeit zu vermeiden, besonders im Ausland,
änderte die FDSN ihren Namen im Juli 1993 in PDSR (Sozialdemokratische Partei Rumäniens)].
162 [Von 1969 bis 1983 Professor für Protestantische Theologie an der Universität Heidelberg, 1976
Gastprofessur an der Universität Cambridge, 1983–1996 Professor für Praktische Theologie an der Lucian
Blaga Universität Hermannstadt].
38
JOSEF KARL
36
sichern konnte und sich nicht auf die Garantie des rumänischen Staates, dass
jede Minderheitengruppe ein Mandat unabhängig von den von ihr erreichten
Stimmen zugesichert bekommt (so genanntes “geschenktes Mandat”), verlassen
musste.163
Interessanterweise wurden diese Erfolge insbesondere aufgrund der
konsequenten Unterstützung der nationalen Einheit Rumäniens durch das DFDR
erreicht. Der Wahlspruch des DFDR, dass die nationale Einheit und die Förderung
von Minderheitenrechten zwei Seiten derselben Medaille seien, erwies sich als
erfolgreich. Im Falle des Wahlkreises von Hermannstadt profitierte das DFDR
auch von der unverwechselbaren Identität und Selbstwahrnehmung der
Siebenbürger Rumänen, die weitaus mehr Sympathien für einen Deutschen “aus
Ihren Reihen” zu empfinden scheinen, als für einen Rumänen aus dem Regat,
der noch dazu als Kandidat der regierenden FDSN antrat.
In Hermannstadt wurde das Ziel des DFDR, eine Minderheit und die
Mehrheit zu repräsentieren, von den Rumänen als Gelegenheit betrachtet, dass
die Stadt vom angeblich besonderen Status, den das DFDR im Parlament
genießt, mitprofitieren könne.164 Diese Unterstützung durch die überwiegend
rumänischen Wähler in Hermannstadt war äußerst bedeutend für die wachsende
politische Rolle des DFDR.
Die Gründer des DFDR konnten im Jahr 1989 das volle Ausmaß des
schleppenden demokratischen Fortschritts bis ins Jahr 1996 in einer Zeit, von
der sie glaubten, dass sie den raschen Wechsel zu echter Demokratie bringen
würde und eine Zukunft ohne Nationalismus, nicht vorhersehen. Als kleine
Minderheitsorganisation mit nur einem Abgeordneten im rumänischen
Parlament konnte das DFDR seine Interessen folglich nur durch Bündnisse mit
größeren politischen Parteien schützen und verfolgen. Daher gab sein Ziel, als
Stimme der deutschen Bevölkerung in Rumänien wirken zu können und
überdies deren vitalen Interessen wahrzunehmen, dem DFDR eine recht
beträchtliche politische Dimension und ließ es in der Tat mehr und mehr zu einer
“normalen” politischen Partei werden.
In diesem Sinne war die Hauptherausforderung des DFDR seit seiner
Gründung die eigentliche Unverträglichkeit zwischen seiner expliziten Absicht,
eine a-politische kulturelle Organisation zu sein, wie in Abschnitt 3.3. erläutert
wurde, und sein implizites Ziel, ein aktiver Faktor im politischen Leben zu sein,
die es in der Tat mehr und mehr wie eine politische Partei handeln ließ. Meine
Behauptung ist daher, dass es der permanente Diskurs des DFDR, als “eine
Organisation in innerer Einheit und Loyalität gegenüber dem rumänischen
Staat” wirken zu wollen, ihm erlaubte, eben genau beide Ziele trotz ihrer
scheinbaren Unverträglichkeit miteinander kombiniert zu verfolgen.
Ich würde behaupten, dass das DFDR dadurch bewusst oder unbewusst an
die historische sächsische Tradition, einen Modus Vivendi mit den Regierenden
in Bukarest zu suchen, anknüpfte. Man könnte sagen, dass das DFDR — wohl
——————
163 Archiv-Akte A8, September 1992.
164 Archiv-Akte A8, Oktober 1992.
37
39
unbewusst — mit dieser Politik eine Art Synthese zwischen den Konzepten von
Rudolf Brandsch und andererseits den Ideen von Hans Otto Roth
verwirklichte165, da die Kurzfristigkeiten und Unwägbarkeiten der rumänischen
Politik für das DFDR eben diese “Überlebensstrategie” notwendig machten.
3.5. Das Wachstum des DFDR zwischen 1996 und 2000
Der Wechsel von Präsidentschaft und Regierung im Jahre 1996 von der
postkommunistischen FDSN/PDSR hin zum konservativen Oppositionsbündnis
CDR, das vom UDMR unterstützt wurde, brachte auch für das DFDR
wesentliche Veränderungen. Vor dem Hintergrund seiner besseren
organisatorischen Aufstellung scheint es jedoch mehr als überraschend, dass die
Parlamentswahlen des Jahres 1996 für das DFDR selbst trotzdem nicht sehr
positiv waren. Alles in allem verlor das DFDR mehr als 10.000 Stimmen im
Vergleich zu den Wahlen des Jahres 1992. Der Wahlkreis von Hermannstadt
konnte nicht wieder gewonnen werden. Stattdessen gewann der Banater
Schwabe Horst Werner Brück mehr Stimmen in Temeschwar als Wolfgang
Wittstock in Hermannstadt erzielte. Brück gewann zwar den Wahlkreis von
Temeschwar nicht direkt, aber er nutzte die fünf Prozent-Klausel, die vom
rumänischen Gesetzgeber für die Minderheiten geschaffen wurde und die
lediglich erforderlich macht, mindestens fünf Prozent der sonst für ein Mandat
erforderlichen Stimmen in einem Wahlkreis zu erzielen.166
Die DFDR-Zentrale unter dem Landesvorsitzenden Professor Philippi
verwandelte diese herbe sächsische Niederlage nach außen in eine Geste, die
zeigen sollte, dass die Sachsen bereit waren, ihren Einfluss im DFDR mit den
anderen deutschen Gruppen, und insbesondere mit den Schwaben, zu teilen. Die
meisten Mitglieder hinterfragten diese Erklärung nicht weiter und begnügten
sich damit.167
Andererseits waren die Wahlen indirekt auch ein beträchtlicher Erfolg für das
DFDR. Die minderheitenfreundlichere CDR gewann die Wahlen und Professor
Emil Constantinescu, der Rektor der Universität Bukarest, wurde zum
rumänischen Präsidenten gewählt. Die CDR integrierte den Ungarnverband
UDMR in die neu gebildete Regierung, und es wurde ein Ministerium für
nationale Minderheiten eingeführt, das von einem Mitglied des UDMR, György
——————
165 [Die beiden Konzepte stehen für eine engere Kooperation mit der rumänischen Regierung (Roth) oder
eine unabhängigere Haltung durch eine verstärkte Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Minderheitsgruppen
(Brandsch)]. Aus: Wien, Kirchenleitung über dem Abgrund; Baier, “Rudolf Brandsch und Hans Otto Roth”, S.
76-9; Völkl, Rumänien, S. 238.
166 Archiv-Akte A8, November and Dezember 1996. [Diese Regelung schreibt weiterhin vor, dass
derjenige Kandidat einer Minderheitenorganisation als gewählt gilt, der die meisten Stimmen seiner
Organisation in einem Wahlkreis auf sich vereinen kann. Dies bedeutet im Einzelnen, dass es in fast jeder
Minderheitenorganisation eine Art internen Wettbewerb gibt, wer die beste Startposition für das einzige, jeder
Minderheit garantierte, Mandat bekommt. Im Falle es DFDR ist dies in der Regel der interne Streit, wer im
Judeþ Hermannstadt kandidieren kann, da dies im Normalfall weitaus mehr Stimmen garantiert, als das Judeþ
Timiº. Auch dieser Konflikt verschärft die Spannungen zwischen Schwaben und Sachsen noch zusätzlich].
167 [Schon Ende 1997 zog sich Brück aus dem Parlament zurück, um den Posten des Wirtschaftsattachés
in der rumänischen Botschaft in Bonn zu übernehmen. Dadurch zog Herr Wittstock im Februar 1998 abermals
in das Parlament ein].
40
JOSEF KARL
38
Tokay, geführt wurde.168 Jetzt zahlten sich die Versuche, die Beziehung
zwischen den Ungarn und den Deutschen seit 1992 inhaltlich und menschlich zu
verbessern, aus. Aufgrund der gut funktionierenden Zusammenarbeit zwischen
den beiden inderheitenorganisationen wurde der Bukarester Dr. Klaus
Fabritius169 zu Tokays Staatssekretär ernannt.
Die nächsten vier Jahre brachten größere Fortschritte für das DFDR. Die
allgemeine Einstellung den Minderheiten gegenüber wurde wesentlich
freundlicher und positiver. Rumänien schloss bilaterale Verträge bezüglich noch
ungelöster Grenzfragen mit Ungarn und der Ukraine ab und die Spannungen
zwischen Ungarn und Rumänen verringerten sich auch dadurch, dass der
UDMR aktiv an der Regierung beteiligt war. Vor allem das Jahr 1999 brachte
einige sehr positive Ergebnisse für das DFDR. Neue Gesetze regelten und
vereinfachten den Prozess der Rückgabe von verstaatlichtem Eigentum der
Deutschen. Jetzt konnte das DFDR auch endlich in seine frisch renovierte
Parteizentrale in Hermannstadt einziehen, deren Gebäude vor 1944 dem
ehemaligen österreichisch-ungarischen Offiziersklub gehört hatte.170
Dennoch wurde auch in den Jahren 1996 bis 2000 das vom DFDR und den
anderen Minderheiten bereits im Jahr 1993 in das Parlament gebrachte
Minderheitenschutzgesetz weiterhin zurückgestellt und nicht verabschiedet.171
Dies war teils der Fehler der Minderheitenorganisationen selbst, insbesondere
der Ungarn, deren abweichende Forderungen nach Territorial —, und
Gruppenautonomie die Position der Minderheitsorganisationen spaltete und es
so den Rumänen recht leicht machte, den Gesetzesentwurf insgesamt zu vereiteln.
Überdies wurde das ganze diplomatische Geschick gebraucht, um das DFDR
im Einklang mit den Erwartungen der rumänischen Regierung und der der
Ungarn zu halten, die das Ministerium für nationale Minderheiten führten, in
denen das DFDR direkter Partner war. Deshalb mussten die zwei
Grundprinzipien des DFDR, innere Einheit und Loyalität dem rumänischen
Staat gegenüber, um ein drittes ergänzt werden, nämlich einen Modus Vivendi
mit dem UDMR zu erreichen, ohne die ersten zwei wichtigen Konstanten der
Überlebensstrategie des DFDR zu gefährden.
Denn obwohl das DFDR viele seiner Ziele erfüllen konnte, war es innerlich
immer noch fast vollständig vom rumänischen Staat und dem UDMR abhängig.
Das politisch stürmische Jahr 1998, das drei rumänische und zwei deutsche
Regierungen sah, änderte überdies auch noch die interne Situation des DFDR
grundlegend. Professor Philippi stand für seinen Posten als Landesvorsitzende
nach seinem 75. Geburtstag im November 1998 nicht mehr zur Verfügung.
Es war fast schon eine Art Selbstverständlichkeit, dass Eberhard-Wolfgang
Wittstock als Abgeordneter des DFDR Professor Philippi als neuer
——————
168 Monitorul Oficial al României, Teil I, Nr. 17/1997, 31. Januar 1997.
169 [Der Bukarester Biologe Dr. Fabritius ist seit 1992 Vorsitzender des Regionalforums “Altreich”
(Regat)].
170 Archiv-Akte A6, Juni 1999.
171 [Der ursprüngliche Entwurf stammt vom 7. Dezember 1993. Nichtsdestotrotz unterschrieb Rumänien
am 1. Januar 1995 das Rahmenabkommen zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten]. Aus: Archiv-Akte A5, März 1995.
39
41
Landesvorsitzender folgen sollte. Da Wittstocks politische Position jedoch eng
mit der der PDSR verbunden war, entfremdete dies die regierende CDR und
besonders den UDMR, der ihn bereits im Jahr 1996 als Kandidat für den
Staatssekretärsposten im Ministerium für nationale Minderheiten zurückgewiesen
hatte, was zur Ernennung von Dr. Fabritius geführt hatte. Diese delikate
Situation wurde dadurch etwas abgemildert, dass Professor Philippi in den neu
geschaffenen Posten des “Ehrenvorsitzenden” berufen wurde und so weiterhin
politisch aktiv blieb.
Dieses Vorgehen schützte sowohl Wittstock als auch das DFDR vor politischem
Schaden und es vermochte die wegen Wittstocks politischer Position
vorhandenen Bedenken auf Seiten der CDR und des UDMR zu zerstreuen.172
Diese Ereignisse zeigen allerdings recht eindringlich, wie weit das DFDR
immer noch davon entfernt war, eine in ihren Entscheidungen wirklich
souveräne politische Kraft zu sein, wenngleich es dennoch trotz der sich laufend
ändernden politischen Rahmenbedingungen keine fundamentalen Wandlungen
hinnehmen musste, sondern es vielmehr bei recht kosmetischen Korrekturen
belassen konnte.
3.6. Die Transformation des DFDR in eine politische Partei seit 2000
Das Ergebnis der Präsidentschafts — und Parlamentswahlen des Jahres 2000
überraschte Beobachter mit etwas Erfahrung in rumänischer Politik nicht allzu
sehr. Eine desillusionierte Bevölkerung wandte sich zurück an angeblich
“bessere und leichtere” Lösungen und alte Formeln, die von der
postkommunistischen PDSR und ihrem Frontmann Iliescu zuhauf angeboten
wurden und durch die er demzufolge auch die Präsidentschaftswahlen gewann.
Noch erschreckender war jedoch, dass Vadim Tudor, der Führer der
antisemitischen und extrem nationalistischen PRM bei den Präsidentschafts —
und Parlamentswahlen als Zweiter ins Ziel kam; Tudor zwang Iliescu sogar in
eine zweite Runde der Präsidentschaftswahlen.173
Aus der Warte des DFDR allerdings war das am wenigsten erwartete Ergebnis
der Wahlen die Verdoppelung seiner eigenen Stimmen. Das DFDR kam auf den
19. Platz von insgesamt 69 politischen Formationen, die bei diesen Wahlen
angetreten waren. Wittstock gewann überdies den Wahlkreis Hermannstadt und
darüber hinaus ging das Hermannstädter Senatsmandat an das DFDR-Mitglied
Dr. Hermann Fabini, der als Kandidat auf der Liste der PNL angetreten war.
Zusätzlich dazu konnte das DFDR in den Kommunalwahlen des Jahres 2000
die Wahl von fünf Bürgermeistern aus seinen Reihen verbuchen, am
bedeutendsten die von Klaus Johannis zum Oberbürgermeister von Hermannstadt,
zusammen mit vier Mitgliedern im Kreisrat von Satu Mare und zehn Mitgliedern
in Lokalräten, sechs davon im Stadtrat und vier im Kreisrat von Hermannstadt.
——————
172 [Wittstock war zwischen 1977 und 1989 Mitglied der Kommunistischen Partei Rumäniens. Er
bekleidete allerdings kein führendes Amt]. Aus: MP Wittstock, Brief an die Deutsche Botschaft Bukarest, 27.
August 1999, in: Archiv-Akte B5, Juli 1999.
173 Crampton, The Balkans since the Second World War, S. 334.
42
JOSEF KARL
40
Der interessanteste Punkt dieser Wahlen war jedoch, dass es bei den
Kommunalwahlen keine positive Diskriminierung zugunsten des DFDR gab.
Das DFDR musste seine Posten vielmehr in direkter Konkurrenz mit den anderen
Parteien erringen. Daher ist es noch beeindruckender und überraschender, dass
das DFDR es schaffte, die PDSR in Hermannstadt zu besiegen. Für die
Stadtratswahlen in Hermannstadt hatte das DFDR allerdings nicht genug
Kandidaten aufgestellt, da es keineswegs mit einem Sieg gerechnet hatte. Aus
diesem Grunde gingen zwei der Sitze, die dem DFDR im Stadtrat eigentlich
zugestanden hätten, verloren, da sie vom DFDR nicht mit eigenen
Listenkandidaten besetzt werden konnten.
Die Wahlen des Jahres 2000 verschafften dem DFDR demzufolge mehr
politischen Einfluss, was zum Teil auch auf die auch für Rumänien in Aussicht
stehende EU-Erweiterung zurückzuführen war. Dies führte auf parteipolitischer
Ebene zu einem Kooperationsabkommen zwischen dem DFDR und der PSD174
im Jahr 2002. Dieses Protokoll hatte indes etwas widersprüchliche Folgen für
das DFDR. Auf der einen Seite garantierte es Johannis” Unterstützung für
Rumäniens Anliegen in Berlin und so Deutschlands Unterstützung für
Rumäniens EU-Beitritt, während es auch dem DFDR etliche Vorteile zusicherte.
Andererseits jedoch scheint es unwahrscheinlich, dass beide Seiten ihre Ziele
wirklich erreichen konnten. Das DFDR für seinen Teil hatte sein Schicksal im
Wesentlichen an das der regierenden PSD geknüpft und die deutsche Regierung
wird mit geringer Wahrscheinlichkeit seine Position bezüglich Rumänien
lediglich daran orientieren, dass Johannis Rumäniens EU-Beitritt befürwortet.
Vor diesem Hintergrund wurden die Interessen des DFDR während der Jahre
2000 bis 2004 nur dann in die Regierungspolitik miteinbezogen, wenn entweder
Deutschland oder Österreich das DFDR direkt unterstützen, oder wenn
Rumänien seine Minderheiten in einem ganz bestimmten Punkt dazu brauchte,
sich positiv darzustellen, um der EU beizutreten. Die Deutschen haben und
hatten hierbei eine spezielle Rolle unter den Minderheiten, da sie die drittgrößte
Minderheitengruppe bilden und eine recht einflussreiche Lobby im Westen
besitzen.175
Auf dem nationalen rumänischen Parkett waren die Wahlergebnisse zwar
beeindruckend, aber dennoch verlor das DFDR seinen Staatssekretär und mit
ihm wurde das ganze Ministerium für nationale Minderheiten abgeschafft. Die
PSD schuf stattdessen ein Ministerium für “öffentliche Information” und fügte
diesem ein “Departement für Interethnische Beziehungen” hinzu, in dem einem
Staatssekretär drei Unterstaatssekretäre unterstellt wurden.176 Einer von diesen
Unterstaatssekretären wurde dem DFDR, der zweite dem UDMR und der dritte
der Partei der Roma (PR) zugestanden. Der Posten des Staatssekretärs wurde mit
einem ethnischen Rumänen und PSD-Mann besetzt. Auf Seiten des DFDR
——————
174 [Die PDSR änderte ihren Namen im Jahr 2002 in PSD].
175 [Hierzu bemerkte Unterstaatssekretär Dr. Zeno-Karl Pinter: “Deutschland wird immer ein sehr
wichtiges Land für Rumänien sein. Daran ändert auch die gegenwärtige Wirtschaftskrise nichts.”]. Gespräch
mit Unterstaatssekretär Dr. Zeno-Karl Pinter, Bukarest, 11. April 2005.
176 www.guv.ro, Program de guvernare, Pe perioada 2001–2004, cap. X, Relaþiile Interetnice.
41
43
wurde dieser relativ machtlose Posten, mit dem Temeschwarer Gymnasiallehrer
Ovidiu Ganþ besetzt.177
Die Wahlen des Jahres 2000 vertieften auch die Kooperation zwischen dem
DFDR und dem UDMR. Beide Organisationen beschlossen, gemeinsame
Kandidatenlisten in Regionen aufzustellen, in denen die Ungarn nicht sehr stark
vertreten waren.178 Im Bereich der nationalen Politik komplizierte sich die
Situation des DFDR und des UDMR allerdings zusehends, da die neue Regierung
unter Premierminister Adrian Nãstase (PSD) ethnischen Minderheiten nicht
dieselbe Priorität einräumte, wie dies die vorangegangenen liberal-konservativen
Regierungen zu machen bereit waren. Außerdem wurde der Mangel eines
Minderheitsschutzgesetzes nun mehr als offensichtlich.
Die Minderheitenorganisationen, insbesondere die weniger mächtigen,
waren weiterhin fast ausschließlich auf den guten Willen und die Launen der
Regierung angewiesen. Der “Rat für die nationalen Minderheiten”, der im Jahr
1993 geschaffen worden war, hatte nur eine beratende Rolle inne und er konnte
seine Vorschläge überdies nur einstimmig formulieren.179 Daher konnte die
Situation für die Minderheiten insgesamt kaum verbessert werden. Dies war
auch der Grund, warum der UDMR den Minderheitenrat bereits im Jahr 1995 als
“Feigenblatt der rumänischen Regierung” bezeichnet und verlassen hatte.
Die einzige Rolle von Bedeutung, die dieser Institution in der Folgezeit
zukam, war die Verteilung der öffentlichen Gelder an die unterschiedlichen
Minderheitenorganisationen. Die in diesem Zusammenhang vorherrschende
Praxis wird vom ehemaligen Geschäftsführer des DFDR, Diplom Ingenieur
Hansmartin Borger, der das DFDR zwischen 1994 und 2004 für zehn Jahre im
Minderheitenrat vertreten hat, wie folgt beschrieben: “Die Vorgänge im
Minderheitenrat erinnern einen eher an ein Feilschen um Fördergelder, als an
ernstzunehmende inhaltliche politische Diskussionen.”180
Für das DFDR waren die wichtigsten Folgen der Wahlen von 2000 ein
massiver Zuwachs an Verantwortung auf kommunaler Ebene und wachsende
öffentliche Unterstützung, aber auch eine ebenso gewachsene Notwendigkeit,
seine Loyalität gegenüber Bukarest und gegenüber der PSD ostentativ zu
betonen.181 Die herrschende PSD bot alle ihr zu Verfügung stehenden Mittel und
zentral aus Bukarest gesteuerte Machtmittel auf, Kommunalpolitiker über die
aus Bukarest eingesetzten Präfekten “zu ihren Gunsten umzudrehen”. Dies
stärkte die Position der regierenden PSD noch mehr.
Dies bedeutete, dass Johannis im Hermannstädter Stadtrat mit der PSD einen
Modus Vivendi finden musste, der ihm die zum Regieren notwendige Mehrheit
sicherte, da er von der Bevölkerung an seinen Taten beurteilt wurde, für die er
——————
177 DFDR, Deutsches Jahrbuch für Rumänien 2003, S. 26–31.
178 Archiv-Akte A8, Mai 2000.
179 Monitorul Oficial al României, Teil I, Nr. 156, 9. Juli 1993.
180 Gespräch mit Dipl. Ing. Hansmartin Borger, Hermannstadt, 22. September 2003.
181 [Viele nannten Hermannstadt nach den für das DFDR überraschend siegreichen Kommunalwahlen
des Jahres 2000 bereits “Johannisburg”]. Aus: Ohnweiler, “Die Stadt am Zibin auf dem Weg zu einem
“Johannisburg”, S. 39.
44
JOSEF KARL
42
wiederum die Unterstützung seines Rates brauchte. Diese Unterstützung konnte
er allerdings nur erhalten, wenn er ein Abkommen mit der PSD schloss. Die
Römer hatten ein Sprichwort für solche Situationen: beneficium accipere est
libertatem vendere: Wer eine Wohltat annimmt, der verkauft seine Freiheit.
Trotz dieser relativ großen Abhängigkeit von der PSD konnte das DFDR auf
nationaler Ebene bei den Lokalwahlen des Jahres 2004 die Erfolge des Jahres
2000 noch erheblich ausbauen. So trug das DFDR insbesondere in
Hermannstadt einen überwältigenden Sieg gegen die seit 2000 auf Landesebene
völlig dominierende PSD davon. Der Bürgermeisterkandidat des DFDR für
Hermannstadt, Klaus Johannis, besiegte den Kandidaten der PSD schon im
ersten Wahlgang mit knapp 90 Prozent zu mageren 6 Prozent für die PSD und
auch im Stadtrat der 160.000-Einwohner Stadt am Zibin standen 16 gewählten
Stadträten des Forums von insgesamt 23 Stadträten lediglich 3 der PSD
gegenüber. Im 33-köpfigen Rat des Judeþ von Hermannstadt war es nur wenig
besser für die PSD, da dort 11 gewählten Vertretern des Forums lediglich 8 der
PSD gegenübersitzen und auch in den anderen Siedlungsgebieten der Deutschen
in Rumänien konnte das DFDR des Öfteren im direkten Vergleich mit der PSD
punkten.182
Dieses Ergebnis macht sich umso eindrucksvoller aus, wenn man bedenkt,
dass die Deutschen im Jude? Hermannstadt nur rund 4 Prozent der Bevölkerung
und auf Landesebene nur knapp 0,4 Prozent ausmachen. Das Resultat aber zeigt
auch, dass die rumänischen Wähler nach einer glaubhaften lokalen politischen
Alternative zur für ihre korrupten Machenschaften bekannten PSD suchten und
sie im DFDR gefunden zu haben glaubten.183
Bei den Parlamentswahlen im Winter 2004 konnten die insbesondere durch
diese Lokalwahlerfolge genährten Hoffnungen des DFDR, die es in die
erstmalige Aufstellung einer landesweiten Kandidatenliste (“Einheitsliste”)
gesetzt hatte, indes bei weitem nicht erfüllt werden. Das Ergebnis fiel sogar
etwas schlechter aus, als das des Jahres 2000. Dies war allerdings das Ergebnis
forumsinterner Probleme, die insbesondere auf die in Kapitel 1 beschriebenen
Unterschiede zwischen Sachsen und Schwaben zurückgehen.
Herr Ganþ, bisher Subsecretar de Stat, hatte bereits im Jahr 2000 versucht,
mehr Stimmen im Judeþ Timiº zu sammeln, als der Kandidat von Hermannstadt,
Eberhard-Wolfgang Wittstock und wollte es seinem Vorgänger, Horst-Werner
Brück, der dies bei den Wahlen des Jahres 1996 geschafft hatte, gleichtun. Nach
einer forumsinternen Regelung und gemäß der rumänischen Gesetzgebung wäre
dann ihm als dem mit den meisten Stimmen gewählten Deutschen das dem
DFDR zustehende Mandat übertragen worden.
Da Herr Ganþ aber, wie so viele DFDR Kandidaten vor ihm, im Banat
scheiterte und er das Gleiche bei unverändertem Wahlmodus auch mit nahezu
——————
182 [Auf Landesebene gewann das DFDR 76.843 Stimmen bei Kreisratswahlen (Judeþe), was elf
Kreisräten und 0,85% der Stimmen entspricht, 77.573 Stimmen bei Lokalratswahlen (Stadt-, Markt- und
Gemeinderäte), was 96 Mandaten und 0,84% der Stimmen insgesamt entspricht, und insgesamt 93.901
Stimmen im ersten Wahlgang der Bürgermeisterwahlen (0,93%) und 22.815 Stimmen im zweiten Wahlgang
(0,22%), was fünf gewählten Bürgermeistern im ersten und vier Gewählten im zweiten Wahlgang entsprach].
183 ADZ, “Totales Vertrauensvotum”, Nr. 2896 (9. Juni 2004), S. 8.
43
45
100-prozentiger Sicherheit bei den Wahlen 2004 erwarten konnte und musste,
setzte er alles daran, eine einheitliche DFDR-Kandidatenliste mit ihm an der
Spitze durchzusetzen, da er so sichergehen konnte, in das Parlament einzuziehen,
was er dann auch tat. Als Schwabe wäre er in Hermannstadt wohl nicht so
einfach aufgestellt worden und seine eigenen Landsleute im Banat sind politisch
viel zu desinteressiert und zu wenig organisiert, als dass er sich auf sie wirklich
hätte verlassen können. Im Banat ist man weit mehr in Form von
Trachtenumzügen und anderen kulturellen Aktivitäten aktiv und an politischen
Weichenstellungen und Aktivitäten aller Art des DFDR hat man dort nur relativ
geringes Interesse. Man sieht das DFDR im Banat viel mehr als kulturelle
Vereinigung denn als Partei der Deutschen.
Objektiv von außen betrachtet ist es jedoch genau diese weit reichende
politische Inaktivität, die zu einer Art Minderwertigkeitskomplex der Schwaben
den Sachsen gegenüber führt. Doch anstatt etwas im Banat zu verändern und das
Forum aus der “Trachtenvereinsecke” zu lotsen und in eine schlagkräftige
politische Organisation zu verwandeln, begnügt man sich mit den beschriebenen
Kulturveranstaltungen und man hat bisher wenig in Richtung der Entwicklung
einer gut konzipierten politischen Tagesarbeit auf den Weg gebracht. Vielmehr
bemüht man historische Vergleiche mit den Sachsen, um zu erklären, warum die
Lage der Schwaben aufgrund ihres weniger ausgeprägten Nationalbewusstseins,
ihrer ländlichen Struktur und ihres weit verstreuten Siedlungsgebietes
schwieriger sei als die der Sachsen und es daher auch politisch schwerer sei, im
Banat Fuß zu fassen.184
Dies mag in der Tat in vielerlei Hinsicht zutreffen, es ist aber ohne geeignete
Gegenmaßnahmen in der politischen Praxis relativ unbedeutend, warum es sich
so verhält. Um einiges wichtiger wäre es, ein den historischen Gegebenheiten
angepasstes Konzept zu entwickeln und zu versuchen, die Gesamtsituation des
Banater DFDR zu verbessern, um bei Wahlen größere Erfolge erringen zu können.
Stattdessen investiert der Vorsitzende des Regionalforums Banat, Dr. Karl
Singer, nahezu alle Energie und Ressourcen des Regionalforums Banat in die
Brauchtumspflege, wie Trachten, Blasmusikgruppen und einen alljährlichen
Zug durch Temeschwar. Diese Aktivitäten tragen zweifellos zum Erhalt
schwäbischer Traditionen bei und in kleinerem Rahmen sind sie mit Sicherheit
wünschenswert und notwendig, doch politisch und wirtschaftlich nachhaltig
sind sie in der gewählten Form keineswegs und ein politisches Programm
ersetzen sie noch viel weniger. Sie kosten vielmehr sehr viel Geld, das stattdessen,
wie von den Sachsen vorgemacht, in langfristig rentable Anlageobjekte
(Verlage, Immobilien oder ähnliches) oder in eine schlagkräftigere
Forumsstruktur investiert werden könnte.
Man muss sich daher nicht wundern, dass die Rumänen und Ungarn den
Schwaben vor diesem Hintergrund politisch nicht dasselbe zutrauen, wie den
Sachsen in Hermannstadt. Wie sonst ist es zu erklären, dass die Sachsen, die
Berglanddeutschen und die Sathmarer Schwaben bei den Lokalwahlen seit 1990
——————
184 Gespräch mit dem Abgeordneten Ovidiu Ganã, Bukarest, 29. März 2005.
46
JOSEF KARL
44
bei zum Teil weitaus kleineren eigenen Zahlen viel bessere Wahlergebnisse als
die Banater Schwaben erzielen konnten?
Die Kosten des Manövers mit der Einheitsliste waren daher, dass sich das
DFDR so kurz nach seinem Triumph bei den Lokalwahlen ohne Not selbst eine
Niederlage bei den Nationalwahlen eingebrockt hat, da das Modell der
Einheitsliste einen Stimmanteil von mindestens 5 Prozent auf Landesebene
erfordert hätte, was einem Wunder gleichgekommen wäre. Wenn überhaupt, so
hätte dies wohl nur mit einem Spitzenkandidaten vom Schlage eines Klaus
Johannis funktionieren können.
Der während der Jahre 2003 und 2004 merklich wachsende Unmut über
Wittstock als Abgeordneten des DFDR wurde nun von Ganþ mit der Unterstützung
Johannis” geschickt genutzt. Da eine Einheitsliste die einzig Erfolg
versprechende Option war, an Wittstock vorbei ins Parlament einzuziehen und
sich überdies eine innersächsische Opposition gegen Wittstock gebildet hatte,
konnte Ganþ die Einheitsliste durchsetzen und so als Listenführer ins Parlament
einziehen. Dies war umso leichter, da auch Johannis mit Wittstocks
Amtsführung unzufrieden war. Das restliche DFDR musste folgen, ob es wollte
oder nicht.
Das Manöver erwies sich als erfolgreich und Wittstock wurde nach über 10
Jahren Arbeit als Abgeordneter (1992–1996, 1997–2004) und Vorsitzender des
DFDR (1998–2002) fallengelassen und überdies als Bürgermeisterkandidat des
DFDR in Kronstadt und dann als unabhängiger Kandidat für den Senat
weitestgehend im Regen stehen gelassen. Nicht einmal das Amt des nun frei
werdenden Unterstaatssekretärs für interethnische Beziehungen wurde ihm
angeboten, sondern man übertrug es dem bislang politisch recht unerfahrenen
Historiker Dr. Zeno-Karl Pinter aus Ferdinandsberg-Oþelu Roºu im Banater
Bergland, der in Hermannstadt lehrend und mit einer Siebenbürger Sächsin
verheiratet, der Kandidat einer gegen Wittstock gerichteten Gruppe von Sachsen
und Landlern um Professor Martin Bottesch und Professor Dr. Hans Klein185
geworden war. Dr. Pinter hatte bei der im September 2004 in Mediasch
stattfindenden Abstimmung um Platz 1 auf der Einheitsliste drei Stimmen
erhalten, hinter Wittstock (fünf) und Ganã (zwölf).186 Da Wittstock nicht mehr
auf der Liste kandidierte, errang Dr. Pinter den zweiten Platz auf der Liste.
Als Folge dieser Schachzüge dominieren nun die Banater das DFDR neben
Bürgermeister Johannis, der in Hermannstadt “zu recht sagen kann le Forum,
c’est moi”187. Dies geschah aber nicht aufgrund politisch vorzeigbarer Leistungen
des DFDR im Banat, sondern vielmehr und ausschließlich durch geschickte
Manöver im Hintergrund, die Uneinigkeit der Siebenbürger Sachsen und die
ausdrückliche Duldung und stillschweigende Billigung des Landesvorsitzenden
Johannis. Da Johannis “als Kandidat des Banats”188 zum Landesvorsitzenden
——————
185 [Vorsitzender des Zentrumsforums Hermannstadt und Dekan der Theologischen Fakultät der Lucian
Blaga Universität Hermannstadt].
186 Gespräch mit dem Abgeordneten Ovidiu Ganã, Bukarest, 29. März 2005.
187 Ibid.
188 Ibid.
45
47
des DFDR gewählt worden war und Wittstock so sein Amt verloren hatte, war
dies eine Art Preis, die Johannis für seine Installation als Vorsitzender durch die
Banater nun zu bezahlen hatte.
Diese Entwicklung kann noch gefährlich für die Zukunft des DFDR werden,
da sie einen Präzedenzfall darstellt, der das DFDR weiter in Richtung einer nach
gängigen Mustern operierenden politischen Partei manövriert.
Zwar war es die seit 1990 verfolgte Taktik des DFDR, sich den jeweils
Regierenden so anzupassen, dass es seine eigenen Interessen mit Hilfe und als
Teil dieser verwirklichen konnte, doch war dieses Prinzip immer auf das
Verhalten gegenüber Dritten begrenzt. Durch die Abläufe im Vorfeld der
Parlamentswahlen von 2004 droht nun aber der allgemein verbreitete schlechte,
von Opportunismus und häufigen Parteiübertritten geprägte politische Stil der
anderen rumänischen Parteien auch im Forum Fuß gefasst zu haben.
C. Schluss/Fazit
Zusammenfassend kann man festhalten, dass das DFDR einer ganzen Reihe
von praktischen Problemen ausgesetzt war, die es im Wesentlichen inzwischen
lösen konnte. Darüber hinaus musste sich das DFDR auch organisatorischen
Problemen stellen. Das DFDR musste überdies einen praktischen politischen
Standpunkt entwickeln, der die Spannungen zwischen der Ablehnung
bestimmter Regierungsansätze und deren Tolerierung und Unterstützung vor
dem Hintergrund einer von einer bis zum Jahr 2004 allmächtigen Partei (PSD)
dominierten politischen Landschaft zu lösen vermochte.
War es bisher immer die Politik des Forums gewesen, seine Ziele durch eine
pragmatische Politik der Loyalität der rumänischen Regierung gegenüber, aber
in innerer Einheit, zu verfolgen und so den schwierigen Spagat zwischen seinem
expliziten Willen, eine a-politische kulturelle Organisation zu sein und seiner
impliziten Absicht, auch politisch aktiv zu sein, zu ermöglichen, so änderte sich
dies durch die Vorgänge des Jahres 2004 grundlegend. Durch sowohl die
personelle als auch die taktische Neuausrichtung wurden die Weichen klar in
Richtung auf eine politische Partei mit allen Vor — und Nachteilen gestellt. Mit
der starken Abwertung des kulturellen und traditionellen Flügels des DFDR
wurde auch das eher beschauliche Innenleben des DFDR zugunsten der in
anderen Parteien üblichen Kämpfe geopfert. Dies hat zwar im Augenblick
zahlreiche positive Effekte, doch wird es das DFDR langfristig noch mehr in
politische Abhängigkeiten gegenüber in Zukunft dominierenden Parteien
bringen, da es sich dann nicht mehr nur auf seine Rolle als kulturelle und
a-politische Organisation wird berufen können.
Man kann also eindrucksvoll sehen, dass auch im Erfolg einige schwerwiegende
Probleme liegen, die von ihrer Wirkung nicht weniger problematisch sein
können, als Zwangslagen die aus einer Niederlage resultieren.
Die zuvor geschilderte politische Realität, der sich das DFDR ausgesetzt
sieht, ist symptomatisch für Rumäniens strukturelle Probleme insgesamt. Gute
aktive demokratische Institutionen würden solche politische Instabilitäten
48
JOSEF KARL
46
verhindern; sie würden die Vertretung von Minderheiten auch ohne die
Notwendigkeit garantieren, die jeweils herrschenden Eliten zufrieden zu stellen.189
Die Beseitigung dieser politischen Unsicherheiten und die Garantie gleicher
Rechte für alle Bürger, auch für ethnische Minderheiten, wären eine erste Stufe
in Richtung der Schaffung eines positiven Rahmens für die Wirtschaft.190
Demokratisierung, Minderheitenschutz bzw. — Repräsentation und
Wirtschaftsreformen sind miteinander verbunden, und ein erfolgreicher
wirtschaftlicher Reformprozess braucht auch eine wirklich aktive und
funktionierende Demokratie mit solidem Minderheitsschutz ohne Divide et
Impera — Politik.191
Insbesondere die EU-Beitrittskriterien schließen eine gut funktionierende
und aktive Demokratie mit ein.192 Rumänien “teilt das allgemein weit
verbreitete osteuropäische Ziel, in die EU einzutreten”193, aber die in Rumänien
umgesetzten Reformmaßnahmen in Richtung auf einen politischen Pluralismus,
einen gut funktionierenden Minderheitsschutz und eine echte Marktwirtschaft
waren nur äußerst zögerlich und langsam. Die Teilreformen und — Reförmchen
gingen des Öfteren publikumswirksam einen Schritt nach vorne, um dann
klammheimlich wieder zwei Schritte zurück zu gehen, was letztendlich
zwangsläufig in eine Sackgasse führen wird.194 Oft wurde sogar lediglich eine
reine Änderung des Titels oder Namens vorgenommen, was insbesondere auf
dem Feld des Minderheitsschutzes kaum als ausreichend bezeichnet werden
kann. Obwohl Rumänien trotz dieser Defizite den Weg in die EU geschafft hat,
werden diese ungelösten Probleme durch den Beitritt in die EU noch
problematischer werden, da dann auch der Wettbewerb, dem sich Rumänien
stellen werden muss, stark anwachsen wird.
Gegenwärtig ist der Rahmen der Gesetzgebung instabil, das politische
System hoch fragwürdig und der Boden für Korruption überaus fruchtbar.195
Überdies sind der begonnene Dezentralisierungsprozess und die
wirtschaftspolitischen Maßnahmen voll von ganz beträchtlichen Mängeln. Das
Niveau der wirklichen und strukturellen Wirtschaftsreformen und die zur
Anwendung gekommenen wirtschaftspolitischen Maßnahmen sind noch recht
dürftig.196 Die rumänische Zivilgesellschaft ist immer noch recht schwach, die
politische Führungsschicht ohne robuste Alternative und die Rechtsstaatlichkeit
immer noch weit vom Idealzustand entfernt.197 Eine sich als positiv abhebende
Politik ist zuletzt kaum ersichtlich und das Niveau des Minderheitenschutzes ist
— so gut es theoretisch auch klingen mag- in der Praxis gering, wenn man es
zum Beispiel mit dem in Ungarn vergleicht.
——————
189 Vgl. Przeworski, Problems in the Study of Transition to Democracy.
190 Rose, Evaluating Long and Short-Term Transformation in Central Europe.
191 Vgl. Sachs, Zinnes und Eilat, The Gains from Privatization.
192 Vgl. Smith und Wright (Hg.), Whose Europe?
194 Stolojan, Policy Making in Romania, S. 16.
195 Vgl. Wallace und Haerpfer, Democratisation, Economic Development and Corruption.
196 Vgl. Griechische Nationalbank, Overview of the Romanian Economy.
47
49
Daher verwundert es nicht weiter, dass Rumänien “am weitesten von einer
stabilen Demokratie entfernt ist”198, wenn man es mit anderen
postkommunistischen Ländern der ersten EU-Osterweiterungsrunde vergleicht.
Darüber hinaus hat diese rumänische Divide et impera — Politik auch die
politische Rolle des DFDR stark beeinflusst. Dadurch, dass die rumänische
Führung die deutsche Minderheit als Mittel zum Zweck für ihre eigenen
politischen Interessen entdeckte, beschleunigte die PSD das Hineinwachsen des
DFDR in seine neue politische Rolle, über die als eigentliche kulturelle
Vertretung der deutschen Minderheit hinaus. Die PSD schwächte damit
allerdings auch die Einheit unter den Minderheitengruppen insgesamt. Dies
bedeutet für das DFDR, dass es, solange es während der Jahre 2000 bis 2004
seine Loyalität zur und seine Unterordnung unter die rumänische Regierung
betonte, in seinen Wünschen und Problemen unterstützt wurde.199
Wenn man vor diesem Hintergrund die Gesamtanalyse dieser Arbeit Revue
passieren lässt und insbesondere die Entwicklung der Beziehungen zwischen dem
DFDR und dem rumänischen Staat betrachtet, so wird ganz offensichtlich, dass
das Ziel seiner Gründer, das DFDR zu einer unabhängigen Stimme der
deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien gegenüber den deutschen und rumänischen
Regierungen zu machen, nur sehr geringfügig erfüllt wurde. Obwohl das DFDR
Bukarests exklusiver Partner mit Bezug auf seine Bürger deutscher Nationalität
ist, bringt dies de facto nicht sehr viele Vorteile für die Deutschen. Diese
ausschlaggebenden Faktoren sollten in Betracht gezogen werden, wenn man die
auf den ersten Blick sehr erfreulichen Wahlergebnisse des Jahres 2004 analysiert.
Je mächtiger das DFDR nämlich wird, desto mehr wird es seine Loyalität
gegenüber der jeweils vorherrschenden Partei und gegenüber dem rumänischen
Staat betonen müssen. Andererseits trug die völlige politische Vorherrschaft der
PSD bis zum Jahr 2004, ihr Widerwillen zu politischen Reformen, ihr
Missbrauch politischer Macht und ihr Benutzen des DFDR auf außenpolitischer
Ebene ganz entscheidend dazu bei, dass sich das DFDR als lokale Alternative
zur PSD entwickeln konnte. Daher wurde es absolut notwendig für das DFDR,
alternative politische Partnerschaften zu entwickeln und es ist absehbar, dass das
DFDR seine Loyalität auch in Zukunft dem Staat gegenüber in dem Maße
stärker betonen muss, in dem es an politischer Macht gewinnt.
Dies führt zum Schluss, dass das DFDR, während es versuchte, ein gewisses
Maß an Unabhängigkeit zu sichern, trotzdem in gewisser Weise eine Marionette
——————
198 Ibid., S. 364.
199 [Den Deutschen wurde eine Art Vorzugsbehandlung zuteil, wie man am Beispiel der zweisprachigen
Ortstafeln sehen kann, die den Ungarn oft sogar in Städten mit einem äußerst großen ungarischen
Bevölkerungsanteil verwehrt werden. Diese werden den Deutschen großzügig gewährt, selbst wenn sie eine
recht kleine Minderheit in den neu benannten Dörfern und Städten darstellen. Gemäß einer
Regierungsentscheidung sind die Stadt- und Lokalräte von Städten und Gemeinden mit einem
Minderheitenanteil von mehr als 20 Prozent der Gesamtbevölkerung dazu verpflichtet, zweisprachige
Ortstafeln aufzustellen, öffentliche Erklärungen (“anunþuri de interes public”) zweisprachig auf Rumänisch
und in der entsprechenden Minderheitensprache herauszugeben und zweisprachige Bezeichnungen für
öffentliche Institutionen (“unitãþi proprii”) zu verwenden]. Von: Brief des DFDR-Landesforums an seine
Regionalforen im Banat, in Siebenbürgen und in Sathmar vom 29. Juli 1997. In: Archiv-Akte A3, Juli 1997.
50
JOSEF KARL
48
im politischen Geschehen blieb. Ganz im Gegenteil zu seiner expliziten Absicht,
eine a-politische Organisation der deutschen Minderheit zu sein, hat es implizit
über die Jahre hinweg eine starke politische Facette entwickelt.
Diese Arbeit hat gezeigt, wie das DFDR diese paradoxe Situation durch seinen
permanenten Diskurs, basierend auf Beispielen aus der Zwischenkriegszeit200,
“eine Organisation in innerer Einheit und Loyalität gegenüber dem rumänischen
Staat” zu schaffen, gelöst hat.
LITERATURVERZEICHNIS
I. Ungedruckte Quellen
1. Archivmaterialien
DFDR-Akten, katalogisiert und unkatalogisiert aufbewahrt im Landesforum des DFDR in Sibiu-Hermannstadt:
System: “A-Akten” (Allgemein)
A1: Auslandskorrespondenz
A2: Inlandskorrespondenz
A3: Forum Intern
A4: Korrespondenz mit BMI
A5: Minderheitenfragen
A6: Enteignungsfragen
A7: Minderheitenpublikationen
A8: Wahlen
A9: Regierung, Ministerien
A10: Dt.-Rum. Regierungskommission
A11: Schulkommission
A12: Allgemeine Kontakte
“B-Akten” (Besonderes)201
B1: Persönlich
B2: Sitzungen
B3: Kultur
B4: Kontakte-Forum
B5: Kontakte-Inland
B6: Kontakte-Ausland
B7: Kontakte-Akademisch
B8: Sonstiges
2. Gespräche mit
Balázs, Lilla, Târgu Secuiesc, jetzt Bukarest (Rumänien), Wirtschaftswissenschaftlerin, seit 2003 Referentin
für Auslandsbeziehungen des Vorsitzenden des Ungarnverbandes UDMR (Bukarest, Rumänien, 7. April
2005).
Bein, Daniel, Hamburg (Deutschland), Ethnologe (Gundelsheim am Neckar, Deutschland, 11. November 2003).
Borger, Hansmartin, Hermannstadt (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), Dipl. Ingenieur (Univ.), Geschäftsführer des
Demokratischen Forums der Deutschen in Rumänien (DFDR/F.D.G.R.) (Hermannstadt, Rumänien, 17.
Juli 2002, 22., 24. und 29. März 2003).
——————
200 Roth, Politische Strukturen und Strömungen bei den Siebenbürger Sachsen 1919–1933.
201 [Mir wurde vollständiger Zugang zu allen “A-Akten” gewährt und zu allen “B-Akten”, die von vor
November 2000 stammten. Die “B-Akten” der Wahlperiode 2000–2004 wurden mir erst nach den
Parlamentswahlen im November 2004 offengelegt].
49
51
Bunzmann, Egon Erwin Lajos, Radau?i/Radautz (Bukowina, Rumänien), jetzt Regensburg, Redakteur im
Ruhestand (Regensburg, Deutschland, 20. Dezember 2001, 6. Januar 2002).
[Egon Erwin Lajos Bunzmann, geboren 1921 in Dunavecse, Ungarn, lebt jetzt in Zeiler bei Regensburg. Von
1922 bis 1940 lebte er in Radautz (Rumänisch: Radauþi), Bukowina, als die Buchenlanddeutschen in das
Deutsche Reich umgesiedelt wurden. Bis 1945 diente er in der deutschen Luftwaffe in Italien, Frankreich
und Polen. Nach dem Krieg war Herr Bunzmann mehrmals der offizielle Dolmetscher einiger westdeutscher
politischer Delegationen, die ihn mit dem damaligen Bundesminister Hermann Höcherl (CSU) zwischen
1966 und 1969 nach Rumänien führten. Der Autor begleitete Herrn Bunzmann im August/September 1998
nach Rumänien.].
Dorian, Dorel, Bukarest (Rumänien), pensionierter Ingenieur, Chefredakteur der Zeitschrift der jüdischen
Minderheit in Rumänien “Relitatea Evreiascã”, Vorstandsmitglied des Verbandes der jüdischen Minderheit
in Rumänien “Federaþia Comunitãþilor Evreieºti din România” (F.C.E.R.), Abgeordneter der F.C.E.R. in
der Abgeordnetenkammer von 1996 bis 2004, (Bukarest, Rumänien, 7. April 2005).
Fritsch, Wilhelm, Steierdorf (Banat, Rumänien), pensionierter stellvertretender Rektor des Von-MüllerGymnasiums Regensburg, früherer stellvertretender Bürgermeister von Steierdorf-Anina (1962–1967),
(Regensburg, Deutschland, 15. März 2002 und 12. Juli 2002).
[Wilhelm Fritsch, geboren im Jahr 1936 in Kronstadt (Rumänisch: Braºov), Siebenbürgen, Rumänien,
stellvertretender Rektor im Ruhestand des Von-Müller-Gymnasiums, lebt jetzt in Regensburg,
Deutschland. Herr Fritsch flüchtete aus Rumänien über Ungarn im Jahr 1971. Er war der offizielle
Vertreter der deutschen Bevölkerung seiner Heimatstadt Steierdorf-Anina (Banat, Rumänien). In dieser
Funktion agierte Herr Fritsch als der stellvertretende Bürgermeister von Anina. Der Autor begleitete Herrn
Fritsch im Juli 2002 nach Rumänien.]
Ganã, Ovidiu, Temeschwar (Banat), ehemals Gymnasiallehrer am deutschsprachigen Nikolaus Lenau Lyzeum
in Temeschwar, 2000 bis 2004 Unterstaatssekretär im Departement für Interethnische Beziehungen der
rumänischen Regierung für das DFDR, seit Dezember 2004 Mitglied der rumänischen Abgeordnetenkammer
als Abgeordneter des DFDR in der “Fraktion der kleinen Minderheiten” und Mitglied des Schul — und
Europaausschusses der Abgeordnetenkammer, (Bukarest, Rumänien, 29. März 2005).
Hicks, Michael, University of Oxford, MSc (Oxon) in Economic and Social History, Bachelor (Hons) (Oxon)
in Neuerer Geschichte und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Herr Hicks war als Geschäftsmann zwischen 1991
und 1998 in Rumänien tätig (Oxford, Großbritannien, 24. Juni 2002).
Kahr, Helmut, Mureck (Südsteiermark, Österreich), Vorsitzender der steirischen Wohltätigkeitsgesellschaft
“Hilfe für Rumänien” (Koordinator seit 1973), unterstützt durch die österreichische Bundesregierung bei
humanitären Direkthilfen und im rumänischen Teil des Banats (e.g.: Lenauheim) (Temeschburg/
Temesvar/Timiºoara, Reschitz/Reºiþa), Inhaber der Humanitas-Medaille” des Bundeslandes Steiermark
(Hermannstadt, Rumänien, 18. Juli 2002).
[Der Autor begleitete Herrn Kahr im Juli 2002 nach Rumänien.]
Kalmár, Zoltán, Hermannstadt (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), Ökonom im Ruhestand 1993 Mitbegründer der
ungarischen Kulturvereinigung “Polgàri Magyar Müvelödési Egyesúlet”, Vorsitzender seit 1993,
Herausgeber des monatlich erscheinenden ungarischen Kulturmagazins Nagyszeben És Vidéke Közéleti
Kulturális Lap (d.h.: Kulturzeitung für Hermannstadt und Umgebung) (Hermannstadt, Rumänien, 28.
September 2003).
Kleppmann, Ulrich, (Amberg in der Oberpfalz), jetzt Skopje, Republik Mazedonien, Wirtschaftswissenschaftler,
Major d.R., ehemals Zeitsoldat und stellv. Militärattache in Taschkent, Usbekistan, seit Juli 2004 Leiter
der Außenstelle Skopje der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (Skopje, 3. Juni 2005).
Matei, Horia C., Hermannstadt (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), jetzt Bukarest, Historiker und Verleger, Direktor
und Eigentümer des Meronia Verlages Bukarest (Bukarest, 10. März 2005).
Oiºteanu, Andrei, Bukarest (Rumänien), Ingenieur, Publizist, Mitglied in der Gruppe “Grupul pentru Dialog
Social”, Mitglied im Verbandes der jüdischen Minderheit in Rumänien “Federaþia Comunitãþilor Evreiºti
din România” (F.C.E.R.) (Bukarest, 4. März 2005).
Philippi, Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Paul, Hermannstadt (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), vorher Heidelberg,
Deutschland, Ordinarius (Evangelische Theologie) der Universitäten von Heidelberg (emeritiert) und der
“Lucian Blaga” Universität von Hermannstadt, 1992–1998 Vorsitzender des Demokratischen Forums der
Deutschen in Rumänien (DFDR/F.D.G.R.), seit 1998 Ehrenpräsidenten (Hermannstadt, Rumänien, 1. und
4. April 2003).
Pinter, Dr. Zeno-Karl, Hermannstadt (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), vorher Oþelu Roºu, Banater Bergland,
Rumänien, Geschichtsdozent an der “Lucian Blaga” Universität Hermannstadt sein 1990, seit 2004
Unterstaatssekretär im Departement für Interethnische Beziehungen der rumänischen Regierung für das
DFDR, (Bukarest, Rumänien, 11. April 2005).
Porr, Dr. Paul-Jürgen, Klausenburg (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), Arzt, seit 1994 Vorsitzender des Regionalforums
Siebenbürgen des DFDR und stellvertretender Landesvorsitzender des DFDR (Klausenburg, Rumänien,
11. März 2005).
52
JOSEF KARL
50
Reichrath, Emmerich, Temeschwar (Banat, Rumänien), jetzt Bukarest, Chefredakteur der ADZ (Bukarest,
Rumänien, 11. März 2005).
Rösler, Rudolf, Bistriþa/Bistritz (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), jetzt Regensburg, Magister Silvarius, pensionierter
Forstwirtschaftsdirektor (Regensburg, Deutschland, 6. Januar 2002).
[Rudolf Rösler wurde im Jahr 1934 in Sächsisch-Sankt Georgen, Nordsiebenbürgen, Rumänien, geboren. Herr
Rösler ist Magister Silvarius, Botaniker und Jagdgelehrter, er studierte Forstwirtschaftswissenschaften an
der Universität Kronstadt (Rumänisch: Braºov), Siebenbürgen, Rumänien. Von 1958 bis 1976 arbeitete Herr
Rösler in der Staatsforstverwaltung Rumäniens. Im Jahr 1976 wanderte er in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
aus und von 1976 bis zu seinem Ruhestand im Jahr 1999 war er als leitender Forstwirtschaftsdirektor im
Forstamt Regensburg tätig. Im Jahr 1987 wurde Herr Rösler zum “Berater des Europäischen Rates
bezüglich der Waldverwaltung des östlichen und südöstlichen Europa” berufen. Herr Rösler ist der Autor
mehrerer Studien und Forschungsarbeiten auf dem Gebiet der Forstgeschichte Rumäniens.]
Rudolph, Dr. Florian, Bukarest (Rumänien), Kulturreferent an der deutschen Botschaft Bukarest seit Sommer
2004 (Bukarest, Rumänien, 5. April 2005).
Stendl, Professor Dr. Ioan Ernest (Hans-Ernst), Reschitz (Banater Bergland, Rumänien), jetzt Bukarest,
Bildhauer und Maler, Professor an der Bukarester Kunstuniversität (Bukarest, 31. März 2005).
Þurlea, Prof. Dr. Petre, Ploieºti (Rumänien), Professor für Neuere Geschichte an der Universität Ploieºti, von
1990 bis 2000 Abgeordneter der FSN (1990–1992), dann parteilos (1992–1993) und der P.U.N.R. (1993–
2000), seit 2001 wissenschaftlicher Berater der Fraktion der PRM in der rumänischen
Abgeordnetenkammer (Bukarest, Rumänien, 30. März 2005).
Wittstock, Eberhard-Wolfgang, Kronstadt (Siebenbürgen, Rumänien), Vorstandsmitglied des Demokratischen
Forums der Deutschen in Rumänien und Mitglied der ersten Kammer (Abgeordnetenhaus) des
rumänischen Parlaments (Camera Deputaþilor) von 1992–1996 und zwischen 1997 und 2004, 1992–1997
und 1997–2004 Mitglied der “Fraktion der Nationalen Minderheiten”, 2000-2004 direkt gewählter
Abgeordneter des Wahlkreises von Hermannstadt, 1998-2002 Vorsitzender des DFDR, seit März 2005
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender des ADZ-Verlages (Hermannstadt, Rumänien, 21. März und 3. April 2003).
3. Rede
Nãstase, Adrian, Rumänischer Premierminister, Vorsitzender der zwischen 2000 und 2004 regierenden
Sozialdemokratischen Partei (Partidul Social Democrat, PSD), Oxford Union (Oxford, 7. November
2001).
4. Tutorium
Crampton, Richard, Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Südosteuropäische Geschichte, Dr. phil., South Eastern
European History, Tutorium, WS 2003/2004, Universität Oxford (2003/2004).
5. Filme und Fernsehdokumentationen
Südwest 3: Schauplatz der Geschichte: Siebenbürgen, Sonntag, 6. August 1995, 16.55 Uhr.
ARTE Fernsehen: Brandstätter, Susanne, Schachmatt — Strategie einer Revolution, Dokumentation,
Deutschland/Frankreich/Österreich/Rumänien/Ungarn/USA 2003, ZDF, Erstausstrahlung, 16:9, 60 Min.
(Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2004, 20.45 Uhr).
6. Internetquellen
www.ceausescu.com
www.factbook.ro/countryreports/ro
www.guv.ro
www.rferl.org
Open Media Research Institute (OMRI): Daily Digest, E-Mailverteiler mit tagesaktuellen Nachrichten (Prag,
Tschechische Republik).
II. Gedruckte Quellen
Zeitungen und Magazine
Allgemeine Deutsche Zeitung für Rumänien (ADZ) (Deutsche Tageszeitung für Rumänien) (Bukarest, Rumänien)
“Volksaktion fusioniert mit Lupu-Partei”, in: ADZ, Nr. 2640 (7. Juni 2003), S. 1.
“Ohne schnelle Reformen kein EU-Beitritt 2007”, in: ADZ, Nr. 2645 (14. Juni 2003), S. 1.
51
53
“Umfrage zum Stand der Korruption”, in: ADZ, Nr. 2655 (28. Juni 2003), S. 1.
“Wie demokratisch ist die Sozialdemokratische Partei?”, in: ADZ, Nr. 2832 (10. März 2004), S. 3.
“Totales Vertrauensvotum”, in: ADZ, Nr. 2896 (9. Juni 2004), S. 8.
“PSD erzielte die meisten Mandate, PNL und PD die meisten Stimmen”, in: ADZ, Nr. 2906 (23. Juni
2004), S. 1.
“Teilergebnisse: Kleinere Differenz zwischen den beiden Bündnissen”, in: ADZ, Nr. 3021 (1. Dezember
2004), S. 1–2.
“Sonderklausel für Rumänien ist viel strenger als bei Bulgarien”, in: ADZ, Nr. 3028 (11. Dezember 2004),
S. 1.
“Scheidender Präsident Iliescu hat berüchtigten Bergarbeiterführer Miron Cozma begnadigt”, in: ADZ,
Nr. 3033 (18. Dezember 2004), S. 1.
“Eine Regierung um die Liberalen und Demokraten zeichnet sich ab”, in: ADZ, Nr. 3034 (21. Dezember
2004), S. 1.
“Iliescu kriegt weitere Orden zurückgeschickt”, in: ADZ, Nr. 3034 (21. Dezember 2004), S. 1.
“Minderheiten-Fraktion unterstützt die Bildung einer Regierung PNL-PD”, in: ADZ, Nr. 3036 (23.
“Vereidigung der neuen Regierung und Investitur durch das Parlament”, in: ADZ, Nr. 3040 (30. Dezember
2004), S. 1.
“Ungarn und Rumänien vereinbarten gemeinsame Kabinettsitzungen”, in: ADZ, Nr. 3053 (19. Januar
2005), S. 1.
Banater Zeitung (BZ) (Wochenblatt für Temesch, Arad und das Banater Bergland) (Temeschburg/Temesvar/
Timiºoara, Rumänien)
Cãrãmidariu, Dan, “Gemeinsam die Zukunft sichern”, in: BZ, 11. Jg., Nr. 499 (18. Juni 2003), S. 2.
Wagner, Richard, “Die neue Regierung”, in: Banater Zeitung, Nr. 581 (12. Januar 2005), S. 1.
Curierul de Vest (Rumänische Wochenzeitung, herausgegeben in Deutschland) (Reutlingen, Deutschland)
“Fostul preºedinte al României ºi-a lansat noul partid”, in: Curierul de Vest, Nr. 22 (28. Mai 2003), S. 2.
Curierul Românesc (Zeitschrift der Rumänischen Kulturvereinigung Fundaþia Culturalã Românã) (Bukarest,
Rumänien)
Grosu, Aneta, “Românii de dincolo de noi”, in: Curierul Românesc, Nr. 1 (167) (Januar 2001), S. 5.
Hermannstädter Zeitung (HZ) (Deutsche Wochenzeitung für den Kreis Hermannstadt) Hermannstadt/Sibiu,
Rumänien)
Stãnescu, Ruxandra und Weber, Horst, “Alle Ethnien geschrumpft”, in: HZ, Nr. 1786 (12. Juli 2002), S. 1.
Henkel, Jürgen, “Ostalgie und Heldentod: Was von den Revolutionen übrigbleibt”, in: HZ, Nr. 1827 (16.
Mai 2003), S. 3.
Seewann, Gerhard, “Kommunismus und Minderheiten”, in: HZ, Nr. 1835 (11. Juli 2003), S. 5.
“Käufliche Richter”, in: HZ, Nr. 1831 (13. Juni 2003), S. 1.
Opposition rebelliert”, in: HZ, Nr. 1906 (3. Dezember 2004), S. 1-2.
Karpaten Rundschau (KR) (Kronstädter Wochenschrift) (Kronstadt/Bra?ov, Rumänien)
Blandiana, Ana, “Übergänge”, (Aus dem Rumänischen ins Deutsche übersetzt von Marianne Siegmund)
in: KR, Nr. 22 (2712) (31. Mai 2003), S. 1.
Lumea (Magazin für internationale Politik) (Bukarest, Rumänien).
“Republica Moldova: Virajul spre Moscova”, in: Lumea, Nr. 3 (95) (2001), S. 10.
Provincia (Vierteljährlich erscheinende Akademische Rundschau Siebenbürgens) (Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár/
Klausenburg, Rumänien)
Andreescu, Gabriel, “Naþionalismul civic: între ciocan ºi nicovalã”, in: Provincia Nr. 2 (Mai 2000), S. 6.
România Liberã (Wöchentlich erscheinende Internationale Ausgabe der Tageszeitung România Liberã)
(Bukarest, Rumänien)
Lucaciu, Ileana, “Autoritatea Electoralã Permanentã subordonat? PSD?”, in: România Liberã, Nr. 670
(15.–21. Mai 2003), S. 3.
România Mare (Wöchentlich erscheinende Parteizeitung der Großrumänien-Partei /Partidul România Mare,
PRM) (Bukarest, Rumänien)
Roman, Viorel, Prof. Dr., “Românii ºi maghiarii la Limes”, in: România Mare, Nr. 663 (28. März 2003),
S. 6-a.
III. Literatur
1. Bücher und Studien
Agh, Attila, Emerging Democracies in East Central Europe and the Balkans, E. Elgar (Cheltenham (UK) und
Northampton (USA), 1998).
54
JOSEF KARL
52
Alter, Peter, Nationalismus (Frankfurt am Main, 1985).
Anderson, Benedikt, Imagined Communities — Reflections on the origin and spread of Nationalism, Verbo
(London und New York, 1983).
Anger, Eberhard (Hg.), Der Brockhaus in einem Band, Bibliographisches Institut & F.A. Brockhaus AG
(Mannheim, 1992).
Ascherson, Neal, “1989 in Eastern Europe: Constitutional Representative Government as a “Return to
Normality?”, in: Dunn, John (Hg.), Democracy, The Unfinished Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993, OUP
(Oxford, 1992), S. 221–37.
Baleanu, C. M., “Romania — Resources for the Region”, in: Komzinski, A. K. and Yip, G. S. (Hgg.),
Strategies for Central and Eastern Europe, Macmillan Press (London, 2000), S. 209–39.
Barany, Zoltan, “Minorities in Romania. Favorable Trends for Romania”s Roma”, in: Transition Events and
issues in the former Soviet Union and East-Central Europe, 20 October 1995, S. 26–31.
Berend, Ivan T. und Ranki, György, Economic Development in East Central Europe in the Nineteenth and
Twentieth Centuries, Columbia University Press (New York, 1982).
Beveridge, W., Voluntary Action, Allen & Unwin (London, 1948).
Bodea, Cornelia, The Romanians” Struggle for Unification 1834–1849, Publishing House of the Socialist
Republic of Romania (Bukarest, 1970).
Boia, Lucian, Istorie ºi mit în conºtiinþa româneascã, Humanitas (Bukarest, 1997).
__________, România — Þarã De Frontierã A Europei, Humanitas (Bukarest, 2002).
Borsody, Stephen, Hungarians, a Divided Nation, OUP (Oxford, 1988).
Brunner, Georg (Hgg.), Osteuropa zwischen Nationalstaat und Integration (Berlin, 1995).
Bryant, Christopher G. A., “Civil Nation, Civil Society, Civil Religion”, in: Hall, John A. (Hg.), Civil Society
(Cambridge, 1995), S. 136–57.
Bulei, Ion, A Short History of Romania, Editura Meronia (Bukarest, 2005).
Câmpeanu, Pavel, Ceauºescu anii num?r?torii inverse, Polirom (Bukarest, 2002).
Carothers, Thomas, Assessing Democracy Assistance: The Case of Romania, The Carnegie Endowment
(Washington D.C., 1996).
Chirot, Daniel (Hg.), The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe, University of California Press (Oxford,
1989).
Cohen, Stephen F., Failed Crusade — America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia, W.W. Norton &
Company (New York und London, 2000).
Constantinescu, Emil, “Cuvânt înainte”, in: Filipescu, Nicolae, Occidentalizarea postcommunistã, Polirom
(Bukarest, 2002), S. 5-9.
Crampton, R. J., Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century — And After, Second Edition, Routledge (London
und New York, 1997, Reprint 2000).
__________, The Balkans since the Second World War, First Edition, Longman (London et. al., 2002).
__________, und Crampton, Ben, Atlas of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, Routledge (London,
1996, Reprint 2001).
Dahrendorf, Ralf, Dupã 1989, Humanitas (Bukarest, 2001).
Demokratisches Forum der Deutschen in Rumänien (DFDR/FDGR), Deutsches Jahrbuch für Rumänien 2003,
ADZ Verlag, (Bukarest, 2003).
Diamond, Larry und Plattner, Marc F. (Hg.) Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict and Democracy, The John Hopkins
University Press (Baltimore und London, 1994).
Diamondouros, P. N., Gunther, R. und Puhle, H.-J. (Hgg.), The Politics of Democratic Consolidation: Southern
Europe in Comparative Perspective, John Hopkins University Press (Baltimore und London, 1995).
Erich, Renate M., “Roma in den ehemaligen Staaten Ost- und Südosteuropas”, in: Heinschink, Mozes F. (Hg.),
Roma — Das unbekannte Volk — Schicksal und Kultur (Vienna, 1994), S. 29–48.
Filipescu, Nicolae, Occidentalizarea postcommunistã, Polirom (Bukarest, 2002).
Fisher-Galati, Stephen, Twentieth Century Romania, Second Edition, Columbia University Press (New York, 1991).
Gabanyi, Anneli-Ute, Systemwechsel in Rumänien: Von der Revolution zur Transformation, Oldenbourg
(München, 1998).
__________, Die unvollendete Revolution: Rumänien zwischen Diktatur und Demokratie, Piper (München,
1990).
Gallagher, Tom, Romania after Ceauºescu: The Politics of Intolerance, Edinburgh University Press
(Edinburgh, 1995).
__________, “The Balkans since 1989: The Winding Retreat from National Communism”, in: White, Batt und
Lewis, Developments in Central and East European Politics, S. 74–91, MacMillan (London, 2003).
Gellner, Ernst, Nations and Nationalism, Basil Blackwell (Oxford, 1983).
Georgescu, Vlad, Political Ideas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities 1750–1831, East
European Quarterly (Boulder, 1971).
53
55
Gilberg, Trond, Nationalism and Communism in Romania: The Rise and Fall of Ceausescu”s Personal
Dictatorship, Westview Press (Boulder Colorado, 1990).
Glenny, Misha, The Rebirth of History. Eastern Europe in the Age of Democracy, Penguin (London, 1990).
Göllner, Carl (Hg.), Die Siebenbürger Sachsen in den Jahren 1848–1918, (Köln und Wien, 1988).
Gregor, A. James, Italian Fascism And Developmental Dictatorship, Princeton University Press (New Jersey,
1979).
Guentcheva, Rossitza, State, Nation and language: the Bulgarian community in the region Banat from the
1860s until the 1990s, PhD. 24624 (University of Cambridge) 29. Mai 2001.
Gündisch, Konrad, Wahrung der Eigenständigkeit trotz wechselnder Staats-Zugehörigkeit. Eine 850-jährige
Geschichte im Überblick (Gundelsheim, 1999).
Guvernul României — Consiliul pentru minoritãþile naþionale (Ed.), Învãþãmântul cu predarea în limbile
minoritãþilor naþionale din România. Anul ºcolar 1993/1994 (i.e.: Das Bildungssystem in den Sprachen
der Nationalen Minderheiten Rumäniens, 1993/1994) (Bukarest, 1994).
Halecki, Oskar, Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (Safety Harbor, 1980).
Hitchins, Keith, Rumania 1866-1947, Clarendon Press (Oxford, 1994).
Hochstrasser, Rosemarie, Die siebenbürgisch-sächsische Gesellschaft in ihrem strukturellen Wandel (Sibiu
und Heidelberg, 2002).
Hoffstadt, Stephan und Zippel, Edgar, Reiseland Rumänien (Moers, 1992).
Holmes, Leslie, The Democratic State or State Democracy? Problems of Post-Communist Transition, Jean
Monnet Chair Paper RSC No. 97/48, European University Institute (Florenz, 1997).
Huntington, Samuel P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, University of
Oklahoma Press (Norman (USA), 1991).
Hutchinson, John und Smith, Anthony D. (Hgg.), Nationalism, OUP (Oxford und New York, 1994).
Iliescu, Ion, Aufbruch nach Europa, Böhlau (Köln, 1995).
Illyes, Elemer, Nationale Minderheiten in Rumänien. Siebenbürgen im Wandel (Wien, 1981).
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), “Fulfilling the Aspirations of Transition”, in:
Capacity Building Series (Strömsborg, Schweden, 1998).
Jelavich, Barbara, History of the Balkans: Twentieth Century, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, 1983).
Kendi, Erich, Minderheitenschutz in Rumänien. Die rechtliche Normierung der ethnischen Minderheiten in
Rumänien (München, 1992).
Kinder, Hermann (Hg.), Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Piper Verlag (München, 1992).
Kohn, Hans, The Idea of Nationalism (New York, 1945).
Kolarz, Walter, Mituri ?i realit??i în Europa de Est, Polirom (Bukarest, 2003).
Kosáry, Domokos, “Der Nationalstaat und seine Zukunft”, in: Brunner, Georg
(Hgg.), Osteuropa zwischen Nationalstaat und Integration (Berlin, 1995), S. 11–28.
Kozminski, A. K., Yip, G. S. und Dempster, A. M., “Evaluating the Central and Eastern European Opportunity
— Eastern Promise”, in: Kozminski, A. K. and Yip, G. S. (Eds.), Strategies for Central and Eastern Europe,
Macmillan Press, (London, 2000), S. 1-32.
Lampe, John, R., “Imperial Borderlands or Capitalist Periphery? Redefining Balkan Backwardness, 1520–
1914”, in: Chirot, Daniel (Hg.), The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe, University of California
Press, (Los Angeles und Oxford, 1989), S. 177–209.
Leuºtean, Lucian, România, Ungaria ?i Tratatul de la Trianon 1918-1920, Polirom (Bukarest, 2002).
Lewis, Paul G., Political Parties in Post-Communist Eastern Europe, Routledge (London und New York,
2000).
Linz, J. und Stepan, A., Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation,
John Hopkins University Press (Baltimore und London, 1996).
Macków, Jerzy, Parlamentarische Demokratie und Autoritarismus, LIT Verlag (Hamburg, 1998).
__________, Am Rande Europas? Nation, Zivilgesellschaft und außenpolitische Integration in Belarus,
Litauen, Polen, Russland und der Ukraine, Herder Verlag (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2004).
Marshall, T. H., Class, Citizenship, and Social Development, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, 1963).
Merkel, Wolfgang (Hg.) und Henkes, Christian, Systemwechsel 5. Zivilgesellschaft und Transformationen,
Opladen (2000).
Mittelstrass, Otto (Hg.), Historisch-Landeskundlicher Atlas von Siebenbürgen, Arbeitskreis für
Siebenbürgische Landeskunde (Heidelberg, 1992).
Molnar, Miklós, A Concise History of Hungary, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, 2001).
Mommsen, Hans, Arbeiterbewegung und nationale Frage — Ausgewählte Aufsätze (Göttingen, 1979).
Motyl, Alexander J., Revolutions, Nations, Empires — Conceptual Limits and Theoretical Possibilities,
Columbia University Press (New York, 1999).
Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina und Althabe, Gérard, Secera þi buldozerul, Polirom (Bukarest, 2002).
National Bank of Greece, Overview of the Romanian Economy (Athen, Mai 2000).
56
JOSEF KARL
54
North, D., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press
(Cambridge, 1990).
O”Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. und Whitehead, L. (Hgg.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, John Hopkins
University Press (Baltimore und London, 1991).
Oschlies, Wolf, Ceauºescus Schatten schwindet: Politische Geschichte Rumäniens 1988–1998, Böhlau (Köln,
Weimar und Wien, 1998).
Paduraru, Anca, “German Minority, Novels”, in: Deutsche Welle, English Service (11. Februar 2004).
Przeworski, Adam, “Problems in the Study of Transition to Democracy”, in: O”Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. und
Whitehead, L. (Hgg.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, John Hopkins University Press (Baltimore und
London, 1991), S. 47–63.
Pavlowitch, Stevan K., A History of the Balkans 1804–1945, Longman (London und New York, 1999).
_________, Istoria Balcanilor 1804-1945, Polirom (Bukarest, 2002).
Pérez-Díaz, Victor, The Return of Civil Society. The Emergence of Democratic Spain,
Harvard University
Press (Cambridge, Massachusetts und London, 1993).
Pippidi, Andrei, “Antisemitismul în România dupã “89 fapte ºi interpretãri”, in: Institute for Recent Romanian
History (Institutul Român de Istorie Recentã), Anuarul, Polirom (Bukarest, 2003), S. 152–72.
Popescu, Alexandru, Istoria Rela?iilor Culturale Româno-Germane, Romania Press (Bukarest, 1998).
Rateº, Nestor, Romania: The Entangled Revolution, Praeger (New York, 1991).
Roth, Harald, Politische Strukturen und Strömungen bei den Siebenbürger Sachsen 1919–1933 (Köln und
Wien, 1994).
Rumänisches Institut für Neuere Geschichte (Institutul Român de Istorie Recentã), Despre Holocaust ºi
Comunism, Anuarul, Polirom (Bukarest, 2003).
Sachs, Jeffrey D., Zinnes C. und Eilat Y., The Gains from Privatization in Transition Economies: Is “Change
of Ownership” enough? (Cambridge MA, Februar 2000).
Sakwa, R. (Hg.), The Experience of Democratization in Eastern Europe, Macmillan (London, 1995).
_________, “The Democratic Experience”, in: Sakwa, R. (Hg.), The Experience of Democratization in Eastern
Europe, S. 1–15.
ªandor, Dorel, “Politics Versus Policies: How to Succeed in Blocking Reforms”, Paper of the Conference
Romania 2000 — 10 years of transition. Past, Present, Future, World Bank Office, Romania (Bukarest,
2000).
Schreiber, Wilfried E., “Demographische Entwicklungen bei den Rumäniendeutschen”, in: Südosteuropa
Mitteilungen, 33, 3/1993, S. 204–11.
Seton-Watson, R. W., History of the Roumanians, (Cambridge, 1934).
Seton-Watson, J., Nations and States: An Enquiry into the origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism,
Methuen (London, 1977).
_________, Nations and States (Boulder, 1977).
Shafir, Michael, Romania: Politics, Economics and Society; Political Stagnation and Simulated Change,
Marxist Regimes Series, Herausgeber Bogdan Szajkowski, Frances Pinter (London, 1985).
Sislin, John, “Revolution Betrayed? Romania and the National Salvation Front”, in: Studies in Comparative
Communism, Bd. 24, Nr. 4 (1991), S. 395–411.
Smith, Anthony D., National Identity, University of Nevada Press (Reno, Las Vegas und London, 1991).
_________, “The Origins of Nations”, in: Eley, Geoff und Suny, Ronald G. (Hgg.), Becoming national, a
reader (New York, 1996), S. 106–130.
_________, Naþionalism ºi Modernism, Epigraf (Chiºinãu, Republik Moldawien, 2002).
Smith, Dennis und Wright, Sue (Hgg.), Whose Europe? The Turn Towards Democracy, Sociological
Review/Blackwell (Oxford, 1999).
Stanciu, Lidia und Trufaº, Constanþa, Atlas Istoric ºi Geografic ºcolar, S.C. Cartographia — R. S.R.L.
(Bukarest, 2001).
Stepan, Alfred, “Paths toward Redemocratization: Theoretical and Comparative Considerations”, in:
O”Donnell, G., Schmitter und P., Whitehead, L. (Hgg.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, John
Hopkins University Press (Baltimore und London, 1991), S. 64-84.
Sterbling, Anton, “Überlegungen zum Wiedererwachen der Geschichte”, in: Südosteuropa, 42, Vol. 3–4/1993,
S. 219–43.
Stoica, Stan und Alexandrescu, Ion, România dupã 1989. Micã enciclopedie, Editura Meronia (Bukarest,
2005).
Stolojan, Theodor, “Policy Making in Romania”, Paper of the Conference Romania 2000 — 10 years of
transition. Past, Present, Future, World Bank Office, Romania (Bukarest, 2000).
Szakolczai, Árpád, “Experiences of Democratisation: Elements of a Comparative Historical Framework”, in:
Sakwa, R. (Hg.), The Experience of Democratization in Eastern Europe, S. 16–31.
Teutsch, Friedrich, Die Siebenbürger Sachsen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Hermannstadt, 1924).
55
57
Tontsch, Günther H., “Der Minderheitenschutz in Rumänien”, in: Brunner, Georg und Tontsch, Günther H.,
Minderheitenschutz in Ungarn und in Rumänien (1995), S. 129-233.
Totok, William, “Rumänisierung”, in: Wagner, Richard und Frauendorfer, Helmuth (Hgg.), Der Sturz des
Tyrannen. Rumänien und das Ende der Diktatur (Reinbek, 1990), S. 128 ff.
Troschke, Manuela, Rumänien, Studie des Osteuropa-Institut München (München, 2000).
van Mises, Ludwig, Nation, State and Economy (New York, 1983).
Vasile, Cristian, “Securitatea ºi “problema greco-catolicã” în anii 1965–1989”, in: Rumänisches Institut für
Neuere Geschichte (Institutul Român de Istorie Recentã), Despre Holocaust ºi Comunism, Anuarul,
Polirom (Bukarest 2003), S. 245-81.
Vecsenyi, János und Szigeti, Gábor, “Hungary: Goulash Capitalism”, in: Kozminski, A. K. und Yip, G. S.
(Hgg.), Strategies for Central and Eastern Europe, Macmillan Press (London, 2000), S. 33-56.
Verdery, Katherine, National ideology under socialism: identity and cultural politics in Ceauºescu”s Romania,
University of California Press (Berkeley, 1991).
Völkl, Ekkehard et al., Die österreichische Militärgrenze, Regensburger Osteuropainstitut, Verlag Michael
Laßleben (Regensburg-Kallmünz, 1982).
_________, Rumänien vom 19. Jhdt. bis in die Gegenwart, Verlag Friedrich Pustet (Regensburg, 1995).
von Baratta, Mario (Hg.), Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1998, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag (Frankfurt am Main,
1997).
_________, Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2002, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag (Frankfurt am Main, 2001).
Vultur, Smaranda (Hg.), Germanii din Banat, Paideia (Bukarest, 2000).
Weithmann, Michael W., Balkanchronik, Verlag Friedrich Pustet (Regensburg, 1995).
Whitehead, Laurence, “International Aspects of Democratization”, in: O”Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. und
Whitehead, L. (Hgg.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, John Hopkins University Press (Baltimore and
London, 1991), S. 3-46.
Wien, Ulrich Andreas, Kirchenleitung über dem Abgrund (Köln, Weimar und Wien, 1998).
Winkler, Heinrich A (Hg.), Nationalismus in der Welt von heute, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (Göttingen, 1982).
Wydra, Harald, “Democracy in Eastern Europe as a Civilising Process”, in: Smith, Dennis und Wright, Sue
(Hgg.), Whose Europe? The Turn Towards Democracy, Sociological Review/Blackwell (Oxford, 1999),
S. 288–310.
Zahn, Ulf (Hg.), Diercke Weltatlas, Westermann Verlag (Braunschweig, 1996).
Zernack, Klaus, Osteuropa, eine Einführung in seine Geschichte, Verlag C. H. Beck (München, 1977).
2. Artikel aus Journalen und Periodica
Akgün, Birol, “Democratisation and Minority Rights in the Post-Communist Balkan States”, in: Journal of
International Affairs, Bd. VI, Nr. 2 (Juni–Juli 2001).
Almond, Mark, “Decline without Fall: Romania under Ceauºescu”, in: European Security Study, Institute for
European Defence & Strategic Studies (London, 1988).
Baier, Hannelore, “Rudolf Brandsch und Hans Otto Roth”, in: DFDR, Deutsches Jahrbuch für Rumänien
2003, S. 76–9.
Comisso, Ellen, “Political Coalitions, Economic Choices”, in: Journal of International Affairs, Bd. 45, Nr. 1,
Sommer 1991, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University (1991), S. 1–29.
Fisher-Galati, Stephen, “Myths in Romanian History”, in : East European Quarterly, Bd. 15, Nr. 3 (September
1981), S. 327–33.
Frye, Timothy, “Ethnicity and Transition from Non-Democratic Rule”, in: Journal of International Affairs, Bd.
45, Nr. 2, Winter 1992, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University (1992), S. 599–623.
Gabanyi, Anneli Ute, “Ungarn und die rumänische Sicherheit: Perzeption und Politik”, in: Südosteuropa, 42,
9/1993, S. 512–33.
_________, “Rumänien zwischen Revolution und Restauration”, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte , Bd. 14,
Nr. 92 (27. März 1992), S. 23–31.
_________, “Nationalismus in Rumänien. Vom Revolutionspatriotismus zur chauvinistischen Restauration”,
in: Südosteuropa, Jg. 41, H. 5/1992, S. 275–92.
__________, “Bleiben, gehen, wiederkehren? Zur Lage der deutschen Minderheit in Rumänien”, in:
Südosteuropa, 40, 10/1991, S. 493–517.
Hellman, Joel S., “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Post-Communist Transitions”, in: World
Politics, 50 (Princeton (USA), Januar 1998), S. 203–234.
Joffe, Josef, “The New Europe: Yesterday”s Ghosts”, in: Foreign Affairs, Bd. 72, Nr. 1, Council on Foreign
Affairs (1993), S. 29–43.
Kraske, Marion, Puhl, Jan und Schreiber Sylvia, “Entdeckung der Langsamkeit”, in: Der Spiegel, Nr. 31/2002
(Hamburg, 29. Juli 2002), S. 98–100.
58
JOSEF KARL
56
Macków, Jerzy, “Der Wandel des kommunistischen Totalitarismus und die postkommunistische
Systemtransformation: Periodisierung, Problematik und Begriffe”, in: Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft,
4/1999, S. 1347–80.
Motyl, Alexander J., “The Modernity of Nationalism: Nations, States and Nation-States in the Contemporary
World”, in: Journal of International Affairs, Bd. 45, Nr. 2, Winter 1992, School of International and Public
Affairs, Columbia University (1992), S. 307–23.
Ohnweiler, Martin, “Die Stadt am Zibin auf dem Weg zu einem “Johannisburg””, in: DFDR, Deutsches
Jahrbuch für Rumänien 2002, S. 39–44.
Rose, Richard, “Evaluating Long and Short-Term Transformation in Central Europe”, in: Studies in Public
Policy, Nr. 312, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde (1999).
Schmitter, Phillipe C., “Dangers and Dilemmas of Democracy”, in: Journal of Democracy, Bd. 5, Nr. 2
(Baltimore, April 1994), S. 57–74.
Schöpflin, George, “Rumanian Nationalism”, in: Survey, Bd. 20, Nr. 2/3 (91/92) (London, Spring-Summer
1974), S. 77–104.
_________, “Post-communism: constructing new democracies in Central Europe”, in: International Affairs,
Bd. 67, Nr. 1, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Cambridge University Press (Januar 1991), S.
235–50.
_________, “Nationalism and National Minorities in East and Central Europe”, in: Journal of International
Affairs, Bd. 45, Nr. 1, Sommer 1991, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
(1991), S. 51–65.
Seewann, Gerhard, “Die Ethnostruktur der Länder Südosteuropas aufgrund der beiden letzten Volkszählungen
im Zeitraum 1977-1992”, in: Südosteuropa, 42, 1/1993, S. 78–82.
Sislin, John, “Revolution Betrayed? Romania and the National Salvation Front”, in: Studies in Comparative
Communism, Bd. 24, Nr. 4 (1991), S. 395–411.
Sterbling, Anton, “Überlegungen zum “Wiederwachen der Geschichte””, in: Südosteuropa. Zeitschrift für
Gegenwartsforschung, 42. Jg. (München), S. 219–43.
Wallace, Claire und Haerpfer, Christian W., Democratisation, Economic Development and Corruption in EastCentral Europe, Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Sociological Series, Nr. 44 (Wien, Oktober 2000).
T H E E U R O P E O F N AT I O N S
ORTEGA Y GASSET AND THE IDEA OF NATION
CRISTI PANTELIMON
Abstract. There are two fundamental aspects to be considered for the
understanding of this notion, that is, the essence of a nation: first, the
general principle of organizing the nation or the formal principle of its
existence (the Idea) and second, the subordinate character of the fate of
the individuals in relationship with this Idea. The nation is not positively
defined by a series of specific characteristics, it is not about the common
language, or about the common past or other conclusive qualities as such,
but it is about a Form that determines the individuals composing it to
belong to it, entertaining at the same time a conscience of belonging.
One has to argue with the opinion sustained by Arnold Toynbee about the
modern nation, especially since this is not a complimenting one: “The spirit of
Nationality is a sour ferment of a new wine of democracy, stored within the
bottles of Tribalism”1. The Spanish thinker Ortega y Gasset defines the nation in
terms of an Idea that functions as a binding for all who are participating into its
constitution. This Idea is assimilated with the clear conscience of such an
appartenence of all the members of society at the whole that society Forms.
Thus, the Idea is preceding the individuals taken separately and, as well, it is
remarkable by the aspect of “constraint” (and I am using a Durkheimian term
about which I consider that Ortega would have agreed with it) that is exercised
over these members: “In a mental order, social reality is composed exclusively
from “common places”. Yet, at their turn, a part of such common places are
truisms similar to the enforced “opinion” according to which the individual
members of society are belonging to it and that this society has a determined
shape that we are going to call its ‘Idea’”2.
Therefore, there are two fundamental aspects to be considered for the
understanding of this notion, that is, the essence of a nation: first, the general
principle of organizing the nation or the formal principle of its existence (the
Idea) and second, the subordinate character of the fate of the individuals in
relationship with this Idea. The nation is not positively defined by a series of
specific characteristics, it is not about the common language, or about the common
——————
1 A Study of History, apud Ortega y Gasset, Europa ºi ideea de naþiune, tanslated in Romanian by Sorin
Mãrculescu, Bucharest, Humanitas, 2002, p. 53.
2 Ibidem, p. 53–54, my transl. All the following quotes are my English version, translated from Romanian.
60
CRISTI PANTELIMON
2
past or other conclusive qualities as such (this kind of qualities can be also met
in the case of other Ideas of social organization, at the inferior Ideas, as the tribes
are), but it is about a Form that determines the individuals composing it to
belong to it, entertaining at the same time a conscience of belonging. We can
distinguish here echoes of the German, formal sociology (Ortega is quoting here
the sociologist Alfred Vierkandt, a formalist, with who, he is engaged in a
disagreement, too!), conducting toward the observation that each Form (or Idea)
of social organization has its own underpinning, one that is, of course, limited in
time. Nevertheless, the important fact is to establish that, from the point of view
of the formal sociology, the very existence of nation as such cannot be disputed.
It is a body organized around an Idea, which cannot pretend a pereniality in time.
The older forms of social organization were, for instance, the horde or the tribe.
They are with anything inferior to the idea of nation, or, the main issue discussed
here is not the matter of (with this observation Ortega answers to Toynbee, who,
by “tribalism”, obviously, understands something that is to be considered of an
inferior range in relationship with the modern world): “The tribe represents a
particular idea of society that has got very precise characteristics, and among
other, I mention for now just that the group in question emanates, genealogically
speaking, from certain ancestors who were common either to the entire mankind,
or to its most part. Before existed the Idea of tribe, it existed the idea of horde,
such as, afterward, there were many other Ideas of society”3.
The Idea of a society “gathers” around its attributes the individual members
that are composing it. Thus, it matters less which exactly is the name of a nation
(for instance, Romanian, Bulgarian or French) or a tribe (“Manam”, “Zande”,
“Bayeke”4), the fact important being that all these social types of organisation
are, formally, identical (the nations among themselves and the tribes among
themselves, of course) and that their members are belonging to them and, at the
same time, they are subordinated to them.
This formula for the coagulation of societies under the national idea has,
though, its own limits in time. Ortega is convinced that, at least at the European
level, there is now the moment that the nations decided to organize them, within
a new kind of political community one that has to be “supra” or “ultra-national”.
The nation represents from this perspective an anachronism: “At present, this
matter retains nothing academically, while it is of a supreme and urgent gravity.
Because the European nations have arrived at a moment when they cannot save
themselves unless they succeeded to overcome themselves as nations, in other
words, if we succeeded to make the nations accept the validity of the opinion
according to which the nationality, as the most accomplished form of collective
life is an anachronism, that it is emptied of any future fertility and that it is,
briefly put, historically impossible”5.
——————
3 Ibidem, p. 54.
4 In order to make my point, I have randomly chosen these tribal names from Lucien Lévy-Bruhl,
Experienþa misticã ºi simbolurile la primitivi (The Mystical Experience and the Symbols at the Primitive
People), translated in Romanian by Raluca Lupu-Oneþ, Ed. Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 2003.
5 Op. cit., p. 54–55. The Idea after which the nation is the most accomplished form of collective life, was
sustained with approximately three decades before Ortega wrote these lines by Dimitrie Gusti, in Romania.
Meanwhile, the Second World War took place... and both the attention and the priorities got shifted away.
3
Nation, between inertial reality and the project for the future
Polis and nation
61
When comparing, from a quantitative point of view, the Greek City (the
Polis) with the modern nation, Ortega brings into discussion a pretty simple
remark, which many other commentators have emphasized: while with the
Greeks one of the conditions of existence for a natural order there was the small
number of citizens (about a few thousands), hence everybody could gaze at each
and everyone, to see everybody else (the City to be easily grasped with a
perspective glance, ευσυνοπτος), the modern nation is impossible to grasp at
once, in one sight, and at once, or, at the surface, since it is something much
more profound, denser, and more latent in its nature. Therefore, the (modern)
idea of nation always entertains the hope of a special potentiality, one that is far
from being obvious in everyday life. The nation is always a hope, especially
because its very gist, and also its entire premises are impossible to behold
definitively with one look (and I understand here not only the physical look, but
also the mental one). The nation has “hidden richness”, or, at least, this is the
suggestion made by our comparison, as Ortega noticed, too.
One may speculate on the tendency of the nations to perceive the future as a
better one in comparison with the past gaining thus, anyway, a sort of optimism
at least equal with that sprung from the guaranteed stability and the tranquillity
of the past. This perspective makes me recall Renan’s idea of a daily plebiscite,
that is, of an act of will fundamentally grounded in the future, even when it has
its roots deeply in the past.
The comparison between the Polis and the nation does not end here. While
the Polis appears from the very beginning as a mature organisation, tailored for
a specific political, military, administrative, or juridical end (thelos), the nation
does not become a state unless it goes through a pretty long period of maturing.
The nation has, as a consequence, first, a vast past behind and, second, not all
the nations become. The Polis, on the other hand, contrary to this opinion is an
entity that arrives at a (real or legendary) moment of an endowment (κτισις).
“The nation though is that entity we have behind us as support, it is a vis a tergo6
and not just a blatant figure in front of our very mind, as it was the Polis for the
citizen. The nationality makes us compatriots before it makes us cocitizens. It
does not stay in our will, it does not live out of our will, but, irremediable, it
exists by itself — as a natural reality”.
This natural entity that is the nation presupposes in Ortega’s opinion a
fundamental lack of preoccupation from the part of the individual in what the
nation is concerned. Being something well-understood, in other words, taken for
granted and not necessarily consciously understood (as was the case with the
Greek Polis), existing beyond the individual wills, in a fabulous past and in a
future full of potentialities, as I stated above, too7. The nation is something that
——————
6 In Latin, this means “force from behind”.
7 The nation has, apparently, two facets that are equally deep: a future, that is very difficult to read, yet
impressive given its promises and a fabulous past, that seems to be the more important, the more bleary it is.
62
CRISTI PANTELIMON
4
normally does not preoccupy consciously the individual. Even more, for this
reason, the excessive, tenacious, and conscious for the fate of the nation (namely,
nationalism) is a strange and improper phenomenon: “This is the explanation of
the fact that, normally, the individual is not preoccupied by his own nation (that
is, given the natural character of the nation8). The individual perceives the
nation as existing for a very a long time and continuing for a very a long time to
exist, by itself, without the particular input or collaboration of the individual. As
a consequence, the form of preoccupation for the nation that is the “nationalism”,
even in its most inevitable, measured and, one may say, natural appearance, is
though something added, an artificial, and not spontaneous, constitutive and
primary, as it was the “civism” or the politism for the Greek or Latin individual,
that is, a permanent preoccupation and occupation with their City”.9
To further clarify the idea of nation, Ortega resorts to a duality of notions in
pairs: on the one hand the City and Ellas for the Greek, on the other hand, the
nation and Europe for the German (Ortega’s work is at origin a conference
addressed to a German public).
For the Greeks, notices Ortega, there are series of similar elements recalling
for the analyst the fact of belonging to a nation. Thus, the members of a nation
understand each other rather well when they speak, have common gods (although
not all of them), and they have the conscience of a vague common origin. This
unity is, nevertheless, just an “inertial habit”, something that comes from the
past, and not a project for action with a certain and clear orientation towards the
future. The oriented action facing the future is the political Form or the political
Idea (the one already mentioned), while the inertial past is only the “matter” of
this form. The distance between the two is, obviously, the distance between the
more or less nebulous and common past (vaguely felt as an element of bounding)
among the Greeks from different cities and the obvious political present, that
separates the various cities among themselves: “In this sense there is no shred of
doubt that the “form” of the Greek person was his citizenship, the quality of
being-an- Athenian, of being-a-Spartan, of being-a-Theban, and that meanwhile,
the individual’s conscience of belonging to the Hellenic world having an
exclusively character of an inertial habit”10. Ortega sustains that the fact of the
(inertial) Hellenism had nothing in common with the fact of citizenship (or with
——————
8 At least, this is the way I see it.
9 Op. cit., p. 64.
10 Ortega y Gasset, Op. cit., p. 73.
One encounters a similar opinion on the character of the ancient Hellenism at the French classicist and
historian. He said: “The Greeks, not only the ones living in the Balkan Peninsula, but also those within Asia
Minor and Sicily, those from Marseille and from the towns on the shore of Pont-Euxin (the Black Sea),
considered themselves the same kind, brothers. And they were conscious of their profound unity in what the
language was concerned (despite the differences due to certain local dialects). Also, their unity concerned
religion and customs, a unity that was setting them apart from the world the called “barbarian”, that is, the
totality of the peoples speaking another language than the Greek. The word “Greece”, though, — Hellás —
had never got, during Antiquity, a real political meaning; Greece itself was never a unitary state before the
Macedonian and Roman domination” (Robert Flacelière, Viaþa de toate zilele în Grecia secolului lui Pericle
/Everyday Life in Greece during Pericle’s Century, translated in Romanian by Liliana Lupas, Ed. Humanitas,
2006, p. 5).
5
63
the agile Greek individual, for that matter, as he names the human being of
action, or the human seen in action, as well as the human of the projects set in
motion, to use an expression proposed by Fichte, who considered the human
being reine Agilität — pure agility). So, the fact of the (inertial) Hellenism had
nothing to do with the political present and future. How can one understand this?
One manner of interpretation would be to emphasize the huge differences
between the way Greeks used to live the fact of nation and the way in which we
live it, as Europeans.
The (enormous) difference between the manner in which the Greek used to
live his Hellenic inertial reality and the one in which the modern Europeans live
this inertial national reality is given by the fact that, in the modern world, all the
inertial forms of life have become integral manners to be a human being, in
other words, all these manners have transformed themselves in tradition and
what Ortega named vis a tergo in a future reality, in a vis proiectiva, in a life
ideal. The nations are thus projects for the future, energetic actualizations of the
human being, and meanwhile peoples are just the groups that want to be what
they are, namely they want to live in the pure inertia of their past heritage. These
are the old “nations” in the medieval meaning of the term. Examples for such
nations are the Swabians, the Normans, or the Picardians. Only that, nowadays,
as Ortega noticed, no one would wage a war to prove he is a Norman or a
Swabian. Something like this would be a returning to the past, it would be as a
ghost, incapable to find its own place within the present time frame. Similarly,
no one can declare herself today to be an Ardeal person, a Fãgãraº person, or a
Banat person, in Romania, without getting herself into ridicule, because such
labels are ridiculous as symbols of the present. They are inertial forms of collective
life, they are in this sense pre-national, and, as such, they are belonging to the
ethnographic museum. Conversely, the nationality is Romanian and it
presupposes before anything else a strong desire to be integrally a Romanian in
this national particularity11.
While we are now born into a nation, the (ancient) City was “made” from the
individuals. Such differences are going to be dimmer and dimmer, from a certain
point of view. As we have seen in my argumentation, the nation is becoming
today more and more something like the ancient City from the perspective where
a nation is not just the total amount of some material and inertial elements, but
it is also their form and their full actualization from a future perspective. The
nation is, as well, made (otherwise it would not be a viable form), and at the
same time we are born into it. Therefore, the nation combines both facets of a
political organisation: it is inertial, and realized at present, for the future, each
individual being obliged to take interest in the accomplishment of the nation.
While the Greek is severed by the inertial Hellenic reality (which, essentially,
that person ignores), the modern human being who is part of a nation undertakes
the past of the nation and capitalizes it in a political future where the (sociological)
stage of “people” is overcame.
——————
11 Dimitrie Gusti also sustains the idea of the integrity for the national human condition.
64
CRISTI PANTELIMON
6
The Greek City had nothing to do with the reality of tradition, it was solely a
juridical artefact. On the other hand, within the nation, the “energy, the agility of
its members are not employed only in matters of external policy, as are the
protection of the City, the domination of other Cities, but it enthusiastically lives
the complete manner of being a human, that represents the very content of its
collective Idea, that is struggling to refine and enrich; briefly, it projects it into
the future, as an ideal to be realized, as the very icon of its past, attempting to
take it toward perfection12, underlining the fact that the inertia of a past is
constantly becoming some sort of aim, and as an icon of exemplarity for the
common future”13.
The nation cannot be founded on anything else but the human pattern, the
one that can fully live the both forms of time, the future and the past, as Ortega
noticed. One may speculate and say that the pattern of the ideological man
cannot be compatible with that one of the national man. The man without nation
is the man without past (in the sense that the ideological man either ignores or is
uninterested by that past), but that person could be as well the man without the
future (that is, the person that refuses self-accomplishment in the name of a socalled perfection already given, of the forefathers). Both variants are solutions
offered by failed ideologues, both resent a wing of this flying organism that is
represented by time and, this way, both are going to be unsuccessful in their
attempt to confront the times.
The question that stays in front of the researcher now, after this comparison
of the differences between the Greeks and the Europeans from the perspective of
the idea of nation is: what exactly has to go on in the collective soul of the
peoples, in order to determine them to become nations and this way, to be
searching for their specific exemplarity in each and every case? The answer
given by Ortega is the following one:
“It is necessary that, at a certain date, early enough, they would have the clear
consciousness that life does not consist entirely of what one already is, by
tradition, but to perceive themselves as belonging to a much ampler unit, that is
not just their very own a tergo, namely: the huge space of an anterior
civilization. This represented for the European peoples the Roman West (...)
Roman civilization appeared as a an “integral manner to be a human being”
already consecrated and sublimated14”, and this, for all the Germanic peoples
that came in contact with the old civilization of Rome and which thus felt
indebted to show that thy are much more than their “popular” past. While the
European peoples have had a clear cut model, the Greeks, going into the Aegean
——————
12 This way, the “idealization of the past” of which the nationalism is accused can be interpreted to its
benefit, as a process of refining and of transformation or of the betterment of the past. What are designated as
ideal are not a dark and bleak past, but, quite the opposite, it is the result of a selection process, where the
positive elements are gathered in a pattern, in order to give a processed orientation for the future. At the same
time, the idealisation of the past does neither mean that the past is neither uncritically situated on a pedestal
of stone nor that it becomes a frozen ideal to be idolised. The Ideal has got this inner quality to be self-improving
permanently, to self-polish, until it becomes utopia.
13 Op. cit., p. 80.
14 Op. cit., p. 82.
7
65
Sea met there a great variety of mixed civilizations and cultures, and for this reason
they were rather “disoriented”. There were intersected all kinds of influences:
Babylonian, Hittite, Egyptian, Cretan, Phoenician, etc.
Is there a European suprastate?
Germany, the country of moderate nationalism...
Ortega was convinced that what we call to European unity (and which tends
to become a unique European state) represents in fact an old contribution made
by Europe to its internal equilibrium and to the external one (of the world) based
on the idea of the equilibrium of power. Such a reality is of a historical nature:
“There was an extremely ample and powerful — the European society — which,
as society, was constituted on a basic order owed to the efficiency of certain
supreme instances: the intellectual and moral creed of Europe. This order that,
underneath all its superficial disorders, was acting within the depth of the West,
has sent its radiating influence over the rest of the planet for many generations
and has introduced in it, more or less, that order that it could provide”15.
Unfortunately, this order seem to be vanished by the end of the First World War
and with the creation of the Society of Nations, which Ortega was openly
criticizing, considering it a an anti-historical institution, an overcame anachronism,
whose spirit was already wedged at time it was created16.
The idea of the European unity is founded at Ortega y Gasset on the
extremely distinct concept of European public opinion that would always exist.
Of course, we do not have to understand by this public opinion what journalism
guidebooks understand by it, that is a more or less inform mass of receivers that
are formed (manipulated) on a information market and that, most certainly, have
at their disposal, possibilities to “react” to this information bombardment often
orchestrated, with (few) opinions ‘pro’ or ‘con’. Usually, public opinion defined
in this manner is divided in black and white, in adepts and opponents, in
sustainers and enemies of a specific issue. This is not the way public opinion
speaks should be understood in the perspective open by the Spanish, but as a
large movement of ideas, one with distinct historical and geopolitical valences,
that manifests itself at the level of the entire European continent. The content of
this opinion is formed by the sum of the political, morale, economic, military
and cultural issues that are essential, because they are concerning the destiny of
Europe, understood as a civilization that stands by itself. Public opinion, at its
turn, determines the apparition of a public power, hence an organized form of
power, of a form of state or of a cvasi-state form of power. Without such a public
opinion, we cannot even imagine the public power. The two notions, Ortega
assured, are ancient European realities: “Or, it is indisputable that all the peoples
from the West have always lived within a frame — Europe — where there was
——————
15 Ibidem, p. 112.
16 Ibidem, p. 57 and 113. Instead of being an institution with a historical force of anticipation (to forestall
unpleasant), the Society of Nations was dead at birth. From here one deduces its incapacity to prevent the
disaster of the Second World War.
66
CRISTI PANTELIMON
8
always a European. And, along with it there was also, with necessity, a European
public power that has incessantly exercised its pressure over each and every
people from Europe. In this authentic and rigorous sense, a certain form of
European state has always existed and there were no people that did not feel its
pressure, sometimes, a terrible one”17.
The public power that has acted within the national European state was never
exclusively national. Obviously, not even the public opinion that stays behind
this power could be strictly and narrowly localized, only at the level of the particular
nations. The European states have permanently moved in an ultra-national frame
of public opinion and, hence, of public power, in a web of interests and ideas
that, of course, overcame the national borders. What is this overcoming of the
particular nations if it is not the very European Union, except it is presupposing
a equilibrium and not a static and a monolithic profile?
“We ought to realize eventually that for many centuries — and considering
their conscience from 400 years ago —, all the peoples from Europe live
subjected to a public power which by its very own dynamic purity does not allow
any other name than the one inspired from the science of mechanics: “the
European equilibrium” or the equilibrium of Power.
This is the authentic government of Europe that arranges by its flight through
history the swarm of peoples, pushing their fortunes and as bellicose as are the
bees, freed from the ruins of the ruins of the ancient world. The unity of Europe
is not a fantasy, but it is the reality itself, and the fantasy is exactly the opposite:
the belief that France, Germany, Italy or Spain is substantial realities and,
therefore, they are also complete and independent realities.
It is understandable that not everyone perceives with clarity the unity of
Europe, because Europe is not a “thing”, but a kind of “equilibrium”.
This particular definition for the European Union and, eventually, of the
Europe, as equilibrium and not as a thing, thus as a monolithic union, forewarns
us that the current project of European unification could be as well unsuccessful.
And this because the union now desired (and, with which, one could be, in
principle, in agreement — in the sense that one has nothing against the idea of
unity) could endanger the very idea of that particular equilibrium, on which
Europe relies for centuries. In fact, the issue of the European Union is not the
same as the issue of unity (Ortega demonstrates that such a unity has always
existed), but it concerns the form of the unity that is accomplished. The union
exists, but one could imagine the multitude of the possible formulae for realizing
this unity, out of which, of course, very few are also functional, or, could be
functional only the ones that have already proven to be functional. Hitler wanted
as well a union of a certain kind for Europe, and Stalin succeeded to “unify” half
of the European continent, yet, these geopolitical mega structures could not
sustain themselves. In consequence, it is important that the new European unity
——————
17 Op. cit., p. 96. It has to be said that Ortega spoke in these lines about a supranational or ultra-national
State, what is not all the same thing as a national State. This European state is rather diffuse, yet present within
all the manifestations of the national states, and it is defined, eventually, as I shall argue, through the idea of
the European equilibrium.
9
67
is not going to sacrifice the possibility of that diversity that could recreate the
old style equilibrium, the only one that ensures a natural and enriched survival
for our continent. The new European unity should not suffocate the ability of this
continent to equilibrium under the power to level the trans-national bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy should, at its turn, submit itself to a superior principle of moral
and material equilibrium and not to allow itself to become a kind of end in itself
for the functioning of the European institutions. Unfortunately, any bureaucratic
mechanism has this deficiency in seeking to sustain itself, even outside an
external logic that is justifying its existence. The European bureaucracy should
not become the corner stone of the present European construction, because in that
moment the equilibrium and the vitality of the continent would be suffocated.
In what concerns the case of the German nationalism, Ortega overthrows the
preconceived ideas concerning the “ferocious” nationalism of the German
romantics, which manifested itself disproportionately, in a European environment
that was “purified” of such an atavist manifestation. One has to keep in mind that
the most important German thinkers of the Romanticism or pre-Romanticism
have often sacrificed their dearest ideal, German nationality, which they ardently
desired, for the European equilibrium, for the European “concerto”, without
which they realized that Germany itself could not exist. It is the case of
Humboldt, and that of other very important German nationalists blamed by some
Germans that they did not militate enough for a totally autonomous Germany:
“The restraint of Humboldt, Stein18, Gneisenau19, Niebuhr20, their effort to in
castrate “German nationality” in the real historic block of Europe did not
emanate, as presupposes Meinecke21, from apolitical and universal ideas, or
from the cosmopolitan ideas, ideas type 18th century, but from a very realistic
sense, both politically and historically (...) Stein and Gneisenau do not hesitate a
moment to maim their countries to give in portions of territory to Russia and to
England. Given that they understood that nothing could be obtained for their
nation unless the European cohabitation was ensured, simultaneously and, in
consequence, unless they made possible a society of Europe”22.
——————
18
Karl Heinrich Friedrich Stein (1757–1831) was prim-minister of Prussia (1807–1808), personal
counsellor of the tsar Alexander I and one of the most important artisans of the anti-napoleonian coalition.
19 Neihart von Gneisenau (1760–1831) was feldmarschall in Prusian army.
20 Barthold Georg Niebuhr (1776–1831) was an important German historian, initiator of the method of
the criticism of the historical sources.
21 Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) was the author of the book entitled Weltbürgertum und Nationalstaat
(7th ed., 1928), from which Ortega quotes, in which Meinecke attacks the cosmopolitan “blindness” of some
old legendary names of the German nationalism, as the ones in the (above) reproduced quote.
22 The national sacrifices made in the name of a principle of European equilibrium represents the best
proof for the force of that equilibrium, for the imperative of necessity that he introduces in the existence of the
continent. This is the reason why, even the greatest German nationalists (pay attention, at stake here is not the
demagogical and blind nationalism, but the one based on a historical and political intuition) gave in against
this imperative. Political realism is nothing else but the implicit recognition of the European equilibrium. These
remarks are applicable to other historical moments, too. Nowadays, for instance, the German nationalism is
more than “contained” within the idea of the European equilibrium. Germany leads a prudent politics within
the continent, politics that enabled it to regain the territories conquered by the Russian communism after the
Second World War. At the same time, against the inter-war manner to return in Europe (based on the military
idea), today Germany is coming back in as a part in the European concerto using the diplomatic channels and
the opportunities brought about by its competitive economy. A politics of equilibrium means, this time, a new
alliance and a partnership with Russia, yet with a careful coordination with France.
68
CRISTI PANTELIMON
10
Thus, Ortega believed that it is prejudiced to consider that Germany was
always the country of the nationalism without nuances, type furor teutonicus. On
the contrary, he said, until Wilhelm II, it was the country of the most moderate
nationalism, and Bismarck, for instance (although Ortega reproached him to
have been the first German statesman to exploited that Teutonic frenzy), appears
nevertheless as a Cancelar with a great historical and European responsibility,
with a sense of equilibrium and measure extremely developed.
Going from the realm of political action to that of ideas, a great thinker as
Fichte was, one of the most enthusiastically German nationalists is, nevertheless,
an author who does not sacrifice the idea of Humanity at the expense of the
German nationalism, although he frenetically believed in the German nation.
This type of nationalism is totally different from the narrow-minded nationalism
of the present day, that is a nationalism without horizon, and also totally different
from the nationalism that was professed by the followers of Fichte from the first
half of the 20th century. The nuances of these observations were emphasized by
Ortega: “The German people — thought Fichte — must be radically, frenetically,
the German people, but the characteristic of this people is to be the ‘people of
Humanity’. Let us see what it implies. Fichte felt a “national” patriot to his
bones. Yet, his manner to feel national is that one I called “to-be-agility”, that is,
to see your own nation projected into the future as the best possible program to
be a human being, as such, through Humanism, Universalism or Cosmopolitanism.
One must be German because to be German means to be one with Humanity.
Contrary to the recent hiper-nationalisms, that intended to make Humanity
German”23.
The argument supports, for example, the affirmation made later on by Johann
Eduard Erdmann (1805–1892): “To be just German is anti-German”24.
The frenetic nationalism of Fichte is nothing but an idealization of the
German people, which, in his view, had to become the cultural model of
humanity. Only that such an idealization has to be understood starting from the
notion of “ideal”, functioning as a guiding light, as a supreme aim and dream,
not as a mechanism to occult the deficiencies of this people, not to forcibly
transform it in an universal model. In order to become a fulfilled nation (that is,
universal), the German nation had to become the model nation for the world,
namely, to go through a process of purification-idealization. I have already made
the distinction between this type of “correct” idealization and the negative
idealization of the narrow-minded nationalism of the present. In other words, the
path of a nation toward itself goes indisputably through the universal
(cosmopolitan) idea of Humanity. Only this idea can serve as a basis for the
creative nationalism. Before they succeed in being Germans (and this is the
aim), the Germans would have to pass a kind of exam of exemplarity in front of
the mankind. On the contrary, the nationalism lacking an universal horizon is
content with the present state of the nation and entertains no aspirations but to
——————
23 Ortega y Gasset, Op. cit., p. 109.
24 Undeutsch sei, bloss deutsch zu sein, in German in original (p. 109–110).
11
69
perpetuate this present state of things. Indeed, Ortega will say at some point that
all peoples respond exclusively to the circumstantial forces that determine their
emergence and that human being in general does not exist; there is only the
national human being. Resuming Burke’s ideas, who said for the first time that
loves the prejudices of the English as well, especially because they are
prejudices25, Ortega relocates the idea of prejudice in the first ranks of the
cultural pantheon of humanity. History is a succession of circumstances and of
occasional creations and not an abstract and rational trajectory. As a
consequence, the prejudices are the vital forces that are determining the fate of
the peoples. “We see today with all clarity and with enough calm that the human
being is essentially nothing more than a prejudice, being so, represents all the
best. Culture, even in its highest and most exemplary meaning is the art to polish
the best way we can this irremediable prejudice that we are”26.
The relationship between nationalism and democracy
We have to emphasize a few considerations on the relationship
nationalism–democracy. In general, the modern theoreticians of the nation
consider that the relationship between democracy and nationalism is pretty tight
and that it represents a manifestation of a historical complex and of a cultural
characteristic for the modern epoch. When one sees democracy as an extremely
ample movement that overflows the European continent after the beginning of
the 19th century, this could lead one to see nationalism merely as a “legitimate
child” of this major democratic current. Nationalism could not possibly emerge
before the democratic ideas about the world, because only such ideas supposedly
led to the emergence of the national states — being the opposite of the dynastic
states, the states of the divine right. The nation appears historically out of the
unofficial and revolutionary struggles that were de-structuring the old world. Of
course, this is the argument of someone like J. Evola, for whom nationalism is
only a next to the last landmark toward a definitive loss of meaning of this
political world engaged on the revolutionary route. In his perspective, the
phenomenon was a struggle against the conservative principles on which the
World of Tradition made its bedrock27. After nationalism all that remains is the
amassed world of the communism and the historical cycle ends in its final
degradation. The modern theoreticians as the revolutionary theoreticians find in
this relationship between nationalism and democracy (a synchronization, in the
sense that they appear about the same time) a proof for the permissive character
of democracy. At the same time, they manifest reticence in front of the
——————
25 Something that the revolutionary ideology of Enlightenment could never admit, obviously, since it
considered that had the mission to free all peoples of the medieval darkness of belief and prejudice where they
were smudged for hundreds of years.
26 Ortega, Op. cit., p. 108.
27 V. Julius Evola, Revoltã împotriva lumii moderne, translated in Romanian by Cornel Nocolau,
Bucharest, Ed. Antet, without year, chapter Nationalism and collectivism, where the modern nationalism is the
third stage of the world’s decay, from the universal toward the collective, the last stage being the collectivism
itself.
70
CRISTI PANTELIMON
12
nationalist phenomenon. Those are democracy lovers, but they are deprived of
affection against its “progenies”, and among these, the nationalist phenomenon
being perceived as the most pernicious. Evidently, this type of theoretician is an
ideologue of democracy. If it was true that democracy sprung nationalisms, then
this theoretician, as a democracy supporter, should admit its progenies, too. Yet,
the bias of those theoreticians without historical orientation stops artificially at
the term “democracy”, which they neither define nor understand (except in an
ideological and confuse way, as a “good” governing principle, with power for
the masses, granted freedom, and a political class under the strict control of the
public opinion. In reality, any political regime needs permanently a re-check and
a redefining, in order to allow the forces that animate it at some point in history
to be well emphasized. For Evola, democracy has no positive meanings; since it
is nothing else than a decline of the political idea from the divine rank to the
immanence of the popular world. I have to underline that between these two
extreme conceptions — the rejection of democratism, thus, of nationalism by
Evola, on the one hand, and the rejection only of nationalism and the embracing
of democratism, by the modern theoreticians, on the other hand — there is the
perfect place both for Ortega’s ideas and for the relationship nationalismdemocratism.
The democratic ideas appear in Europe approximately at the same time with
the nationalist ideas from Germany (between the 1790s and the 1870s). Ortega
returns to the offending definition of Toynbee on nationalism that was
considered by the latter an impure mixture of tribalism and democracy. In reality,
national conscience is much older than democracy and has nothing in common
with tribalism:
“The conscience of Nationality has nothing in particular to do with tribalism
and, even more; it is so much older than the invention of democracy. It is not the
case, as a consequence, to identify the latter as mother Nationality (...). What did
happen at the dawns of democracy, namely in the first years of the 19th century,
was that, with democracy, Western peoples started to fell under the toxic spell of
the demagogues — being these right or left — and given that the unique strategy
of these irresponsible characters is to exacerbate everything so that they could
intoxicate the masses, the conscience of Nationality has already had a past of
two centuries of quiet and peaceful life, was transformed into a political
program. But, political programs are never made out of authentic ideas, but they
are tailored only out of isms, and vice versa, until something rises to the level of
ism which means only that it ceased to be something authentic, both
transforming itself and degrading itself into a ‘program’”28.
Therefore, far from being the daughter of democracy (and, far for being tributary
to the latter, as an inferior rank phenomenon), the conscience of nationality
appears about two centuries earlier than democracy. The well-balanced
nationalism degrades during democracy especially due to the species of
demagogues, that “intoxicate” the masses and build, an ideology, a political
——————
28 Op. cit., p. 93.
13
71
program, out of the national principle. As long as it remained as an idea and a
natural sentiment, the national idea ensured the peace of Europe. When it got
transformed into an ideology, it became one of the obscure forces of history. The
first nationalist war was at the same time the first great democratic revolution in
history: the French Revolution. Then was also launched the idea of the nation in
arms, an idea that had so many important ideological implications and, from the
perspective opened for investigating nationalism here, not so many national
consequences...Thus, demagogic democracy weakened the national inborn
principles, and by the exacerbation of nationalism, to the point where it
sustained the Nazi aberration since, as we still notice today, a demagogic
“intoxication” needs always something more and stronger. Under such an
interpretation, nationalism escapes Evola’s label, of phenomenon caught within
the deconstruction of the Traditional Life of Europe. Nationalism can be the
matter of an organic and well-balanced idealistic love for the nation. The
nations, at their turn, represent the new historical syntheses of the post-Roman
world. Nothing could be more natural that a due share of appreciation and love
for these historical syntheses. The nationalism emerges before democracy, so the
democratic “scarlet letter” cannot touch it. Thus the nation and the nationalism
lose the bleak perspective cast upon them by Evola’s interpretation. On the other
hand, the birth of democracy brings along the terrifying species of the
demagogue. This is precisely the right time for the dissolution of the democratic
pattern discussed by Evola. This character is the one who destroys the roots of
the European Tradition, exactly in the name of this Tradition (because Europe,
as an heir of the Roman Empire is indisputably founded, on the basis of a prefiguration of the national principle — thus, it has its roots, at least partially,
embedded into the ethnical idea). The demagogue manipulates the ethnicity and
its immemorial persistence.
The danger of the dynamic closeness among peoples
In my opinion, there is another idea worth being examined, namely that of the
relationship between the distance, in terms of civilization and technology and the
moral distance existing among different peoples. From a technical point of view,
20th century is characterized by an explosive progress of the means of
communication. Ortega notices rightfully that it was not the 19th century,
characterized in its most part by the optimism in front of the material progress,
based on the advancement of technology, the epoch of the unprecedented
technological transformations, but the 20th century. The world becomes due to
technology a kind of “global village”, as McLuhan said, yet, the consequences at
a moral level are not by far as comforting as the apologists of the technological
progress might have seen it. Peoples are now, technologically, closer one from
another, but the moral distance, instead of vanishing, has increased:
“Both suddenly and truly, during these last years, each people, by the hour
and, actually, by any minute, is receiving such a huge amount of recent news
about what is going on with all the others, that created the illusion that any
72
CRISTI PANTELIMON
14
people is effectively situated in the middle of all the other peoples, if not, in their
proximity. In other words, considering the effects in what concerns the public
universal life, the dimensions of the world have suddenly contracted themselves,
getting smaller. Peoples found themselves all of the sudden, dynamically, much
closer. And all that is taking place exactly when the peoples of Europe have
gained, morally, the most distance among them”29.
The distance mentioned here by the Spanish author is not necessarily a
hostile distancing, but rather, one that is betraying the moral vacuum that is
affecting all peoples, given that they are mutually ignoring each other,
fundamentally disinterested by one another. Starting from such a moral vacuum
it is obviously possible to arrive at hostility as well, as soon as the conditions are
right. In fact, hostility may appear out of the blue sky, without any menacing
cloud, without any sign of a will to get to know the other or without any trace of
interest or of mutual appreciation. The moral vacuum may result anytime in the
disaster of an open hostility, as a consequence of the impact of timeless and
faceless forces of ignorance.
Ortega’s idea that the technological closeness (he calls it “dynamic”) among
the peoples led to the increase of the degree of brutal intervention of some
people against others. The most striking case is, within the last century that of
the most active peoples geopolitically, namely the case of the American and
English people. This type of intervention is often extremely subjective and
deformed, especially due to the technological conditions that are amplifying a
so-called mutually recognition of among peoples. Actually, such technological
means are not doing anything else but perceiving (as looking in a deforming
mirror) the superficial envisioning of a people within the collective imaginary of
another one, and it is misleadingly replacing the specialized knowledge. Peoples
that are strong from a military and economic point of view are acting in conformity
with such deforming perspectives. Even more, the false opinion resulting from
such a superficial perception often becomes an instrument of pressure at the
geopolitical level, which was not the case during the past centuries, when the
mutual perception, and opinion, of some peoples against others did not come to
be reflected by deeds with an international relations nature:
“A century ago did not matter that people in the United States afforded an
opinion on what happened in Greece and that opinion was the consequence of
the fact that they were ill-informed. As long as the American government did not
undertake any action, that opinion was inoperative in relationship to the destiny
of Greece. The world was then “bigger”, less compact and more elastic. The
dynamic distance between a people and another one was so big that, while
crossing it, the incongruent opinion would loose its toxicity (...) During the last
years, peoples entered into such an extreme dynamic proximity, and the opinion
of, for example, some social North-American groups intervenes effectively —
directly, as an opinion, not as government — within the Spanish civil war. I am
sustaining the same argument about the English opinion”30.
——————
29 Op. cit., p. 117–118.
30 Ibidem, p. 120–121.
15
73
Such a situation becomes indeed dangerous as the dynamic proximity among
the peoples is increasing. Such interventions of the opinions become (and most
of the times the opinions are falsifying because the mutual recognition among
the peoples is virtually impossible, as Ortega argues, in comparison with the
knowledge that peoples have about themselves31) real “intrusions”, violent
inferences into the life of other peoples. The result is the hermetical closure of
the peoples in front of one another, especially to bar such an “ethnical breaking
an entry”:
“I sustain therefore that the new structure of the world is transforming into
real intrusions the movements of the opinion entertained in a country about what
is going on in another one, while they used to be almost harmless once. This
would suffice to explain why, when the European nations seemed to get closer
in a superior union, they started suddenly to enclose in themselves, to make their
existence hermetic against one another, and to transform their borders in
protective diving suits”32.
Therefore, it is naïve to believe that the dynamic closeness among the peoples
leads automatically to the mutual recognition or to a mutual understanding (that
would translate itself into a peace). Often, such a degree of recognition that is
too elevated may have contrary effects, such as mutual closure, or even hostility
and rejection. Many times this is exactly what is going on at the European level.
The opening of the West toward the East did not mean an increased closeness
and a fraternal embrace among the peoples from the two areas of the continent
that were separated till 1989 by the so-called iron Curtain. Frequently, this closeness
has generated gestures of moral rejection that were more violent than these
produced before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The initial opening was followed by
a mutual closing among peoples. The lesson is simple: the harmonious existence
of the different forms of ethnicity cannot be imagined outside any form of border
or limit. Peoples need a neutral space in order to get to know each other (in the
terminology of the personal relationship they need an intimacy, a space of the
greeting — which Ortega mentions, too). It is necessary as well that any people
is able to create and impose a physical barrier or at least a zone symbolically
protected, taken into consideration by all the others. This is not a plea for
reinstalling the physical borders, but for making people aware of the necessity
of limitation and self-limitation, in what concerns the intrusions of some peoples
within the life of the others. Thus, the disappearance of the borders within the
European mammoth state is not necessarily an occasion that would bring people
together, but one that — strictly from a logical point of view — would just mix
——————
31 “(...) any attempt to overlook the fact that a people is an intimacy, the same way as a person, yet maybe,
in different ways and for other reasons, is going to be sinister — as a consequence, it is a system of secrets that
cannot be simply discovered from the exterior (let us recall Berdiaev’s idea, according to which, the nation is
a mystery – my observation). The reader should think something neither vague nor mystique. Let us consider
any collective function, for instance the language. It is good to know that it is proved to be almost impossible
to know intimately a foreign language, no matter how intensely one would have studied it. And wouldn’t it be
crazy to think that is an easy task to know the political reality from another country?” (Op. cit., p. 122).
32 Ibidem, p. 123.
74
CRISTI PANTELIMON
16
peoples. But this mixture (amalgam) is dangerous especially for their
relationships (let us not forget that some intervention within the businesses of
others, based of the wrong opinions, is exactly the greatest danger Ortega indicates
for the state of the international relations). We either reinstall this interactive
harmony and order in the relationships from the interior of Europe (with the help
of the symbolic borders), or we wait for the moment of the total acceptance of
all peoples by all the others. Yet, one has to understand that this moment will not
come before the profile of all peoples has flatten in an amorphous mass, in a
(now) hypothetical European people. Only the disappearance of the different
ethic traits may bring about the complete calmness (peace) of the relationships
among the peoples that get mixed up all together. On the contrary, as long as the
individual lines ridge the ethnic physiognomy, the only way to understand and
collaborate with a different ethnicity is to respect a symbolic interval in the case
of each and every ethnic group.
THE IMAGINING OF NATIONAL SPACES
IN INTERWAR ROMANIA.
THE EMERGENCE OF GEOPOLITICS
CÃLIN COTOI
Abstract. The author concentrates mainly on the interwar period since he
believes that during this period a certain paradigm shift took place, or, in
any case, an important mutation in the cultural mechanisms of national
identity reproduction. Between the two world wars, the scientific discourses
on the topic of the nation-state and national space(s) became more important,
providing a complementary, or even, sometimes, alternative, way of
spelling the nature of the nation (taken as a “natural” thing) compared to the
historiographic ways of interpreting the nation.
Political and cultural contexts
In pre-war Romania, but especially in the interwar period, there was a large
and important reworking and re-legitimation of various scholarly disciplines in
a new intellectual context of (neo)romanticism and reactionary modernism; a
massive scientific, intellectual and cultural redefinition of different disciplinary
canons.
A number of sub-domains were being constantly formed, criticized,
expanded and contracted in the quite prolific intellectual atmosphere of the
period. One of these sub-domains — sometimes called, in a German manner,
anthropogeography or geopolitics, or, under a French influence, human
geography — emerged at the intersection of geography, sociology, ethnography,
historiography, etc.
Here I will concentrate mainly on the interwar period since I believe that
during this period a certain paradigm shift took place, or, in any case, an
important mutation in the cultural mechanisms of national identity reproduction.
Between the two world wars, the scientific discourses on the topic of the nationstate and national space(s) became more important, providing a complementary,
or even, sometimes, alternative, way of spelling the nature of the nation (taken
as a “natural” thing) compared to the historiographic waysof interpreting the nation.
The 1920’s had tremendous territorial and institutional effects for the
Kingdom of Romania. Provinces, formerly part of the Hapsburg dualist empire
(Transylvania, Banat and Bukovina) or of the Russian empire (Bessarabia) were
incorporated at the end of 1918 into Romania. The task of integrating
76
CÃLIN COTOI
2
demographically, socially, institutionally, economically and culturally very
diverse population was huge. Romania was undergoing a fundamental change as
it was struggling to integrate, in a very short span of time, the newly annexed
provinces in the full fledged mechanism of a nation state. The inner heterogeneity
was not only connected to a passage from 8% ethnic minorities to 28% but also
to great disparities — in lifestyles, political culture, economic infrastructure, etc.
— between ethnic Romanians belonging to different regions.
This dramatic change led to the establishment of a new pattern of relations
between national and cultural experts, state bureaucrats and political elites. A
new generation of intellectuals, bred in the new Romanian academic system,
deriving their legitimacy from an expertise in the national culture but also from
their mastery in the Western scientific canon, collided with the older, established
generation of national and cultural experts.
After a short period of expansion of state bureaucracy personnel, due to the
enlargement of Romania’s territory, when the state institutional framework
became unable to integrate the new intelligentsia, the most important conflict
became the one opposing this new generation to the new political and state
elites. Now that Greater Romania was a political-institutional reality, these elites
were less dependent on ideological legitimacy from the growing intelligentsia,
and also, less able to absorb the huge mass of educated youngsters produced by
the national educational system1.
Because of these tensions, working at the level of the organization of the
mechanisms of national culture, the pre-WWI unified national pedagogy
collapsed. There were of course different ideological and political-cultural
groups before WWI, sometimes fighting violent wars. Nevertheless, a common
pedagogical template provided a unifying language; the people, the nation, were
constructed inside a “continuity”, “autochthony”, historiographical and
ethnological hypothesis. The difference between the people and its “teachers”
was never problematized as all the important political-cultural groups were
caught in a twin program, enlightening the population and, in the same stroke,
fighting for the political unity of all ethnic Romanians. These pre-1918
“directeurs de conscience”, who, quite successfully, transposed an individual
pedagogy to the collective, national self, were entering, after WWI, a very
different, i.e., competitive, arena. The polemics on who was in possession of the
right criteria for defining the “real” and “authentic” national-identity or national
space were multiplying and turning very harsh.
This was, briefly, the institutional and cultural setting in which, in post-1918
Romania, the (re)invention of national culture was pursued, in a dense network
of disputes, alliances, counter-alliances and competitions for national and scientific
legitimacy and representativeness. The discourse on national space, on the
naturalness of the newly formed state of Great Romania, became soon a strategic
point in these competitions, transforming geopolitics in a common (and sometimes
implicit), concern of the sciences thematizing the nation and the nation-state.
——————
1 See also Irina Livezanu (1995).
3
THE IMAGINING OF NATIONAL SPACES IN INTERWAR ROMANIA
77
The field of interwar anthropo-geography and geopolitics, as it developed in
interwar Romania, was not a homogenous one, not even by the criteria valid in
this context, since a number of oppositions and contradictions arose right at its
core. The debates, at first diffuse, were to become more focused at the beginning
of WWII. Was geopolitics a sociologically-based discourse, a geographically
centered one or just another type of Völkerpsychologie? How can the regions
and the nation be understood in a unique, scientifically based, discourse? These
questions were raised time and again but the dispute remained an open one as
the disciplinary field of geopolitics was not able to render a clear cut self-definition;
there were different and concurrent definitions but a discursive identity was to
emerge at the end of the 1920’s.
The self identification of Romanian interwar geopolitics, their emergence as
something else than a vague concern with the national space implicit in different
scientific disciplines, was due to the growing importance of geopolitics in
Western scholarly contexts. There were various cultural channels through which
German, French but also Italian and, to a lesser degree, English theories were
being critically adopted and adapted by the local intelligentsias. In what, using
James Clifford’s words, appears as a network of “traveling cultures”, foreign
themes, cultural and political concerns were transferred and transformed by
Romanian scholars. All the new intellectual experts in national culture were
academic travelers deeply enmeshed in the ambiguous dialectic of “roots and
routes”2, brokers of different cultures, even if they were to take, at some point,
a more or less nationalistic stance in the field of the politics of culture in interwar
Romania.
In mapping external discursive influences I shall try to avoid a simple
“borrowing” model — a potentially essentialist one — and, instead, reveal the
strategic way in which “marginal” thinkers were using the ideological and
scientific discourse of the more or less “canonized” West to solve local problems
and appease local concerns. The peculiarity of thinking “at the margins” is, probably,
that it consciously seeks resemblance to the “core”, Western theories, that
legitimize the central and east-European scholars as scholars, while trying to use
the same theories for purposes not necessarily equivalent to the original ones.
The influence of Karl Ritter, Friedrich Ratzel, Karl Lamprecht, Wilhelm
Wundt, Rudolf Kjellen, Walther Vogel, Jaques Ancel, Jovan Cvijic, Karl Haushofer,
Hans Freyer etc. was mingling with more or less explicit political concerns: the
problems of Transylvania, of the lower Danube, of Bassarabia, of the cultural
integration of post-1918 Romania, of regionalism and centralism, etc. A new
national imaginary was being constantly forged. New mental pictures of a
homogenous and unitary Romania were combined with former concerns about
the origins of the Romanians, the authenticity of popular culture, the cultural
threats posed by modernization, etc. Important scientific texts were being
created and re-evaluated in this new context. The emergence of a new image, a
new national invention of space is probably the most important product of this
interdisciplinary field.
——————
2 James Clifford (1997).
78
CÃLIN COTOI
4
The role of polemics
In my opinion, an appropriate approach to the interdisciplinary field of
geopolitics, would be to map the debates through which its major themes were
specified and different strategic options of further development appeared. These
debates will be contextualized and situated by the “representative biographies”3
of those involved.
There are probably at least three structural principles through which we can
gain a clearer, or, at least, a more ordered perception of these debates.
The first is the disciplinary one and consists of mapping the relations
amongst the four scientific disciplinary fields that, at a first glance, contributed
to the formation of geopolitics: sociology, geography, history and the
psychology of the people. The latter disciplinary field, being populated mostly
by the older generation, was probably the least important. At the end of the
1920’s, when the disputes about national identity became more sophisticated and
the generational gap was turning more important Völkerpsychologie transformed
into a marginal discourse4. The historiography had an important role to play,
through the ‘new generation’ historian Gheorghe Brãtianu, and his theory about
the pedagogical role of geopolitics5 but mostly through Ion Conea6. The latter,
the founder of Romanian geographical history, was to be one of the most
prominent and sophisticated “geopolitical” scholars of the interwar period.
The second structural principle is the so-called generation war that roared
quite wildly in Romania of that time. An important member of the ‘new
generation’, Emil Cioran, was even trying to stimulate this new generation
towards a “St. Bartholomew’s night” that would target the older generation and
put an end to the problem once and for all. Even if it was spelled in more
moderate terms, the thematisation of a ‘new generation’ was one of the most
important instruments for conceptualizing the perceived newness of the interwar
national-cultural configuration7.
The third one is represented by the political cleavages arising in the middle
of the “new generation” that would eventually draw an important part of the
Romanian intelligentsia into the quagmire of right extremism8.
Even if, for reasons concerning the length and the main focus of this paper, I
shall follow, explicitly, only the first of these structural guidelines, I will try to
keep an eye, as a background, on the whole cultural and political context.
Anton Golopenþia and the new “science of reality”
The representative biography of Anton Golopenþia is an essential part in my
attempt to understand the sociological pillar of interwar geopolitics. I understand
——————
3
David Murphy (1997).
4 See the critical stance adopted by Dimitrie Gusti (1936) on D. Drãghicescu’s book — Din psihologia
poporului român [From the Psichology of the Romanian People] (1907) .
5 Brãtianu (1941).
6 Conea (1937).
7 Eliade (1928).
8 Volovici (1991).
5
79
by “representative biography” — following Jerry Muller — the condensed story
of an individual9. My interest lies not primarily in what was unique about him
but rather in highlighting those formative contexts and experiences that he
shared with others. The study focuses thus on that social and cultural context that
he shared with those who followed a similar intellectual and political trajectory,
but also on the differences, the turning points and the alternative intellectual,
political and cultural trajectories. The analysis will therefore shuttle back and
forth between texts and contexts thus trying to illuminate a more abstract and
general model, without losing the connection with the concreteness of historical
experience.
Radical conservatism: the synchronism of Romanian interwar culture
Before discussing the Romanian case, we have to explain the larger European
intellectual trend inside which the Romanian one, with all its peculiarities,
should be understood. This larger European political and intellectual framework
was the conservative revolution.
The radical conservative shared many of the concerns of more conventional
conservatism, such as the need for institutional authority and continuity with the
past, but believed that the processes characteristic of modernity had destroyed
the valuable legacy of the past for the present, and that, therefore, a restoration
of the virtues of the past demanded radical or revolutionary action.10 The
defense against the cultural and political effects of modernity on the body politic
was thought to require however a homeopathic absorption of the organizational
and technological hallmarks of modernity.
These kind of intellectual movements that embraced technological and economic
modernization, political activism and state power in the name of a particularistic
cultural idea were usually turning towards state power in order to reach their
goals. These goals consisted mainly in the reassertion of collective particularity
against a twofold threat. The internal threat, as posed by the functioning of free
markets, parliamentary democracy, internationalist socialism, liberalism etc. The
external threat, usually conceived as the influence of powerful — politically,
militarily, economically and culturally — foreign states.
The radical conservatism or, in Jeffrey Herf’s words, reactionary modernism11
is questioning the idea that modernity comes as a package deal. There is not just
one sole brand of modernity but, also, alternate ways of spelling modernity,
some of them not very pleasant from a moral point of view, but still modern.
Even if the package-theory was, and still is, widely upheld, having important
theoretical and pragmatically insights, it has been attacked from different points
of view, starting with Hugo von Hofmannstahl, Thomas Mann and the Weimar
conservative revolutionaries to Karl Mannheim and the less extreme analysis of
Jeffrey Herf, Fritz Stern, Stefan Breuer and others.
——————
9 Muller (1987).
10 Muller (1987), 19.
11 Herf (1986).
80
CÃLIN COTOI
6
Fritz Stern, the analyst of the “politics of cultural despair”, for example,
considered that “we must accept the fact that this kind of rebellion against
modernity lies latent in Western society and that its confused, fantastic program,
its irrational and un-political rhetoric, embodies aspirations just as genuine,
though not as generous or tangible, as the aspirations embodied in other or more
familiar movements of reform”.12
Geopolitics was, probably, one of the most interesting discourses of
reactionary modernism. It represented more than a type of argumentation used
by a circle of scholars grouped around Karl Haushofer and Zeitschrift für
Geopolitik — it was one of the important political and cultural languages of
Weimar’s fragile democratic setting. In Germany the earth took the role of a
hero13 in the political-geographical narratives of geopoliticians, decisively
shaping national histories, exemplary narratives, the characteristic qualities of
ethnic groups, and even individual personalities. The geopolitical discourse
emergent in Weimar society can be considered, as David Murphy does, one
aspect of modernism. Even though geopolitics often expressed opposition to
some essential trends in modern life, having, seemingly a conservative, right
wing orientation, the geopoliticians were quite uniformly distributed in the
political spectrum: “Geopolitical language, describing the organic nature of the
state, the role of geographical settings, and the determining influence of
geography on politics, social structure, ethnicity and economic found adherents
on the left and right and in the center as well during this period”14.
In the case of Romania this kind of scientific and political language was
initially not very important as an auto-reflexive disciplinary canon but as a new
conceptual vocabulary, diffuse in all the new scientific discourses on the unity
of Greater Romania. In the process of the self-thematisation of geopolitics, its
proponents accentuated a pragmatic and eclectic trend, and tried to use both the
German Geopolitik and the French human geography of Vidal de la Blache.
Geopolitics was to become a scholarly affiliation adopted thoroughly and
enthusiastically by a larger cultural and academic group only in the context of
the political and national crisis triggered, during the war, by the Vienna Treaty
and the loss of Transylvania to Hungary.
If in Germany the search for new answers to replace obsolete or discredited
ideas, which constituted such a large part of the politics of culture in the Weimar
Republic, was reflected in the geographical sciences in the form of geopolitics,
in Romania the quest for national unity was partially disentangled from its
historiographic prewar cradle and became geopolitical through anthropogeography
but mostly through sociology15.
——————
12 Stern (1974), xxii.
13 Murphy (1997).
14 Murphy (1997), 73.
15 This paper is part of a larger analysis on the invention of the national space(s) in scientific discourses
in interwar Romania, developed while working in an interdisciplinary team (the We, the People project) in
Collegium Budapest and Centre for Advanced studies Sofia. In the part of the analysis published here, the
focus is on the German influence on Romanian sociology and the emergence of a kind of geopolitics based on
sociology in the works of Anton Golopenþia. Inevitably, the important ‘French connection’ in the constitution
of Romanian geopolitics was left aside.
7
81
This new geopolitical tendency in social sciences and human geography
looked very much like radical conservatism in politics. A new rhetoric, dynamism,
anti-positivism on some levels, trust in science coupled with anti-urban and
pro-rural discourses, applicability and realism were seen as definitory for
geopolitics16.
Anton Golopenþia: a representative biography
Anton Golopenþia was one of the most important members of the Bucharest
Sociological School even if he was to become, at some point, institutionally
marginal because of his critical stance towards Dimitrie Gusti sociological-monographical project. He was born in 1909 in the village of Prigor, in the western
Romanian county of Caraº-Severin, in a family of civil servants. His father was
a small clerk at the Romanian National Railway Company, who graduated from
the Faculty of Law in 1925, at the age of 60. His mother came from a family of
Germanized Czechs17.
A. Golopenþia graduated the Faculty of Law in 1930 but decided, after a kind
of intellectual crisis, not to become a lawyer but to start studying philosophy.
This career and personal shift was consonant with the larger intellectual context
of the Romanian new generation, firmly determined, now that the political ideal
of national unity had been fulfilled, to fully dedicate themselves to (national)
culture. In the same vein, Mircea Eliade, catching a trend of acute febricity
between optimism and cultural despair that was present amongst many members
of the new generation, demanded, in 1928, in a more apocalyptic vein, one year
of cultural creativity as if it will be the last18.
Starting in the autumn of 1930, A. Golopenþia was constantly attending D.
Gusti’s and his younger assistants’, T. Herseni and H.H. Stahl, lectures and
seminaries on Sociology, Ethics and Politics. The visibility and desirability of
sociology in the Bucharest University had, at the end of the 1920’s — the
beginning of the 1930’s, an ascendant curve. Some of the most promising
Romanian scholars of that period, like the above mentioned Stahl and Herseni,
but also Mircea Vulcãnescu, Constantin Brãiloiu, Fr. Rainer etc. were all
involved in D. Gusti’s sociological projects.
H.H. Stahl described Golopenþia in most favorably terms in his book, Memories
and Thoughts, by saying: “Golopenþia was a synthesis of more of us: as much a
philosopher as Mircea Vulcãnescu, as much a professor and a scholar as Traian
Herseni, an astute investigator as myself and a great organizer as Octavian
Neamþu”19.
In 1932–1933, A. Golopenþia became D. Gusti’s head of cabinet in the
Ministry of Education, Cults and Arts. In the meantime he was involved in a few
editorial initiatives, participating in the writing and editing of some important
——————
16 Agnew ( 2002).
17 Sanda Golopenþia (2001).
18 Eliade, (1928).
19 Stahl (1981), 291.
82
CÃLIN COTOI
8
magazines, like Dreapta (The Right), but also in many unfulfilled editorial
projects. A quite significant project was a cultural/ scientific journal called Anteu.
Monthly review for presenting and defending the Romanian reality. Although no
clear evidence exists, it is likely that the title was chosen under the influence of
Hans Freyer celebrated book from 1918 — Antäus — which was a kind of a
cultural elite bestseller20.
The period he spent in Germany was probably the most fruitful one from an
intellectual point of view. Having received a fellowship from the Rockefeller
Foundation and then from the Humboldt Foundation, Anton Golopenþia spent
three years studying in Berlin, Leipzig and Hamburg.
In Berlin he attended the lectures of Nikolai Hartmann, Edward Spranger,
Vierkandt, Ludwig Klages, Werner Sombart and Hans Günther. The intellectual
atmosphere of the Berlin University was quite a shock for the young neophyte.
In a letter to ªtefania Cristescu, his future wife, he wrote: “The lectures are dull,
not even the better professors are doing their best, with the maybe exception of
Nikolai Hartmann [...] The professors’ obvious weariness, especially Sombart,
made me wonder whether I really should wish for myself accomplishments on
the field of scholarship”21.
In this context, he considered making his PhD thesis with a professor from
Bonn in the field of ethnography and folkloristic, rather than in the field of
sociology. “Apparently, I’ll be preparing my thesis with a professor from Bonn.
We would have there the most renowned philologists of Germany [...]. The
interesting for us lies here, with the folklorists and philologists, not with the
professors of sociology”22.
But the journeys to the “working camps” of the German Youth Movement
(Jugendbewegung) from Silezia, Löwenberg, at Boberhaus, the contact with an
elite group from Jugendbewegung, were going to change his plans. It is probable
that he had a “geopolitical” experience avant la lettre in this Jugendbewegung
meetings and conferences taking place in Löwenberg: “Especially the
Hungarians represented a great surprise for me. Now, when we, panic stricken,
are about to become chauvinists, they and their journals almost openly criticize
the insanity of their previous politics; they strive to know their villages, their
motto is: “first a regime for ethnic minorities in present day Hungary, then
claims for revision”. The Bulgarians made me see how close we are and understand
how inevitable the fight for the Cadrilater is. I heard then a young Ukrainian who
displayed maps on which Bukovina and parts of Bessarabia were places among
the borders of his future country. My image of Romania has enriched
substantially: I saw it also through the eyes of our neighbors”23.
In 1934, Anton Golopenþia moved to Leipzig, where he became a PhD
student of Hans Freyer. In Leipzig, Anton Golopenþia was to enter a “Romanization”
——————
20 Murphy 1997, Jerry Muller 1987.
21 Golopenþia, (1999), 114.
22 Golopenþia, (1999), 136.
23 Anton Golopenþia, Ceasul misiunilor reale. Scrisori cãtre Petru Comarnescu, ªtefania Cristescu,
Dimitrie Gusti, Sabin Manuilã, Iacob Mihãilã, H.H. Stahl ºi Tudor Vianu, 148.
9
83
process from the point of view of his scholarly interests; at the request of Hans
Freyer and G. Ipsen, he delivered lectures on Romania and its present problems.
He planed to write for Hans Freyer (who intended to publish a “South-East
European” collection of studies) an analysis of the influences of The German
Historical School on Romanian conservative thinkers and politicians (Mihail
Kogãlniceanu, Mihai Eminescu), and of Schopenhauer’s and the neo-Kantians’
on Junimists. Moreover, he wanted to publish, in the same context, “a booklet
on Romania as it had not been written ever before”24.
The most important influences on his scholarly formation were those of Hans
Freyer and Arnold Gehlen; in a foreword to his PhD thesis, Golopenþia confessed
that in „Professor Freyer the author found the guidance he needed in the field of
social philosophy and social sciences and in professor Gehlen his guidance in
philosophy”25. He studied extensively Dilthey, Simmel, social history,
dialectology, the neo-Kantians and he probably met Heidegger in Freiburg26.
The influence of Freyer, and his prestigious social circle of radical
conservative intellectuals — Carl Schmitt, Arnold Gehlen, Martin Heidegger,
Ernest Jünger, Ernst Forsthoff and Ernst Rudolf Huber — who were bound by
friendship, by membership in common organizations, by readership of the same
periodicals and by common intellectual assumptions, was a decisive one.
In a 1936 letter, the Romanian sociologist considered that he had attained a
new conception on sociology that could ground “Romania’s present situation,
the neighboring countries’, our past and the others’, the fundaments of
knowledge and the integrant features of social reality, the principles and the
history of social sciences”27. Social sciences appear as an arsenal of means
capable of diagnosing social realities and the actual circumstances of the home
country in order to facilitate its survival among neighboring states and great
powers. From the founders of statistics28 and the old administrative sciences and
for a better leadership of the state, we have to learn, according to Golopenþia, the
meaning of social sciences. Social sciences, as they are understood now, says the
Romanian sociologist, represent the outcome of the reflexive mutation of social
sciences, mutation determined by Adam Smith, Auguste Comte and their
generation who lost in fact the meaning of these sciences. The destiny of the
sociology of today consists of, Golopenþia says, combining the abstraction power
of “reflexive” sciences with the effective pragmatism of the administrative,
“cameralist” ones.
The German influence was also an indirect one, as it appeared in one of
Golopenþia’s letters from 1935:
——————
24 Golopenþia, (1999), 156.
25 Golopenþia, (2002) [1936], 8.
26 Golopenþia, (1999), 200.
27 Golopenþia, (1999), 203.
28 A. Golopenþia uses the term ‘statistics’ with two different meanings. The first one is the old, 17th
century “science of the state” statistics; the second is the 20th century one, the “quantitative social science
branch” statistics. The Romanian sociologist is trying to reconnect the two meanings by dissolving the 19th
century liberal-bourgeois approach to social sciences.
84
CÃLIN COTOI
10
“This country living in tension is, for the stranger, a very good school of love
for one’s own country. He has to remember he comes from a different nation, as
the German identity is made explicit here every minute. I believe that in that way
I will be able to return with a good theoretical background but also more aware
of my ethnicity than before. The cult for the Germans that I have nurtured all my
studying years in Romania is now gone. I will go later to France to compensate
this, with no intention whatsoever of engendering a cult for the French. All I
have left is being Romanian and only Romanian”29.
Having in mind this tentative context, we will now focus our attention on
several of Golopenþia’s texts.
Hans Freyer, Anton Golopenþia and “geopolitical” sociology
The way in which A. Golopenþia attempted to “hijack” D. Gusti’s sociology
and transform it into geopolitics, is already perceptible in his PhD thesis, The
Informing of the State Government and the Traditional Sociology (Die
Information der Staatsführung und die überlieferte Soziologie), ended in 1936.
His thesis is an attempted critical understanding of Hans Freyer “science of
reality”, that was to be latter articulated, in a Romanian context, with D. Gusti’s
system of social unities and wills.
Starting with his pre-war studies, but especially in his inter-war ones, Hans
Freyer, the former student of Georg Simmel, tried to understand the life of the
state starting from the form it takes in his moments of highest historical flow: the
first founding, the war, the tension generated by a new state radical reform etc.
He was reversing the importance of the most central — in his view — concepts
in the sciences of the state: domination and planning. According to Freyer: “It is
not the ones who are planning that are dominating (as the utopists wrongly
believed), but it is the ones that are dominating who are planning”30.
Distinguishing sociology as the science of reality from the Geisteswissenschaften,
H. Freyer embarked on a critic of German idealism, believed to engender a kind
of history that very easily forgets the importance of the human agent. With
history going on beyond and behind the human actions, says Freyer, culture risks
to become an autonomous realm, which pays little attention to the specific
productivity of the human will and the radical irreducibility of the historicity of
peoples. The people, as a socio-historical reality, are not kept together just by the
activity of an omnivorous Weltgeist. For the German sociologist, the accent
should be translated, through the science of reality, on “creative politics”,
transformation and “the will able to remodel history”31 that tends to create a
post-capitalistic community of the people, of the nation.
Freyer set great emphasis on the ability of the individual, but also of the stateinstitutional agents, to put utopias to work in human history. In one of his most
——————
29 Golopenþia, (1999), lxvii-lxviii .
30 Herrschaft und Plannung, zwei Grundbegriffe der politischen Ethik, 1933, 22 apud Golopenþia (2002)
[1936], 13.
31 Golopenþia, (2002) [1936], 12.
11
85
interesting books, The Problem of Utopia, even if Freyer thought change to be
intrinsic to human Geist, or maybe precisely because of this32, he stated that the
stream of history can be held back and even maintained in a certain form, the
heroic one33.
The utopias of the past, from Plato through Morus, Campanella, to the most
recent ones, all shared, according to Freyer, the same fatal flaw. While their creators
were convinced that their utopias were constructed on scientific principles, none
of them had discovered a scientific path toward implementing their schemes.
They all came to depend, ultimately, on either force or persuasion to bring about
the transformation from the flawed present to the utopian future. Scientific in
designing their ideal states, the utopians abandoned science just when the
problem of implementation arose. Had they remained true to their scientific
pretense they would have had to turn to sociology, to conduct an inventory of
factors in the present that might lead in the direction of their utopian goals.
With this rather strange utopian, uncritical twist, quite central in his
sociological thought, Freyer came to believe that the sociology of his days had
to continue the tradition of Stein and Riehl34, tradition that consisted mostly of
a historical-philosophical explanation of the German Volk development, and the
transformation of this intellectual explanation into a political objective.
Hans Freyer’s sociology, focusing on the political goals that can be
transformed into legitimate reasons for the domination of the political elite in
power, and helping it to apply its regime, its political goals, was active mostly in
imposing, legitimizing and explaining the dominance of the new political elite.
It contributed to the integration of the people in the post-capitalistic community,
depicting and explaining the great goals the political elite was pursuing. An
extraordinary combination of scientific and pure propagandistic approach that
could, in Freyer’s view, re-establish the contemporary sociology affected by a
deep seated crisis. Quite distressing, when we think that the political elites
Freyer was talking about turned out to be the infamous national-socialists.
A. Golopenþia believed that Freyer’s understanding of the role played by
sociology in the new environment created in the aftermath of the crisis and
demise of liberalism is too “German”, in the sense of being too closely linked to
the German politics and institutions and, therefore, not easily translatable for the
problems of other states and nations35.
The social sciences, born during the liberal 19th century, have to suffer, in
A. Golopenþia’s view, great changes to adapt to the heavily administered 20th
century. The essential goal of the renewed social sciences was to be the
informing of governments on social processes taking place in their own states
and in the foreign states with which they have contacts36.
——————
32 The revolutionary conservatism, of which Hans Freyer is a major representative, is founded on such
tensions between change, preservation and recovery of traditional values and institutions (Stern 1974, Dahl
1999, Herf 1987, Muller 1987).
33 Freyer 1936.
34 For the way Riehl uses folklore (Volkskunde) in a political, cameralist way, see Linke (1997)
35 Anton Golopenþia, (2002), [1936], 16.
36 Anton Golopenþia, (2002). [1936] , 7.
86
CÃLIN COTOI
12
The administrative-informative part of sociology appeared to Golopenþia
very important in the redefinition of this science, maybe more important than the
realization of popular integration and the grounding of political domination,
problems central to Hans Freyer’s work.
The Romanian sociologist tried to transform Freyer’s seemingly too
particularistic approach into a system and an interpretation able to clarify the
position of social sciences in all existing modern states and societies. The image
he created was a quite frightful one, but very important for understanding the
process of what we can call the geopolitization of sociology. If Hans Freyer was,
in this part of his sociology37, an extremely sophisticated sociologist cum
propagandist, Golopenþia was opening the way through which he was to become
an equally sophisticated sociologist-geopolitician.
The end of the liberal epoch was almost at hand with the end of Britain’s
world domination. We entered, A. Golopenþia said, a new historic stage where
everybody was perpetually threatened by everybody. For the Romanian
sociologist, in what was going on then, we should see only a new moment, a
very important one though, in a huge historic drama, the drama imposed on
world history by the West through the unfolding of a rational, autonomous, antitraditional and active stance38. This rational attitude, which Golopenþia was far
from criticizing or counterpoising to some idyllic Gemainschaft — like vision of
tradition, was due to result in a great, dialectic transformation of the democratliberal world into an absolutist-mercantilist one.
The social and political sciences, which were drifting freely, autonomously,
in the liberal times, were, in Golopenþia’s view, coming back in the service of the
state and the government, in what seemed to be a new epoch of mercantilistcameralist sciences, like Polizeiwissenschaften and the old Staatswissenschaften.
The liberal, “pure theoretical”, formalistic, pluralistic and autonomous stage in
the development of social sciences, acting like in a Hegelian ruse of reason, has
elaborated finer and more sophisticated instruments that could be used in the
service of the state with a much higher efficiency that in former times.
In these “new times”, A. Golopenþia believed, states and peoples were like
armies, moving in a hostile territory, counting only on their own strength and
trying to survive this dangerous epoch. These armies-states “being sovereign,
their commanding elite comes from within this army and is legitimated, in front
of the troops and the foreigners, by its own domination. The troops are part of
the army and are kept together by the commanding elite, instituted in the last
analysis by these very troops, and are not under any other authority. A huge
propagandistic apparatus is functioning in order to grant an ever renewed
recognition of the elite by the troops and to guarantee the precise enacting of all
decisions of the elite; the scouts/spies are formed by complex research teams”39.
——————
37 His philosophy of culture as it appears, for example, in Theorie des objektiven Geistes — eine
Einleitung in die Kulturphilosophie (1923), translated in English as Theory of objective mind. An introduction
to the philosophy of culture (1998) by Steven Grosby, deserves probably a different interpretation.
38 Golopenþia, (2002), [1936], 22.
39 Golopenþia, (2002), [1936], 24.
13
87
In this world, the obtaining of a strict integration, a maximum of solidarity
and loyalty in relation with the state, and exact information were to be the
necessary preconditions for the maintaining of the very existence of the nation.
In Golopenþia’s view, this new stage in history was necessary, springing from
the attitude out of which the modern western civilization developed. The social
and political sciences reached a stage of development where a new and more
comprehensive integration was required. The liberal sciences, especially the
“theoretical” ones, such as political economy and law, but also sociology — as
it was transformed into a formal and liberal science —, have distanced
themselves from the rationalist-activist position. They have evolved into a kind
of crypto-platonic rumination on the signification of their own existence.
This “de-activation” of social-political sciences engendered by liberalism is
legitimated on a matrix of combined views, creating the liberal Weltanschauung,
the ottocento Geist as Freyer would have put it:
— reality is determined once and for all and is accessible to human
understanding;
— knowledge is a total and self-sufficient comportment;
— the way to knowledge is contemplation and deduction stemming from
contemplation, due to the fact that notions, concepts are representing reality.
Such idealistic mistakes cannot be pursued with impunity anymore, says A.
Golopenþia, in a dynamic and never fully cognoscible world. In his view,
experience was to be the only way to know and understand this world, concepts
being historically determined and functioning as simple keys and guidelines.
The traditionalist-theological position that prolonged itself into the XXth century
into the social sciences through idealist intellectualism was, in fact, a secularized
theodicy. Only recently, Golopenþia believed, we have been able to adopt also in
the human and political realities that attitude freed from all traditions and
autonomous on which the world, as we know it, has been constructed40.
Golopenþia distanced himself from Freyer’s partial neo-hegelianism by not
believing in the existence of predicable destinies for peoples, for nations. His
ontology was an activist-indeterministic one, opposed to what seems to him to
be the implicit leftovers of an idealistic ontology in Freyer’s sociology.
In the perspective of the future Romanian geopolitician, science was transforming
itself, in the new epoch, in an instrument ready to be used in the incessant battle
between the states, battle in which nothing was decided in advance. Geography,
international relations, ethnic minorities etc. were all forms of reality to be
understood and integrated in a constant flux of information and action
(transformation or preservation) for the good of the state. The destiny, the choice
of a particular elite or even ethnicity were not so important for Golopenþia as was
the survival of the state, this being an urgent and pragmatic problem for the
Romanian elites of the 1930’s.
Science was understood to be a part of the actual confronting of concrete
people with the world in which they were living. Being so, science was not
——————
40 Golopenþia, (2002), [1936].
88
CÃLIN COTOI
14
supposed to rise above the existing antagonisms amongst individuals and
people. For Golopentia, science was a universal tool by its methods and the kind
of relation to reality it supposed, but it was always used from a specific political
position, being useful for a certain nation whose specialized device for orientation,
systematization of experience and administration it was meant to be. Golopenþia
explicitly said: “Science is one of the instruments through which irrational
entities, like nations, affirm themselves”41.
Is this kind of science sociology anymore, or its geopolitical turn is already
inevitable? The differences are hard to grasp and the question would probably
have made no sense for Golopenþia. Nevertheless, even if he was not using yet
the term “geopolitics” I believe A. Golopenþia was on the way of introducing a
radical hybridization or transformation of the Romanian sociology into
geopolitics-science of the national state.
J. Agnew’s definition of geopolitics42, referring mostly to its German
impersonation, underlines five essential characteristics:
— the accent put on state as a central form of all politics;
— the naturalized claim to knowledge combined with the idealist goal of
serving one’s own nation state;
— the problem solving orientation, in the service of the state;
— racism;
— Euro-centrism.
Excepting racism, A. Golopenþia’s sociology is very close to this schema. A
quite big difference between Golopenþia’s science of/for the state and classic
German geopolitics, consisted in the absence of explicit geographical
statements. The geographical themes per se are not definitory for a kind of
geopolitics seen as part of sociology and of the “contribution of social sciences
to foreign policy”43. Following Ladis Kristof we can say that: “... the essence of
geopolitics is that it is politics and not geography — not even political geography
and perhaps not even a subdivision of political science, although of course, a
legitimate subject of inquiry by political scientists”44.
In the first issue of Geopolitica ºi Geoistoria review, in 1941, Gh. Brãtianu,
an important member of the new generation of Romanian historians, wrote that
“for Romanians, geopolitics is like Jourdain’s prose; it has always been practiced
but has not been called so”. Even if the assertion of the Romanian historian is
not, generally speaking, a valid one, it is, we believe, quite appropriate for the
characterization of Anton Golopenþia’s work.
Golopenþia’s defining stand on geopolitics appeared in 1937, in Însemnare cu
privire la definirea preocupãrii ce poartã numele de geopolitic?45 (Notice Towards
the Definition of the Approach Called Geopolitics) published in Geopolitica
——————
41 Golopenþia, (2002), [1936] , p. 56.
42 Agnew, (2002).
43 Anton Golopenþia, Ceasul misiunilor reale. Scrisori cãtre Petru Comarnescu, ªtefania Cristescu,
Dimitrie Gusti, Sabin Manuilã, Iacob Mihãilã, H.H. Stahl ºi Tudor Vianu, 527.
44 Kristof, (1994), 222.
45 Golopenþia, (2000), [1939], 533.
15
89
volume, written by A. Golopenþia, Ion Conea and Mircea Popa-Vereº, who is an
extended form of the article Însemnare cu privire la definirea preocupãrii
geopolitice (Notice Towards the Definition of the Geopolitical Approach) published
in Anuarul festiv al Societãþii Studenþilor in geografie „Soveja” (Annals of the
Students of Geography Society “Soveja”), X–XI, 1937–1938.
Anton Golopenþia began to explore the advantages of an explicit geopolitical
language from that moment on. He reached a personal definition of geopolitics
and got involved in the meta-discursive level of geopolitical preoccupations.
Significantly for the dynamics of these disciplinary re-identifications, this
preoccupation with definitions and usages of “geopolitics” emerged after an
argument with Ion Conea, assistant of Simion Mehedinþi and main representative
of the geographical perspective on geopolitics.
For the Romanian sociologist, geopolitics were to represent a new “science
of reality” — not in Max Weber’s sense, but in the sense Freyer ascribed to this
concept — that would incarnate the new administrative, cameralist tendency in
social sciences46. In this way, Golopenþia distanced himself from a part of
geopolitics “classical” definitions that had the tendency to associate it especially
with political geography. Speaking of the attempts to define the new discipline,
Golopenþia believed that they “...did not start from the real proceedings of
geopolitics. On the contrary, the focus was on existing definitions and sciences
with which they thought it should be tuned with. The outcome was that, instead
of expressing the real activities of what is called geopolitics, rising in conscience
the meaning and the way of satisfying this spontaneous interest as a response to
circumstances specific to our times, they built perfect definitions in the
perspective of certain postulates, but with no connection to the reality itself”47.
According to Golopenþia, geopolitics had several defining characteristics that
helped to insure a more realistic proximity to what those who are called
geopoliticians actually do.
There are three main meanings that, according to the Romanian sociologist,
geopolitics could have in the usual scientific settings: theory and research of the
geographical conditions of the state, external political information and political
myth.
The first meaning partially overlaps the domain of political geography and
can be “sometimes regarded as geopolitics”48. The last two meanings would
represent, in Golopenþia’s view, the true novelty that the geopolitical trend brought
into the XXth century social sciences.
As described and positioned by Anton Golopenþia, the fate of geopolitics was
to assume a hegemonic position in the disciplinary field of social sciences, by
realizing a concentration and coordination of the sciences which refer to certain
autonomous aspects of the state and society in a single perspective and by assuming
the construction of political myths.
——————
46 Freyer, 2000[1936].
47 Golopenþia, (2000), [1939], 534.
48 Golopenþia, (2000), [1939], 537.
90
CÃLIN COTOI
16
The German geopolitical discourse, especially that of the Haushofer school,
is quite rarely used in Golopenþia’s geopolitics, who favors Hans Freyer’s
construction of sociology in the service of the state. The reference to the
European (German) scientific “canon” is creative through a selective lecture and
a transformation of the discourse recognized as “geopolitical” in the European
scientific space. This adjustment, translation, can be framed, when successful, in
the limits of the recognizable. We have, with Golopenþia but also with the entire
interwar Romanian “geopolitics”, an example of the complex and ambiguous
relationship wrought between the “center” and the “periphery”, of the adjustment
and transformation of western scientific languages in Romanian social sciences and
of the perpetual double game between the modification of the discourses and the
scientific instruments and the maintaining of the criteria through which they can
be accepted and recognized by the “central” western canon.
A few polemics
After returning from Germany, Anton Golopenþia reintegrated in D. Gusti’s
Bucharest School, and took an active part in defending the School’s point of
view either from certain “dissidents” such as Dumitru Cristian Amzãr, or from
the critical stances coming from Celestin Bouglé or Helmut Klocke.
Anton Golopenþia assumed the role of public defender of the monographic
(gustian) sociology perspective on nation and state in the internecine strifes with
various “sociological dissidences” or with the interpretation coming from the
field of philosophy and ethnology or other attempts of “ethnic ontologies”49.
This role does not stop at the internal, national level as Golopenþia gets involved
also in answering to some external attacks/interpretations. The book Les
convergences des sciences sociales et l’Esprit international, published in Paris
in 1938, contains a critique of D. Gusti’s sociology made by one of the most
important representatives of the French sociological school50: Celestin Bouglé.
D. Gusti’s sociology is, according to Bouglé, nationalist and not general enough
on the one hand and too empiric, with not enough contribution to the unification
of social sciences, on the other. This national phase of sociology is, in Bouglé’s
view, prevalent especially in Central Europe51.
As far as the monographic approach was concerned, a central one for the
identity of the Sociological School from Bucharest, Bouglé, who saw it as
resembling Le Play’s, accused it of a folkoric-nationalizing tendency. “In village
monographies, engendered in Romania mostly by Mr. Gusti, a very powerful
belief manifests itself...: if village research represents for our Romanian
colleagues the true center of sociology, this is surely explained only by the fact
that, to them, rural population, preservers of precious customs and practices, are
Romania’s major force, both moral and material”52.
——————
49 Antohi, (2002).
50 We will use the term “French sociology” to refer to the sociology of Durkheim’s school, as it had a
hegemonic position amongst the various social sciences in France at the beginning of the XXth century.
51 Bouglé, (1938), 13.
52 Bouglé, (1938), 13.
17
91
Golopenþia’s answer was very prompt. To him, the construction part of a
theoretical and methodological instrument “is not ...the only role appropriate for
the scientist specialized in the study of social realities”. In his view, the entire
theoretical-methodological construction does not have (anymore) an
autonomous stake because it is formed “for a reason which transcends science:
making easier the leadership of social life”53. The importance of villages, as the
most frequented object of study in Bucharest School sociology, did not represent,
in Golopenþia’s view, “the true core of sociology”, at least not in the sense of an
essential and self-standing interest, as Bouglé believed, but simply the result of
“applying a method... in Romania’s special context”54. Villages, said Golopenþia,
were significant for Romanian sociology neither because of the ancient customs
and practices they preserved, nor because they were in a process of urbanization
and westernization, but simply because “they represent the body of the Romanian
people, to the unity of which the Romanian sociologists should participate,
above all, through their research55.
Consequently, the stakes of the Romanian sociology seemed subsumable to a
project of a harmonious social change, of sociologically informed social
engineering. The role of sociology appeared to be one of slowing down the
dissolution of socially important traditions and hastening the receiving of
salutary innovations; it “consolidates as much as possible the country traditional
spiritual culture and promotes hygiene, modern agricultural techniques...”56.
Besides an exaggerated optimism, the way in which A. Golopenþia presented the
Bucharest monographic sociology as applied science, in the service of the state
and of the administration, tried to exclude from this science any legitimate
question referring to values and final stakes. This science, in Golopenþia’s view,
was not intrinsically more “nationalistic” than Durkheim’s sociology, whose
follower Bouglé considered himself to be.
The lack of understanding that Celestin Bouglé showed towards the
Bucharest School approach is far from being just conjectural. I do not intend to
dwelve here on a systematic comparison between Durkheim’s School and
Gusti’s School, even though this approach is worth emphasizing. Anyhow, we
find ourselves in front of a more complex comparison. Anton Golopenþia, one of
Dimitrie Gusti’s students, defended the Bucharest school with arguments coming
from Hans Freyer, in front of one of Emile Durkheim’s most distinguished heirs.
The sociology of modernity, as the master from Sorbonne instituted it, may
be understood like a communitarian defense of liberalism57 and as a critique of
Tönnies’s theories58, as some recent commentators on durkheimian sociology
do. Modern society, formed by the organic social division of work and having
individualism — a specific product of modern society — as its sole legitimate
——————
53 Golopenþia, (2002), 86.
54 Golopenþia, (2002), 86.
55 Golopenþia, (2002), 87.
56 Golopenþia, (2002), 87.
57 Cladis, (1992); see also Stedman (2001).
58 Durkheim (1889).
92
CÃLIN COTOI
18
morality and ideology, is kept together by a moral order related to citizenship,
education and professional groups. Nevertheless, the ordering of modern society,
unlike the traditional or segmented ones, implies, necessarily, the background of
a homogenous and closed space.
Organic solidarity, as structure of the society, and corporatism, as a solution
for the modern crisis, imply the existence of a national state, of a homogenous
social (national) space that provides the background for the drama of anomy and
makes possible the complementarities induced by the social division of work.
The fact that Durkheim’s sociology emerges after that immense social, cultural,
economic, military and communicational process that Eugen Weber dubbed as
“the transformation of the peasants into Frenchmen”59 is probably not accidental.
This is the sociology of a homogenous national state where traditional regionalisms
were completely defeated and where nationalism became “banal”60; the
“national” being obscured behind the unfolding of the “social” forces. The
founding of the Sorbonne sociology, the fight for education and the imposing of
a new type of intellectual, artfully presented by Wolf Lepenies61, are pieces from
a necessary “destructive analysis”62 to which the entire European sociology
should be probably subjected in order to gain access to the national implicit that
often hides beyond very “positivist” formulations.
Due to the different phase in the national building process and the different
modality in which social sciences intervened in articulating this process, Gusti’s
monographic sociology showed a relative indifference to French sociology. The
lack of understanding was reciprocal. The attempted monographic accomplishment
of a science of the nation through the study of Romanian villages could not
appear as realistic to a sociologist for whom a synthetic science of sociology was
far from being entirely constituted63.
The group of “primitivist” texts, cultures and populations on which French
sociology fed64 was completely uninteresting for A. Golopenþia. The distance
between Trocadero in Paris and The Village Museum in Bucharest measures
accurately the distance between the Durkheim’s school and Gusti’s school.
In the case of Celestin Bouglé’s critique, the differences in articulating social
sciences with the national project in the French and, respectively, Romanian case,
made the lack of understanding inevitable at the level of fundamental vocabulary.
——————
59 Weber, (1979).
60 Billig, (1995).
61 Lepenies, (1990).
62 Handler, (1985), 41.
63 “Mais pour qu’on en puisse juger, celle-ci est-elle d’ores et déjà intégralment constituée? Nous en
sommes loin. Et les sociologues ne sont pas les derniers à le proclamer. Qu’on mesure plutôt l’étendue du
programme que lui trace M. Mauss dans son article sur les ‘Divisions et proportions des divisions de la
sociologie’ (Année sociologique, nouvelle serie 1924–1925). Elle aurait à coordoner les résultats de recherches
sociologiques spéciales — économiques, juridiques, religieuses, etc. — en les raportant toujours à ces touts
que sont les groupes. Elle mettrait en lumière ce qui constitue les systèmes sociaux et ce qui est dû à leur
influence, elle relèverait la propagation des faits de civilisation par-dessus les frontieres des groupes. Toutes
tâches qui supposent d’immenses enquêtes, des responses à des questionnaires méthodiquement établis, des
études ‘sociographiques’ de toutes sortes, un travail cyclopéen” (Bouglé, 1938, 93).
64 For the role of primitivism in French ethnology, see Paul-Lévy, (1986), 299–320.
19
93
“National”, from A. Golopenþia’s explicit point of view, meant the local
application, on a space legitimated by the existence of a national state, of a
general theoretical corpus. The problem of a possible incompatibility between
the works of sociology and the practices of the nation state is obscured by the
creation of an instrumentalist image, through which sociology does not built
nation through knowledge by itself — as it partly was the case with the type of
Sociologia Militans D. Gusti was trying to develop — but rather helps the state
in this process.
“National”, from Bouglé’s point of view, means the existence of a particular
case, in a context in which the French sociologism, due to Marcel Mauss and
his students, attempted a broad comparison of the diverse “particulars”
with the future aim of accomplishing a synthetic sociology. The study of one’s
own national particularity was not that interesting at the moment when
French sociology’s national particular roots were almost obscured in an
objective-scientific knowledge corpus which seemed capable of embracing the
entire world, or at least the one marked by what was left from the French
empire65.
Anton Golopenþia’s stand towards Helmut Klocke’s study, an ex-colleague of
his, student of H. Freyer’s and G. Ibsen’s and assistant at the Hungarian Institute
from Berlin University, (Landvolk und Dorf in madjarischer und rumänischer
Sicht, in Deutsches Archiv für Landes — und Volkforschung, an I, 1937, no. 4,
p. 990–1023) published in 1937 in Sociologie româneascã (Romanian Sociology),
is interesting because Klocke seemed to accuse D. Gusti’s sociology of the same
flaw that C. Bouglé underlined; that is its “ethnicism”. However, the German
rural sociologist’s position is quite different from that of Durkheim’s disciple. It
is not the existence of an abstract and systematic science that forms the criterion
according to which the monographic approach of Romanian sociology is judged
by, but “the etatic principle”.
Hungarian rural sociology, strongly influenced by the sociology of Gusti
School, was “ethnicist”. The two rural sociologies, Hungarian and Romanian,
were, in Helmut Klocke’s view, interested only in their own kindred, indifferent
toward the state that includes fragments of other nations66. This time, the attack
was more deeply felt as it used a perspective forged in a very similar conceptual
language with the one used by A. Golopenþia. The fact that the romanian
sociologist had to defend D. Gusti’s position from an attack stemming from a
‘freyerian’ perspective reveals, in an oblique way, the difference between
Golopenþia’s geopolitical-sociology and the monographic-cumulative science of
the nation coming from Gusti.
The only answer that Golopenþia was able to find to oppose Klocke’s critique
sounds foreign to the implicit rationale of gustian monographic sociology: “we
began with a series of Romanian regions because they are of great interest for
——————
65 Stocking jr., (1983).
66 Helmut Klocke, p. 1000 apud Golopenþia, (2002), 89.
94
CÃLIN COTOI
20
us. But we will continue just like both professor Gusti and some of us said, with
the study of villages of foreign infiltration and the other social layers of Romania,
for the sake of our dear state”67.
Conclusions
In interwar Romania, in the context of a heightened competition amongst
scientific discourses trying to capture the cultural and national ‘essence’, specificity,
of the newly formed Greater Romania, sociology (in its monographical guise
embraced by Dimitrie Gusti) was able to form a self sustaining discourse about
the nation. I believe that the importance of sociology in the interwar period is
due, at least partially, to the way it addressed the problematic of the national
space and the new borders (internal and external). The geopoliticization of
sociology was explicitly endorsed by Anton Golopenþia — a student of both
Dimitrie Gusti and Hans Freyer — by understressing the technical, stately and
administrative aspects of Gusti’s larger nation-building project and taking them
to be the true synthetic part and the possible rallying point of the science of the
nation which, in a freyerian manner, was to be also a science of the state and for the
state. His position developed in parallel to a geopoliticization of anthropogeography
and tried, in the end, to create a hegemonic, all-encompassing geopolitics of the
nation-state.
In the background of this impressive scholarly attempt, there is a blind spot,
a certain blurring of the historicity of the nation in connection with the
historicity of the scientific discourse analyzing and serving the nation in the
same time. When at least one of the roots of the nation can be traced, in what
Anton Golopenþia, following Hans Freyer, defined as the ottocento Geist, its
disappearance in a post liberal world which became geopolitical — in the
peculiar sense of this term attributed by the Romanian sociologist — should lead
to a change in the intimate structure of the nation itself.
If the nation is seemingly absorbed by the national state, “the radical
imaginary” of the nation and nationalism disappears completely in front of its
“institutional imaginary”68. However, A. Golopenþia’s position appears to be
rather one of ignoring the changes that the emergence of a geopolitical world
would imply in the very constitution and reproduction mechanisms of the nation.
In his works the nation appeared as having a strong natural-organic setting and
as existing behind scientific discourses.
Thus, the primordial national community is implicitly constructed as a
substrate that sustains and nurtures the scientific discourses; in this process these
discourses become tainted with meanings different from the explicit arguments.
This un- or under-formulated stances can be seen and deciphered either in the
context of polemics, or, even better, in the context of unexpected agreements
between different scientific positions, behind which one may guess this diffuse,
common ideology, of the organic, primordial character of the nation.
——————
67 Golopenþia, (2002), 90.
68 Castoriadis, (1987).
21
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPY
95
Agnew, John. Making Political Geography, London: Hodder Headline Group, 2002.
Amzãr, D.C. „Gând ºi cuvânt” [Tought and Word]. Rânduiala. Arhivã de gând ºi faptã româneascã, 1 (1),
1935, Bucharest.
Amzãr, D.C. „Începutul sforþãrii proprii. Gânduri ºi strãduinþi ale tineretului de azi” [The Beginning of our
own Strive. Toughts and Attempts of the Today Young]. Rânduiala. Arhivã de gând ºi faptã româneascã,
4 (1), 1935, Bucharest.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London:
Verso, 1991.
Antohi, Sorin. „Romania and the Balkans: From Geocultural Bovarism to Ethnic Ontology”. Tr@nsit Online,
21, 2002 .
Bouglé, Celestin. Bilan de la sociologie francaise contemporaine, Paris: Félix Alcan, 1938.
Bouglé, Celestin. Introduction. In: Les convergences des sciences sociales et l’Esprit international, Paris:
Hartmann, 1937.
Brãtianu, Gheorghe. “Geopolitica, factor educativ ºi naþional”. [Geopolitics, a Pedagogical and National
Factor]. Geopolitica ºi Geoistoria. Revistã românã pentru Sud-Estul european, year I, no. 1, 1941.
Bunzl, Matti. From Volksgeist and Nationalcharakter to an Anthropological Concept of Culture. In: Volksgeist
as Method and Ethic. Ed. G.W.Stocking, jr. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996.
Castoriadis, Cornelius. The Imaginary Institution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.
Cladis, M. A Communitarian Defence of Liberalism: Emile Durkheim and Contemporary Social Theory,
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.
Clifford, James. Routes. Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, Harvard: Harvard University
Press, 1997.
Conea, I. Golopenþia, A and Popa-Vereº, M. Geopolitica [Geopolitics], Craiova: Ramuri, 1939.
Conea, Ion. „Geopolitica, o ºtiinþã nouã”. [Geopolitics, a New Science]. Sociologie Româneascã, no. 9–10,
year II, 1937.
Dahl, Göran. Radical Conservatism and the Future of Politics, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE
Publications, 1999.
Delanty, George and Patrick Mahoney. Nationalism and Social Theory. Modernity and the Recalcitrance of the
Nation, London: Sage, 2002.
Drãghicescu, Dumitru. 1907. Din Psihologia Poporului Român. [From the Psychology of Romanian People],
Bucharest: Libraria Leon Alcalay.
Durkheim, Emile. Sociologie et sciences sociales. In: De la méthode dans les sciences, Paris: Felix Alcan,
1909.
Eliade, Mircea 1928. “Anno Domini”. Cuvântul, year IV, no. 973, 1928.
Farinelli, F. 2001. Friedrich Ratzel and the Nature of Political Geography. In: On the Centenary of Ratzel’s
“Politische Geographie”: Europe Between Political Geography and Geopolitics, Eds. M. Antonisch et al.
Rome: Memorie della Società Geografica Italiana.
Freyer, Hans. Theory of Objective Mind. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Culture, Athens: Ohio University
Press, 1998 [1932].
Freyer, Hans. Die politische Insel: eine Geschichte der Utopien von Platon bis zur Gegenwart, Viena:
Karoliner, 2000 [1936].
Golopenþia, Anton. Ceasul misiunilor reale. Scrisori cãtre Petru Comarnescu, ªtefania Cristescu, Dimitrie
Gusti, Sabin Manuilã, Iacob Mihãilã, H.H. Stahl ºi Tudor Vianu [The Hour of Real Missions. Letters to
Petru Comarnescu, ªtefania Cristescu, Dimitrie Gusti, Sabin Manuilã, Iacob Mihãilã, H.H. Stahl and
Tudor Vianu], Bucharest: Editura Fundaþiei Culturale Române, 1999.
Golopenþia, Anton. Opere complete. Sociologie. [Complete Works. Sociology], vol. 1, Bucharest: Editura
Enciclopedicã, 2002.
Golopenþia, Anton. Opere complete. Statisticã, demografie ºi geopoliticã. [Complete Works. Statistics,
Demography and Geopolitics] vol. 2, Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedicã & Editura Univers Enciclopedic,
2000.
Golopenþia, Anton. Însemnare cu privire la definirea preocupãrii ce poartã numele de geopoliticã, [Notice
Towards the Definition of the Approach Called Geopolitics]. In: Opere complete. Statisticã, demografie ºi
geopoliticã. [Complete Works. Statistics, Demography and Geopolitics]. Ed. Sanda Golopenþia.
Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedicã, Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2002 [1939].
Golopenþia, Anton. Informarea conducerii statului ºi sociologia tradiþionalã [The Information of State
Leadership and Traditional Sociology]. In: Opere complete. Sociologie. [Complete Works. Sociology]. Ed.
Sanda Golopenþia. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedicã, 2002 [1936].
96
CÃLIN COTOI
22
Golopenþia, Anton. Rapsodia epistolara.[The Epistolary Rhapsody] Bucharest: Albatros, 2004.
Golopenþia, Sanda (Ed.). Cronologie.[Chronology]. In: Opere complete. Sociologie. [Complete Works.
Sociology], Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedicã, 2002.
Gusti, Dimitrie. Sociologia militans. Introducere în sociologia politicã. [Sociologia Militans. Introduction to
Political Sociology]. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Social Român, 1934.
Gusti, Dimitrie. “Temeiurile teoretice ale cercetãrilor monografice”. [Theoretical Grounding of Monographical
Research]. Sociologie româneascã, 7–9 (1), 1936.
Gusti, Dimitrie. “ªtiinþa naþiunii”. [The Science of the Nation]. Sociologie româneascã, 2–3 (2), 1937.
Handler, Richard. On Dialogue and Distructive Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Research 41, 1985, 171–82.
Henning, Richard. Geopolitik, Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1931.
Herf, Jeffrey. Reactionary Modernism. Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich,
London: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Kristof, Ladis. “The State-Idea, the National Idea and the Image of the Fatherland”. Orbis 11, 1967, 238–55.
Kristof, Ladis. The image and the vision of fatherland. In: Geography and national identity. Ed. David Hooson.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.
Lepenies, Wolf. Les trois cultures. Entre science et littérature l’avènement de la sociologie, Paris: Éditions de
la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 1990.
Linke, Uli. Colonizing the National Imaginary: Folklore, Anthropology, and the Making of the Modern State.
In: Cultures of Scholarship. Ed. S.C. Humphreys. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Livezeanu, Irina. Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, Nation-Building and Ethnic Struggle,
1918–1930. Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell Universty Press, 1995.
Mauss, Marcel. Oeuvres, vol. 1–3, Paris: Les Éditions de Minut, 1974.
Mehedinti, Simion. Coordonate etnografice: civilizaþia ºi cultura. [Ethnographical Coordinates: Civilization
and Culture]. In: Civilizatie ºi culturã. Concepte, definiþii, rezonanþe. [Civilization and Culture. Concepts,
Definitions, Resonances]. Ed. Gheorghiþã Geanã. Bucharest: Editura Trei, 1999 [1930].
Mucchielli, Laurent. De la nature à la culture. Les fondateurs Français des sciences humaines 1870-1940,
Thèse de Doctorat, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, 1996.
Muller, James. The Other God that Failed. Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservatism.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987.
Murphy, David. The Heroic Earth. Geopolitical Thought in Weimar Germany 1918–1933, Kent and London:
Kent State University Press, 1997.
Nisbet, Robert. Conservatism. Dream and Reality. Minneapolis: University of Minesota Press, 1986.
Paul-Lévy, Fr. “A la fondation de la sociologie: l'idéologie primitiviste”. L'Homme, vol. 97–98, 1986, pp.
299–320.
Pocock, J.G.A. The concept of a language and the métier d’historien: some considerations on practice. In: The
language of political theory in Early-Modern Europe. Ed. Anthony Papden. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987.
Pocock, J.G.A.. Politics, language and time. Essays on political thought and history, Chicago ºi Londra:
University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Rostas, Zoltan. Sala luminoasã. Primii monografiºti ai ºcolii gustiene. [The Enlightened Hall. The First
Monographists of the Gustian School]. Bucharest: Paideia, 2003.
Stahl, H. H. Amintiri ºi gânduri din vechea ºcoalã a „monografiilor sociologice”. [Memories and Thoughts
from the Old School of ‘Sociological Monographies’] Bucharest: Minerva, 1981.
Stedman Jones, S. Durkheim Reconsidered, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001.
Stern, F. The politics of cultural despair. A study in the rise of Germanic ideology, Berkely, Los Angeles,
London: University of California Press, 1974.
Stocking, George W. Observers Observed. Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork, History of Anthropology, vol
I, Wisconsin: University of Winsconsin Press, 1983.
Volovici, Leon. Nationalist Ideology and Antisemitism. The Case of Romanian Intellectuals in the 1930s.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.
Weber, Eugen. Peasants into Frenchmen. The Modernization of Rural France 1870–1914, London: Chatto and
Windus, 1979.
Zub, Alexandru. Istorie ºi istorici în România interbelicã. [History and Historians in Interwar Romania]. Iaºi:
Editura Junimea, 1989.
THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT
KANT ET RAWLS: REMARQUES SUR L’ÉVOLUTION
DES THÉORIES IDÉALES CONCERNANT
LES RELATIONS INTERNATIONALES
ANA BAZAC
Abstract. The aim of the paper is to counter-pose Kant’s and Rawls’ ideal
theories concerning the international relations, just because the latter
expressed and insisted on the Kantian origin of his neo-liberal view on the
present world history.
Kant a été un grand créateur de la théorie idéale des relations internationales.
Ce qui est important c’est de comprendre que ces théories — et leurs créateurs —
n’ignoraient pas du tout «la guerre des tous contre tous», mais qu’ils opposaient
justement un ensemble de normes par lequel les relations entre les pays
devraient et devaient se corriger, sinon se transformer.1
Les théories idéales sont parties du présupposé que l’essence de la politique
est le droit par lequel la variété des relations interhumaines, y compris les relations
internationales, pourrait se déployer d’une manière raisonnable, manière générée
elle-même par la qualité rationnelle de l’homme. En s’appuyant sur la doctrine
rationaliste de l’action humaine, les théories «idéalistes» des relations
internationales ont ouvert le chemin vers l’éthique des relations internationales
qui contrebalance la description réaliste de ce qu’il y a dans la politique
internationale avec l’exigence normative de ce qu’il devrait être. Les théories
idéales ne sont pas plus volontaristes que celles réalistes: l’explication des relations
internationales par l’évolution du droit et de la justice qui les réglementent n’est
plus restrictive pour la théorie comme pour la pratique que la mise en vedette de
la force et de l’équilibre des forces sur le plan international.
Avant la victoire historique des relations modernes, avant l’évolution du
capitalisme comme système dominant, le courant des théories idéales sur les
relations internationales a eu une certaine visibilité, même si le réalisme de
Machiavel avait averti sur les faiblesses de ce courant, en effet sur l’antagonisme
entre les suppositions de celui-ci et, d’autre part, les relations internationales de
——————
1 Paul Janet, Histoire de la philosophie morale et politique dans l’antiquité et les temps modernes, Tome
second, Paris, Librairie philosophique de Ladrange, 1860, p. 561, a observé que le grand philosophe allemand
des Lumières a traité au plus haut niveau un des problèmes négligés par les publications de ce temps-là: celui
de l’accord entre la politique et la morale dans les relations internationales, justement comme opposition
«contre la politique extérieure empirique et machiavélique».
98
ANA BAZAC
2
la modernité en cours de formation. C’était caractéristique pour la théorie idéale
justement la volonté de dépasser l’opposition entre les relations internes qu’on
pouvait présumer s’améliorer et ainsi devenir paisibles et la guerre extérieure.
Est-ce que celle-ci serait inévitable?
Mais toujours les penseurs ont tout d’abord résolu les questions les plus
proches et, ainsi, plus pressantes. De cette manière leurs principaux objectifs ont
été les reformes internes, le devenir des relations interpersonnelles internes, afin
de constituer non seulement une meilleure société, mais aussi un modèle capable
à diffuser. De ce point de vue, les théories idéales ont été «réalistes» en proposant
une transformation quasiment structurelle «dans un seul pays», en laissant ainsi
ouverts les rapports antagoniques entre les pays. C’était «la rareté des biens
disponibles» qui «entraînait une âpre compétition entre les hommes, chacun ne
pouvant être satisfait qu’aux dépens d’autrui.»2 Ainsi, même la fameuse île Utopie,
où la vie interne serait si désirable pour l’auteur de sa description, se basait sur
des esclaves qu’on achetait à l’extérieur»3, et sur des relations internationales
amicales dans les seules conditions quand «les peuples (qui) viennent lui
demander des chefs.»4 Et si on tenait la guerre «en abomination», elle était tout
de même faite: la conception utopienne sur la guerre n’annulait ni au nom des
principes humanistes ni à celui du droit international — des traités qu’elle ne
tenait pas du tout en compte5 — la guerre, non seulement pour défendre les
frontières, mais aussi pour repousser une invasion ennemie sur les terres des
alliés, ou pour délivrer de la servitude et du joug d’un tyran un peuple opprimé par
le despotisme.6 De cette façon l’idéalisme interne de la théorie sociale à l’aube
de la modernité a été doublé par le réalisme concernant les mêmes relations
internationales: la force était celle qui régnait celles-ci, même si la force était jugée.
En effet l’échange et la production ne s’avaient pas développé au niveau de
générer la théorie du système capitaliste mondial. Le temps doit toujours
s’écouler et les exemples s’agglomérer avant que la théorie puisse monter et
saisir les tendances de la réalité.
Presque deux siècles après les utopistes de première génération et en
contextes historiques différentes, Kant a continué la théorie de la paix en partant
de la perspective de la bonne volonté de chaque pays, ainsi de la perspective des
pays vers les rapports internationaux, vers le système de ceux-ci, et non pas de ce
système vers les pays. On ne peut pas ignorer le libéralisme commercial de Kant:
la nature «se sert de l’intérêt réciproque pour unir les peuples... c’est l’esprit du
commerce qui est incompatible avec la guerre»7. Évidemment Kant n’a pas
——————
2 Maurice Duverger, Janus. Les deux faces de l’Occident, Paris, Fayard, 1972, p. 248.
3 Thomas Morus, L’Utopie (1516), traduit du latin par Victor Stuvenel, Paris, Lumen Animi, 1935, 148.
4 Ibidem, p. 157.
5 Parce que «dans les terres de ce nouveau monde, il est rare que les conventions entre princes soient
observées de bonne foi», ibidem.
6 Ibidem, p. 161.
7 Kant, Projet de paix perpétuelle (1795), texte intégral, traduction originale de Pierre-François Burger,
Notes explicatives, questionnaires, documents et parcours philosophique établis par Monique Castillo,
professeur à l’Université de Poitiers, Paris, Hachette, 1998, p. 50.
3
KANT ET RAWLS: REMARQUES SUR L’EVOLUTION DES THÉORIES IDÉALES
99
répondu à la question si la paix par le commerce serait bonne pour tous les pays:
comment pourrait-il le profit des producteurs d’un pays se réaliser sinon par
l’export, détruisant ainsi la production d’autres pays?8 (On peut saisir la tradition
de la logique fragmentée de la société: la discussion des problèmes politiques isolée
des questions économiques, c’est-à-dire la réserve envers les contradictions des
domaines.)
Pour cette raison, Kant a doublé le libéralisme par son aspect républicain: la
démocratie interne pourrait se transposer sur le plan international, et serait
désirable de se réaliser ainsi, justement parce que, le philosophe de Königsberg
étant conscient que les nations rivalisaient aussi par l’intermédiaire du commerce,
le cadre démocratique des droits humains serait le seul qui contrebalancerait la
concurrence internationale. On doit noter ici de nouveau le réalisme de Kant par
exemple face aux penseurs contemporains qui ignorent la question de la
concurrence économique en la «transposant» sur le plan de la «quête de
l’identité».
Enfin, la généralisation d’une société civile mondiale ne pourrait pas avoir
lieu sans un système des institutions — y compris le droit international — qui
développerait la coopération, ainsi la fermeté des principes: le libéralisme
institutionnel est la troisième forme de théorie idéale (normative) promue par
Kant.
En passant, justement parce que le libéralisme (les droits de l’homme et le
marché libre) employé dans les relations internationales a plusieurs formes —
c’est-à-dire manifestées comme réalisme et comme idéalisme/encadrées dans
ces conceptions — on doit être sensible aux supposés fins tout comme on doit le
faire envers les supposés moyens. On peut utiliser les arguments libéraux pour
légitimer la paix aussi bien comme le règne de la force. En même temps, on peut
bien déduire de ces arguments des théories idéales — de ce qu’il faut faire pour
implémenter les principes libéraux des droits de l’homme — des théories
consolidant l’affirmation du statu quo, de la situation réelle des puissances qui
luttent pour une meilleure place dans le concert international.
On note maintenant quelques aspects essentiels de la théorie idéale de Kant
sur la paix perpétuelle comme «base» de la théorie rawlsienne de la paix par le
droit des peuples.
Kant a été le représentant remarquable des rêves immémoriaux de la paix9
que les Lumières ont peut-être cru très proche, réalisable en fait. En effet, si les
——————
8 Un économiste roumain connu entre les deux guerres mondiales, Mikhail Manoïlesco, Théorie du
protectionnisme et de l’échange international (1929), dans l’édition roumaine Forþele naþionale productive ºi
comerþul internaþional. Teoria protecþionismului ºi a schimbului internaþional (Les forces nationales productives
et le commerce international. La théorie du protectionnisme et de l’échange international) Bucureºti, Editura
ªtiinþificã ºi Enciclopedicã, 1986, a considéré que le protectionnisme des pays faibles serait acceptable et
nécessaire, et accepté par les pays développés qui obtiendraient le profit par leur avance scientifique et
technique. L’histoire a férocement contredit Manoïlesco.
9 On note habituellement les configurations plus ou moins théoriques d’Aristophane, de l’Abbé de
Saint-Pierre, de J.-J. Rousseau. Voir J. Beck, Peace Plans of Rousseau, Bentham, and Kant, http://rousseaustudies.
free.fr/Articlebeck.htm (25-I-2007).
100
ANA BAZAC
4
philosophes, étant les maîtres chanteurs des gens communs, ont étaient marqués
par le désir de donner à l’humanité le schéma de la bonne vie, le schéma d’une
société meilleure, peu d’entre eux se hasardaient à affronter l’antagonisme
visible entre les pays et les difficultés de construire des plans de paix pour le
monde entier.
De ce premier point de vue, Kant a dépassé la bonne volonté des utopistes
comme Morus, Campanella, Andreae justement par son projet de rendre la paix
entre les cités qui, chacune à son tour œuvrait pour devenir des «îles» d’harmonie,
contrant les autres et en défi de celles-la.
Réalisme: la guerre, et non pas la paix, est la condition naturelle de la société.
Comment alors pourrait-on établir la paix? Par l’instauration du droit dans les
relations internationales, tout d’abord par la consignation par écrit des articles
définitifs qui rendent possibles les conditions juridiques pour une paix perpétuelle.
Au niveau des relations internationales, comme à celui des relations
interpersonnelles, Kant est (en bonne vision libérale) un optimiste modéré: si
l’homme n’est pas mauvais de par sa nature — parce que les inclinations
générées par les besoins / les conditions matérielles peuvent être apprivoisées /
humanisées / canalisées dans la juste direction, la réalisation du devoir humain, par
la raison qui est également un donné constitutif — ni les relations internationales
ne sont pas destinées à l’infini à la guerre. Mais l’homme n’est pas non plus bon
de par sa nature — à cause des inclinations qui répondent aux conditions dures
de l’existence. De cette manière, l’homme, y compris dans ses relations
internationales par l’intermédiaire des États, a besoin des structures de droit qui
lui permettent et canalisent le comportement rationnel, ainsi moral. Le droit est
la raison consignée dans les relations sociales, ainsi sa puissance. Il est le seul
contrepoids aux rapports de force. Kant soutient avec enthousiasme l’état de
droit dans les relations sociales, contre les rapports arbitraires et de force. Les
Lumières de la raison constituent ainsi la base gnoséologique de la transition
vers l’État démocratique — où chacun/chacune se conçoit citoyen/citoyenne, et
l’est, et vers des relations internationales démocratiques et de paix.
Le droit civil protège les personnes en tant que citoyens du peuple, tandis que
le droit des peuples régit les relations entre les États. Mais, surtout si la puissance
du droit se développera et en qualité de théorie normative, c’est le droit
cosmopolitique qui doit permettre que les hommes se sentent membres d’un État
universel comme citoyens du monde. L’hypothèse de Kant constitue le noyau du
caractère idéal de sa théorie: le consensus et la confluence des deux types de
droit dépassent le cadre principal des théories libérales du moment, celui de la
légitimation de l’intérêt d’État, à son intérieur bien qu’à son extérieur, ainsi de
la suprématie de cet intérêt.
Théorie idéale: La paix est perpétuelle de son essence (article 1), ce qui veut
dire a. qu’elle est différente de l’armistice qui est un arrêt signé des hostilités et
qui est provisoire à cause de la logique des confrontations entre forces de
puissance différente et b. que la paix doit être établie par les États, étant ainsi une
construction rationnelle, une réciproque soumission des volontés aux principes
raisonnables du droit.
5
KANT ET RAWLS: REMARQUES SUR L’EVOLUTION DES THÉORIES IDÉALES 101
La première exigence du droit international serait ainsi que «aucun État
libre... ne pourra être acquis par un autre État» (article 2). Reste alors la
possibilité de conquérir des États qui ne sont pas indépendants de point de vue
des Puissances européennes. Est-ce que cette «exception» serait-elle conforme à
la morale d’une paix perpétuelle? Non, évidement, mais la théorie de Kant n’est
pas du tout une application de son éthique aux relations internationales: si, au
niveau de l’éthique, chaque homme, justement à cause de son caractère rationnel,
pouvait devenir moral par la compréhension des principes — et ainsi l’éthique
est/reste ouverte parce qu’elle n’a comme fondement que la raison humaine, son
effort de vaincre les inclinations et les conditions irrationnelles, sa victoire
entrevue par l’intermédiaire de la science des Lumières — l’établissement de la
paix perpétuelle part, raisonnablement, du niveau existant de la situation
internationale, du moment existant au temps de Kant. Il ne s’agit pas d’un simple
eurocentrisme, mais du calcul rationnel que a. la paix pourrait mieux s’établir si
les Etats ont encore leur «terrain de chasse» et b. que le reste du monde pourrait
«s’intégrer» dans ce contexte international paisible et, petit à petit, dépasser les
problèmes et les complexes générés par le statut de pays acquis. Certainement
que du point de vue des relations entre les Puissances et «le reste» (disons, en
termes contemporains, entre le Nord et le Sud, ou entre les pays développés et
les pays sous-développés), la théorie internationale de Kant est fermée et
«réaliste»: le droit rationnel soutenant la possible paix perpétuelle pour les États
établis devient la porte fermée du «plus petit mal», ou du «mal nécessaire».10
La logique unitaire de l’éthique — qui préconise que chaque homme doit se
comporter envers autrui d’après le principe de la réciprocité, ce qui veut dire
qu’on doit traiter les gens comme fin, et jamais seulement comme moyens — et
de la théorie cosmopolitique a mené Kant à proposer le bouleversant article 3:
«les armées permanentes (miles perpetuus) doivent entièrement disparaître avec
le temps» parce que la guerre a des conséquences économiques dévastatrices et
parce que, en utilisant l’homme pour tuer un autre homme, les droits de l’homme
et la valeur de la personne humaine sont d’emblée reniés. De ce point de vue,
pas seulement l’armée, mais l’institution de la diplomatie et l’économie même
doivent quitter les activités liées à l’agression.
Kant ajoute encore 3 articles préliminaires: «on ne doit pas contracter des
dettes publiques en vue des affaires extérieures de l’État»11, «aucun État ne doit
s’ingérer de force dans la constitution ni dans le gouvernement d’un autre État»,
«aucun État en guerre avec un autre ne doit s’autoriser des hostilités qui rendent
impossible la confiance réciproque quand il sera question de la paix. Tels sont
l’emploi des assassins (percussores), d’empoisonneurs (venefici), la violation d’une
capitulation, l’incitation à la trahison (perduellio), au sein de l’État ennemi,
etc.»12
——————
10 Voir Ana Bazac, Hegel et l’Afrique. Le thème des relations entre les États de l’Europe occidentale et
l’Afrique, présenté in absentia au colloque international Religion, Philosophie et Sociétés Africaines, Bénin,
Université d’ Abomey-Calavi, 10–13 janvier 2007.
11 On ne doit pas oublier la remarque de Kant: «cette facilité de faire la guerre, jointe au penchant des
gouvernements pour elle...», Kant, Projet de paix perpétuelle, p. 10–13.
12 Kant, Projet de paix perpétuelle, p. 12–15.
102
ANA BAZAC
6
Ainsi tout d’abord le rôle des préceptes raisonnables, résultat de la conscience
humaine rationnelle, pour implémenter la paix: la paix est une structure artificielle,
culturelle, et pas naturelle; mais les gens humains non plus ne sont des êtres
naturels; leur essence consiste dans la raison humaine universelle13, ce qui
implique l’universalisabilité des principes rationnelles, le fait que ceux-ci, en
se focalisant sur les buts humains (la liberté, les libertés), n’ont de sens
qu’universalisables; pour cette raison, la réalisation des principes rationnelles
est la condition d’un accord minimum des gens; la puissance de ces principes est
évidente pour tous, quels que soient le niveau d’instruction et la capacité
d’expression14; les idéaux humains sont si importants parce qu’ils agissent en
tant que forces profondes15 de la conscience et de l’action humaine.16
Ainsi, parce que la paix «n’est pas un état de nature... l’état de paix doit donc
être institué»17, par des lois strictes.18 Justement parce qu’en réalité les États se
comportent l’un envers l’autre comme se comportent les gens déterminés par les
inclinations engendrées dans les conditions précaires19 — ce qui veut dire à cause
de la méchanceté de l’homme20 —, «il ne peut y avoir selon la raison aucune
autre manière de sortir de l’état anomique, qui ne contient que la guerre, que
d’abandonner leur liberté sauvage (anomique) exactement comme les
particuliers, de se soumettre à des lois publiques coercitives et de former ainsi
un État de nations (civitas gentium...) qui embrasserait finalement tous les peuples
de la Terre.»21
Kant a vu très bien l’opposition entre «la politique théorique» et «la politique
pratique» et le fait que celle-ci regarde de haut la première22, la primauté des
intérêts des États23, mais la seule solution d’éradiquer la guerre lui a paru
l’institution d’une constitution républicaine (démocratique) pour tous les pays,
la réalisation, sur cette base, d’une fédération de peuples,24 ainsi le renforcement
——————
13 Kant, Projet de paix perpétuelle, p. 53.
14 Kant, Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, translation Thomas
Kingsmill Abbot, http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fkfiles=10995&, page 13: “I do not, therefore,
need any far-reaching penetration to discern what I have to do in order that my will may be morally good” (so
in order to know people do not need very high level of instruction).
15 Robert Frank, Penser historiquement les relations internationales, 2003, mise en ligne: 2005, AFRI,
vol. IV, http://www.afri.ct.org/article.php3?id_article=458 (1-II-2007). Voir aussi John Rawls, Paix et démocratie.
Le droit des peuples et la raison publique (The Law of Peoples. With The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,
1999), Paris, La Découverte, 2006, p. 155: «Si une Société raisonnablement juste des Peuples dont les
membres subordonnent leur pouvoirs à des fins raisonnables n’est pas possible, et si les hommes sont largement
amoraux, sinon incurablement cyniques et égocentriques, on est en droit de se demander, avec Kant, si la vie
sur terre vaut la peine d’être vécue pour les êtres humains.»
18 Ibidem, p. 15–16.
19 Ibidem, p. 44.
20 Ibidem, p. 29: «La méchanceté de la nature humaine que l’on peut voir à nu et sans contrainte dans les
relations des peuples entre eux (tandis que dans l’état civil et légal elle se voile beaucoup sous la contrainte du
gouvernement).»
21 Ibidem, p. 32.
22 Ibidem, p. 9.
23 Ibidem, p. 13.
24 Ibidem, p. 28.
7
du droit soutenu par les États «(du moins en paroles)»25. Kant a considéré que
sa position normative n’était pas une simple idée, mais que la pratique même a
démontré la consistance de celle-ci et la possibilité de la réaliser: «il s’ensuit que
l’idée d’un droit cosmopolitique n’est pas une manière chimérique et exaltée de
se représenter le droit, mais un complément nécessaire du code non écrit qui
contient le droit public aussi bien que le droit des gens, en vue de la réalisation
des droits de l’homme en général et par là en vue de la paix perpétuelle.»26
L’exemple contraire des «États commerçants de notre continent» envers «des
peuples et des pays étrangers» qui «furent pour eux des pays qui n’appartenaient
à personne parce qu’ils comptaient les habitants pour rien»27, a poussé Kant à
questionner la dialectique sociale et à saisir le fait des «conséquences inattendues»:
«la nature (nature daedala rerum) dont le cours mécanique fait transparaître la
conformité au but: faire naître la concorde du sein même de la discorde parmi
les hommes, et cela même contre leur volonté.»28 Ainsi le droit et la bonne
organisation ne font que venir à la rencontre du «mécanisme de la nature»29.
De ce fait il ne s’agirait pas que les philosophes imposeraient, avec leurs maximes,
la paix publique, ou qu’ils imposeraient leur consultation par les dirigeants. De
plus, il paraît qu’il serait nécessaire une certaine «division du travail» entre
ceux-ci et les promoteurs de la pensée libre: «On ne doit pas s’attendre à ce que
les rois deviennent philosophes ou à ce que les philosophes deviennent rois mais
on ne doit pas non plus le souhaiter: parce que le pouvoir corrompt inévitablement
le libre jugement de la raison. Mais que les rois ou les peuples rois…ne
permettent pas que la classe des philosophes disparaisse ou devienne muette, en
les laissant au contraire s’exprimer librement, cela est indispensable aux uns et
aux autres pour apporter de la lumière dans leurs affaires.»30
Quelle est la liaison entre cette théorie normative et la réalité? Kant a été
conscient du fait que le droit lui-même impose des contraintes: «que le
commencement de la force, et sous la contrainte de la force on fonde ensuite le
droit public.»31 «Il ne peut donc pas y avoir de conflit entre la politique en tant
que doctrine du droit devenue agissante et la morale en tant que doctrine, mais
restée théorique, du droit (il ne peut donc pas y avoir de conflit entre la pratique
et la théorie).»32 De ce point de vue il paraît évident de dévoiler les «maximes
sophistiques» des «perfides représentants des puissants de la Terre»: 1. fac et
excusa (fait et justifie ce que tu as fait), 2. si fecisti, nega (si tu l’as fait, nie-le),
3. divide et impera (divise pour régner).33 Au fond, ces maximes relèvent du
simple problème du savoir-faire (problema technicum).
——————
25 Ibidem, p. 30.
26 Ibidem, p. 39.
27 Kant, Ibidem, p. 36.
28 Kant, Ibidem, p. 41–51.
32 Kant, Ibidem, p. 56. Voir aussi p. 68: «Objectivement donc (c’est-à-dire en théorie) il n’y a aucun conflit
entre la morale et la politique. Subjectivement au contraire...le conflit demeurera toujours...»
33 Kant, Ibidem, p. 59, 64, 62.
104
ANA BAZAC
8
Au contraire, la raison pratique consiste tout d’abord dans le principe formel
qui incombe un problème moral (problema morale): «agit de sorte que tu puisses
vouloir que ta maxime devienne une lois générale (quel que soit le but de ton
action).»34 Seulement cet état «procède de la reconnaissance du devoir.»35
Certainement on doit s’approcher avec prudence de ce but, mais l’essentiel c’est
que les États n’attendent pas de l’entente «analogue à un État universel» du
«bien-être ou de la félicité», mais «du pur concept du devoir de droit...quelles
que soient les conséquences matérielles qui puissent en résulter.»36
En somme, «toute considération au concept du droit, qui seul pourrait fonder
à jamais la paix... Le droit de l’homme doit être tenu pour sacré...»37 Et si on
doute que cela pourrait avoir lieu en réalité, Kant ajoute l’Appendice II: la
publicité des actions relatives au droit d’autrui est la condition des actions
politiques justes et, en même temps, le critère du jugement concernant l’accord
de la politique avec la morale.
Voyons maintenant quelques aspects de la théorie rawlsienne des droits des
peuples pour comparer Kant en tant que précurseur de la théorie idéale des
relations internationales et son émule d’après deux siècles.
Tout d’abord, on ne doit pas ignorer les présupposées communes à Kant et
Rawls du point de vue du paradigme libéral manifesté avant tout à l’intérieur
des communautés humaines: «ce qui est spécifique d’une doctrine kantienne,
c’est la relation entre le contenu de la justice et une certaine conception de la
personne comme libre et égale, comme capable d’agir tout à la fois rationnellement
et raisonnablement, par conséquent comme capable de prendre part à la coopération
sociale entre des personnes ainsi conçues.»38 Mais même à ce niveau, «la théorie
de justice comme équité n’est évidemment pas une théorie kantienne, au sens
strict. Elle s’écarte du texte kantien sur de nombreux points. L’adjectif ‘kantien’
n’exprime qu’une analogie, pas une identité.»39
Mais Rawls assume comme siens les principes spécifiques au libéralisme,
justement ceux qui donnent «la force réelle» de la théorie kantienne: «l’idée que
les principes moraux sont l’objet d’un choix rationnel...dès que nous représentons
des principes moraux comme une législation pour un royaume des fins, il est
clair que ces principes doivent non seulement être acceptables pour tous, mais
ils doivent aussi être publics... cette législation morale doit être l’objet d’un
accord dans les conditions caractérisant les hommes comme des êtres rationnels,
libres et égaux entre eux.» De même, Rawls assume le constructivisme kantien
selon lequel les projets sociaux pour l’amélioration du monde se basent sur les
efforts de la raison, justement pour écarter le subjectivisme des désirs et intérêts:
——————
35 Ibidem, p. 65.
36 Ibidem, p. 67.
37 Ibidem, p. 68, 69.
38 John Rawls, «Le constructivisme kantien dans la théorie morale» (Kantian Constructivism in Moral
Theory, 1980) dans le recueil John Rawls, Justice et démocratie, Paris, Seuil, 1993, p. 78.
39 Ibidem, p. 75.
9
le libéralisme politique, comme «le moindre des maux», impliquerait ainsi
l’artifice de la raison, un caractère «hypothétique» de l’impératif moral.40 Enfin
ici, éléments communs aux deux penseurs sont la tradition du contrat social, la
priorité du juste, la théorie du bien, la condition de publicité.41
Quelle serait, dans ce contexte, l’articulation rawlsienne de la théorie des
relations internationales, «ni traité ni un manuel de droit international...plutôt un
ouvrage qui s’intéresse exclusivement à certains sujets liés à la possibilité d’une
utopie réaliste»?42 Tentant de «décrire la manière dont une Société mondiale des
Peules libéraux et décents serait possible»,43 Rawls a mis dès le commencement
le cadre d’une «utopie réaliste»,44 du contrat nécessaire entre les peuples décents
pour éliminer les injustices politiques et, ainsi, «les grands fléaux de l’histoire
humaine — la guerre injuste et l’oppression, la persécution religieuse et le déni
de la liberté de conscience, la famine et la pauvreté, pour ne rien dire du génocide
et du meurtre de masse.»45 La condition préliminaire pour la réalisation de ce
contrat international est l’organisation de chaque société d’une manière
constitutionnelle et démocratique, c’est-à-dire l’élargissement des supposées
concernant les individus libres et égaux (situés de façon symétrique dans la
position originelle derrière un voile d’ignorance approprié dans le cadre d’un
État) au niveau des peuples. De ce fait, les peuples, comme les individus dans
un État libéral et décent, se comporteront d’une manière juste et raisonnable,
ne se feront pas la guerre et auront à résoudre paisiblement les relations
internationales.
À la question concernant les sujets de la théorie — pourquoi peuples et pas
États — Rawls a répondu qu’il s’agit d’une théorie idéale, construite de la
manière d’être à la fois réaliste, «que sa réalisation est possible et probable», et
«utopiste et hautement désirable» en tant qu’elle établie «un lien entre les
institutions justes et raisonnables et les conditions qui permettent aux citoyens
de réaliser leurs intérêts fondamentaux.»46 Le réalisme de la théorie consiste
dans le soutien des formes variées d’associations et de fédérations, mais pas d’un
État mondial.47 Les hypothèses de la théorie sont: a. la distinction entre les
peuples libéraux — qui ont, comme agent de représentation de ses
responsabilités concernant un territoire et un environnement, un gouvernement
démocratique constitutionnel raisonnablement juste, qui sont des citoyens unis
par une culture commune et par une nature morale à la fois raisonnable et
rationnelle — et les États hors-la-loi, b. la distinction entre les peuples qui ne
——————
40 John Rawls, Théorie de la justice (A Theory of Justice, 1971), Paris, Seuil, 1987, p. 288, 289. On doit
noter que dès 1975 le texte original anglais a été considérablement remanié en vue des traductions. «Ainsi, les
éditions étrangères...sont supérieures à l’édition anglaise...», ‘Préface (de John Rawls) de l’édition française’
de ci-dessus, p. 9.
41 John Rawls, Théorie de la justice..., p. 37, 81, 123, 166.
42 John Rawls, Paix et démocratie, p. 18.
43 Ibidem.
44 Ibidem, p. 19.
45 Ibidem.
47 Ibidem, p. 51.
106
ANA BAZAC
10
disposent pas de la souveraineté et les États, et c. «la différence entre les États et
les peuples ...de la manière dont sont définis la rationalité, la préoccupation
pour le pouvoir et les intérêts fondamentaux d’un État.»48
Les principes du droit des peuples — consistant dans la stipulation de la
liberté, de l’indépendance des peuples, de leur égalité et obligation de respecter
les droits de l’homme, les traités, de non-intervention et d’engager une guerre
seulement pour l’autodéfense, d’aider les autres peuples vivant dans des
conditions défavorables «qui les empêchent d’avoir un régime politique et social
juste et décent.»49
S’il s’agit des peuples libéraux, ces principes peuvent devenir réalité, et Rawls
a considéré que justement son cadre théorique — kantien — et les tendances
observées dans l’évolution de la modernité occidentale permettent de provoquer
la théorie réaliste des relations internationales: les institutions politiques et
sociales se sont transformées en mettant en évidence le fait des mœurs douces de
Montesquieu.50
Mettant en évidence que sa théorie se lie aux aspects institutionnels, culturels
et moraux des «citoyens unis» dans une démocratie libérale,51 Rawls a circonscrit
les limites de sa construction: celle-ci serait un contrat social extérieur au monde
économique où il n’opère pas — de plus qu’on est contemporain aux «intérêts
d’un pouvoir économique fortement concentré, dissimulé à la connaissance
publique et presque complètement dispensé de rendre des comptes.»52
Même s’il a été intéressé de formaliser les conditions d’une «utopie réaliste»
— en précisant le caractère «hypothétique et non historique»53 des ses supposées
d’origine kantienne — Rawls a tenté de montrer l’adéquation de sa théorie aux
situations actuelles. Ainsi il a eu besoin de considérer aussi des «peuples non
libéraux décents», dont la structure de base est «une hiérarchie consultative
décente»54. Rawls a occulté les raisons profondes qui ont déterminé
l’acceptation comme partenaires des pays qui n’avaient pas accompli ces critères
et la répudiation des pays qui les en avaient bien réalisés. De même il a exclu les
questions concernant les contradictions entre les tentatives d’imposer la
hégémonie et le droit international.55 Enfin ici, Rawls a ignoré les contradictions
qui opposent les citoyens bien rangés d’un pays qui mène des guerres qui
n’entraînent pas l’accord de la majorité des citoyens,56 comme les guerres
comme telles. Et en même temps il a essayé de contre-poser à la vision
——————
48 Ibidem, p. 43.
49 Ibidem, p. 52.
50 Ibidem, p. 62.
51 Ibidem, p. 37.
52 John Rawls, Paix et démocratie, p. 38. Notre observation est également commune à Malcolm Hayward,
Rethinking Post-colonial Theory in a Global Context: John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples, http://www.english.
iup.edu/mhayward/Recent/Rawls.htm (22-I-2007).
53 John Rawls, Paix et démocratie, p. 24, 23.
54 Ibidem, p. 17.
55 Voir Heiko Fritz, Sibylle Scheipers, Daniela Sicurelli, Hegemony and International Law, http://www.sisp.it/
sisp_convegnoannuale_paperroom_download.asp?id=438 (23-I-2007).
56 Voir Agustin Aguayo’s statement, September 02, 2006, http://agustin-aguayo.blogspot.com/2006/09/
agustin-aguayos-statement.html (20-II-2007).
11
pessimiste de Huntington de The Clash of Civilizations une espérance issue du
libéralisme utopique de la première génération et qui paraît nécessaire dans le
contexte présent.57
Mais Rawls, tout en précisant le cadre de son analyse, a bien voulu démontrer
l’étroite connexion entre l’idéalisme des conditions idéales et le réalisme des
buts poursuit par les États.58 Les débats publics (the public reason) sont ceux qui
mettent face à face les «idéaux, principes et concepts politiques (moraux) pour
caractériser une société raisonnable et juste»59 et d’autre part les institutions qui
assurent «la stabilité pour les bonnes raisons».60 Ainsi l’idée d’utopie réaliste,
pour une grande part institutionnelle, inclut son application de la même manière
que dans une «société intérieure libérale ou décente».61 La grande question est
si, dans une conception libérale, on pourrait déduire les droits des peuples des
droits de l’homme, qui de leur côté sont établis entre des individus,62 d’autant plus
que Rawls considère les pays hiérarchiques décents: s’il y a des groupes privilégiés
dans ces pays alors comment pourraît-on respecter les droits de l’homme?
En vérité, Rawls a rédigé une théorie idéale basée sur l’extension des
présupposées libérales concernant l’organisation des sociétés «décentes» au plan
international. L’auteur a tenu à mentionner que «l’idée d’une société
raisonnablement juste des peuples bien ordonnés n’occupera une place majeure
dans une théorie de la politique internationale avant que ces peuples existent et
qu’ils aient appris à coordonner les actions de leurs gouvernements...»63 Tout de
même l’image est la vieille conviction: «à travers la négociation et le commerce,
ils peuvent satisfaire leurs besoins et intérêts économiques».64
Mais dans cette théorie idéale, le principe fondamental de Rawls, celui de la
justice comme équité, fonctionne de deux manières: celle établie entre les
peuples libéraux et celle concernant les relations de ceux-ci et les peuples non
libéraux. Tout va bien au premier niveau; en ce qui concerne le second, le concept
avancé est évidemment celui de tolérance. Il ne s’agit pas ici de rectitude
(correctness) ou d’équité (fairness), mais d’impartialité65: ce n’est pas la réciprocité
et les sentiments impliqués — en incluant ainsi le désir de maximiser les avantages
de toutes les parties — mais la conception minimaliste qui suppose que les
——————
57 Voir Kofi Annan, novembre 2006, Istanbul, «Alliance des civilisations», dans Independance et
Développement. Alliance des civilisations, IDRP, Paris, no 79, 2e trimestre 2007.
58 Voir Charles R. Beitz, “Rawls’s Law of Peoples”, Ethics, Vol. 110, No. 4 (Jul. 2000), p. 669: «La
perspective est située dans le contexte intellectuel de la pensée moderne anglo-américaine, en aspirant à
occuper le milieu entre le scepticisme des sois disants réalistes et l’utopisme inerte de point de vue politique.»
60 Ibidem, p. 26.
61 Ibidem, p. 31.
62 Voir Gavriel Rubin, Liberalism and Democracy: A Response to Rawls’ The Law of Peoples, http://ocw.
mit.edu/NR/rdon/yres/Political-Science/17-000JPolitical-Philosophy-Global-JusticeSpring2003/B2ED9EDEE7DF-4E19-8719-F26106D564CA/0/rubin_paper.pdf (15-II-2007) qui répond négativement à notre question.
64 Ibidem.
65 Voir Brian Barry, Justice as Impartiality, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995, qui a montré que, si dans une
théorie qui part des principes réalisés au niveau des pays décents («d’un seul pays») les inégalités sont légitimées
comme fait, la théorie même de la justice devrait être changée, comme impartialité (théorie minimaliste du
moment) et pas comme équité.
108
ANA BAZAC
12
besoins de base doivent être accomplis avant de discuter la question radicale de
la redistribution. On peut apercevoir la vieille tentative commune aux libéraux
comme aux fabiens.
Cette classification des peuples a ouvert la voie du réalisme politique: c’est
la théorie non idéale qui trace les moyens de réalisation graduelle de la société
mondiale des peuples décents. La théorie est non idéale justement parce qu’elle
se focalise sur les distinctions actuelles entre les peuples, leurs niveaux de vie et
leurs aspirations et sur la guerre conçue comme thérapeutique inhérente en vue
d’arriver à l’idéal désiré, mais il paraît essentiellement comme réponse aux guerres
déclarées par les États hors-la-loi.66
La théorie non idéale répond aux «questions de transition»: «comment passer
d’un monde qui contient des États hors-la-loi et des sociétés souffrant de
conditions défavorables, à un monde dans lequel toutes les sociétés en viennent
à accepter et à suivre le Droit des peuples».67
Et bien, comment? Rawls a oscillé entre la critique des guerres qui ont été
initiées par les dirigeants et non par les civils ordinaires68 et l’acceptation de la
pression faite par «les peuples bien ordonnés» qui toutefois ne serait «par ellemême efficace».69 Rawls a été motivé par l’idée de configurer les conditions
idéales de la politique internationale maintenant, quand «la perception préalable
de l’importance fondamentale des principes de la guerre juste»70 est plus
avancée qu’en temps de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale.
De mon avis, ce n’est pas la distinction entre raisonnabilité et rationalité, ni
la classification des États,71 mais l’accent remis de nouveau sur l’importance de
la pensée idéaliste72 des relations internationales. Dans cet esprit, Rawls a insisté
sur les principes limitant la conduite de la guerre, l’idéal de l’homme d’État,73
——————
66 John Rawls, Paix et démocratie, p. 112: «il existe deux genres de théories non idéale. L’un concerne
les conditions de non-obéissance, c'est-à-dire les conditions dans lesquelles certains régimes refusent de se
conformer à un Droit des Peuples raisonnable: ils estiment qu’une raison suffisante d’entrer en guerre est que
la guerre est favorable — ou pourrait l’être — aux intérêts nationaux (non raisonnables) du régime. Je nomme
ces régimes États hors-la-loi. L’autre genre de théorie non idéale s’intéresse aux conditions défavorables,
c’est-à-dire aux conditions des sociétés dont les circonstances historiques, sociales et économiques rendent la
réalisation d’un régime bien ordonné, qu’il soit libéral ou décent, difficile, sinon impossible. J’appelle ces
sociétés les sociétés entravées.»
68 Ibidem, p. 118. Et la continuation: «le bombardement incendiaire de Tôkiô et des autres villes
japonaises au printemps 1945, comme le bombardement atomique d’Hiroshima et de Nagasaki, qui sont
d’abord des attaques sur des populations civiles, ont été des torts considérables, comme cela est aujourd’hui
largement, mais pas unanimement reconnu.»
Aussi: «leur patriotisme est souvent exploité cruellement et cyniquement» (AB, il s’agit des civilsenrolés
de force).
69 Ibidem, p. 116.
70 Ibidem, p. 126.
71 Voir Chris Brown, The construction of a ‘realistic utopia’: John Rawls and international political
theory (2002), available online at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000744/01/Construction_Realistic_
Utopia.pdf (15-I-2007).
72 Chris Brown a mentionné «de la pensée utopique».
73 John Rawls, Paix et démocratie, p. 120: «L’homme d’État est un idéal, au même titre que celui de
l’individu honnête et vertueux.»
13
le comportement envers le peuple de l’ennemi,74 l’exemption pour urgence
absolue, l’importance de la culture politique.
Dans la même partie, Rawls a discuté «le devoir» des peuples bien ordonnés
d’aider les sociétés entravées.75 L’existence des institutions justes, ou décentes,
la réalisation d’une culture politique centrée sur les droits de l’homme, une
gestion correcte sont les buts et, en même temps, les conditions pour une aide
motivée et efficace.
En confrontant sa théorie avec une critique maximaliste — mais libérale —
Rawls a souligné que «dans la société du Droit des Peuples, le devoir d’aide
s’applique jusqu’à ce que toutes les sociétés aient établi des institutions de base
justes, libérales ou décentes. Le devoir d’épargne réelle comme le devoir d’aide
sont définis par un objectif, au-delà duquel ils ne s’appliquent pas. Il garantissent
l’essentiel de l’autonomie politique: celle des citoyens libres et égaux dans le cas
intérieur, et celle des peuples libéraux et décents libres et égaux dans la Société
des Peuples... Le but politique ultime de la société est de devenir parfaitement
juste, et stable pour les bonnes raisons. Une fois cette fin atteinte, le Droit des
Peuples ne prescrit aucun objectif supplémentaire comme, par exemple,
l’augmentation du niveau de vie au-delà de celui qui est nécessaire à soutenir ces
institutions.»76
Ainsi Rawls a mentionné le contraste entre sa théorie — celle du Droit des
Peuples — et celle cosmopolitique libérale: «la préoccupation suprême d’une
vision cosmopolitique est le bien-être des individus, et non la justice des sociétés.
D’après cette vision, la question de la nécessité d’une distribution globale
additionnelle restera posée même après que chaque société intérieure aura établi
des institutions internes justes... Le Droit des Peuples est indifférent entre (AB),
une distribution comparative et, d’autre part, l’aide en soi préconisée par Rawls).
La position cosmopolitique, au contraire, n’est pas neutre. Elle se préoccupe du
bien-être des individus, et donc de la possibilité d’améliorer celui de la personne
globalement la plus défavorisée. L’important dans le Droit des Peuples est la
justice et la stabilité, pour les bonnes raisons, des sociétés libérales et décentes...»77
Il ne s’agit pas d’ethnocentrisme, mais de la tolérance envisagée par les
peuples décents, a tenu Rawls à nous avertir encore une fois. De cette manière,
la conclusion du livre comme tel78 serait «la réconciliation avec notre monde
social»79. «J’estime que, dans une société des peuples libéraux et décents, le Droit
des Peuples serait honoré sinon toujours, du moins la plupart du temps...»80
Cette observation est très importante: on doit respecter les lois internationales,
——————
74 Ibidem, p. 121: «Le peuple de l’ennemi ne doit pas être mis en esclavage ou en servage après la
capitulation, et l’on ne peut, le moment venu, lui refuser ses pleines libertés.» (AB, c’est moi qui souligne.)
75 Ibidem, p. 130.
76 Ibidem, p. 144, 145.
77 Ibidem, p. 145, 146. Voir aussi le symposium World Poverty and Human Rights, dans Ethics &
International Affairs, volume 19, number 1, 2005 — Carnegie Council on ethics and international affairs —
où les participants se sont rangés de deux parts: de celle communautariste et de celle cosmopolitique.
78 Sans la partie L’idée de raison publique reconsidérée.
80 Ibidem, p. 152.
110
ANA BAZAC
14
mais aujourd’hui on se heurte justement à leur ignorance, serait notre première
interprétation.
Mais Rawls a ajouté que la réconciliation avec le monde consiste dans la
disparition des grands fléaux.81 La théorie politique libérale réconcilie justement
par son minimalisme du pluralisme raisonnable opposé aux fondamentalismes.
Enfin, elle réconcilie parce qu’elle montre qu’un monde de démocraties
constitutionnelles raisonnablement justes serait possible: «elle établit que ce
monde peut exister quelque part et à une certaine époque, mais pas que son
existence est nécessaire, ni qu’elle se réalisera.»82 L’histoire future est ouverte,
mais «en montrant comment le monde social peut faire advenir les
caractéristiques d’une utopie réaliste, la philosophie politique définit un objectif
de long terme à l’entreprise politique...»83
Même si Rawls a été kantien concernant les supposées liées au contrat et à la
désirabilité de foedus pacificum,84 le contenu de sa représentation des relations
internationales doit être jugé différemment de celle de Kant. Le philosophe
allemand exemplaire des Lumières a dessiné le contour des relations internationales
idéales sur la base étique de «la Règle d’Or»85, du principe de réciprocité étendu
universellement, tandis que Rawls a voulu décrire la paix désirable du point de
vue du modèle idéalisé de la démocratie représentative occidentale et, donc, de
la perspective qui impose ce modèle, minimaliste, même si les conséquences de cette
perspective contraires à la paix ont été expérimentées par Rawls. Si Popper a pu
s’illusionner au temps de l’apogée de l’État providence qu’on éradiquerait la
pauvreté en Inde (disait-il), c’est-à-dire dans tout le monde par les moyens de
l’État libéral, Rawls a écrit son ouvrage après la décennie des guerres en Afrique
— résultat des relations «postcoloniales» — et de l’évolution de la situation en
Irak après la guerre de 1991.
Il y a ainsi des prémices différentes pour observer les théories des deux
penseurs. Les présomptions formelles sont communes à Kant et Rawls. Mais le
contexte et même la finalité sont différents. Justement pour cette raison on doit
souligner non seulement une certaine continuité entre Kant et Rawls — l’idéal
de la démocratie est universalisable/peut être universalisé, les conditions d’un
accord minimum, le consensus rationnel autour des valeurs — mais aussi la
discontinuité entre les deux philosophes.
Le destin des deux théories est aussi différent: tandis que la théorie idéale de
Kant, même si elle a soutenu le discours démocratique et universaliste des droits
de l’homme dans les relations internationales (et la pratique de la Société des
Nations et de l’Organisation des Nations Unis), est restée quand même et plutôt
——————
81 John Rawls, Paix et démocratie, p. 153: «Je nomme ‘utopie réaliste‘ le monde dans lequel ils auraient
disparu et où des institutions de base justes (ou au moins décentes) auraient été établi…»
83 Ibidem, p. 155.
84 «Nous pouvons suivre la voie tracée par Kant et débuter l’analyse par la conception politique d’une
démocratie constitutionnelle raisonnablement juste...», John Rawls, Paix et démocratie, p. 37.
85 Voir Paul Ricoeur, Soi-même comme un autre, Paris, Seuil, 1990, p. 255–264.
15
une tendance dans l’ordre international, l’idéal théorisé par Rawls fait partie de
ceci. Il y a évidemment une querelle entre les discours et pratiques qui incarnent
les deux théories idéales. Mais tous les deux jouent un rôle de facteur intégrateur
dans les deux types de discours et pratiques internationales.
Qui fait le Droit des Peuples, les institutions politiques justes? Et qui et
comment définit la justice? N’y a-t-il pas une fétichisation des formes
démocratiques? Est-ce que les phénomènes critiques concernant ces formes,
comme la relation entre ces formes et les rapports économiques, ne devraient pas
être inclus dans une théorie politique actuelle? Si les institutions sont celles qui
permettent la négociation des conflits entre valeurs incommensurables et
également justifiables — le pluralisme axiologique — qu’est-ce qui offre la
légitimité aux institutions? Est-ce qu’on ne peut pas saisir la crise du libéralisme
institutionnel, avec la crise du libéralisme utopique des valeurs communes,
même minimales?
Les théories peuvent être analysées en soi, c’est-à-dire dans le cadre de leurs
présupposées, mais aussi en les comparant avec le contexte historique qui les a
engendrées et ainsi avec d’autres théories. Sans doute, le libéralisme rawlsien
fait partie du courant idéologique principal de toute une époque moderne et post
moderne. En même temps, son idéalisme démontre les contradictions internes de
ce courant. Même si chaque théorie composante du mainstream peut être
interprétée de manières opposées — en mettant en évidence leur consensus ou
antagonisme avec les idées politiques dominantes du moment — et même si le
conservatisme a aussi son idéalisme, celui du libéralisme rawlsien a la qualité de
surprendre l’importance des institutions et de la culture politique et en même
temps le caractère insuffisant de ceux-ci dans le cadre des supposées libérales
non disputables: c’est la morale qui doit régler et pas (seulement) les raisons
politiques particulaires.86
De ce point de vue, la théorie internationale de Rawls peut être aussi jugée
comme liaison entre l’idéalisme conservatiste — concentré sur les institutions et
bien existant dans la conception kantienne — et l’idéalisme libérale radicale qui
tend à transcender le fixisme par l’intermédiaire des modèles moraux
idéaux utilisés comme miroirs. On peut même conclure qu’il y a une tendance
de convergence entre les deux idéalismes qui constituent «les deux faces du
libéralisme».87
——————
86 Voir aussi P. Allott, Eunomia: New Order for a New World, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001, apud Ion
Yaulet, Rules of Law and International Society, dans «Analysis and Metaphysics», no. 1, 2003.
87 Voir John Gray, Les deux faces du libéralisme, 2000.
FREEDOM AS PROJECTION OF REASON IN SPINOZA
GABRIELA TÃNÃSESCU
Abstract. The paradoxical concept of the free necessity, central in
Spinoza’s theory of freedom, is sketched by Spinozian ontological
argument and by the implications of his theory of rational knowledge. The
paper focuses on the individuality of Spinoza’s radical rationalist
paradigm and on his agument of holist inspiration.
Considered as reconciliationist, both deterministe, in the physical world
order, and “liberal”, in that of spiritual and moral-political one, Spinoza`s
philosophical reflection inscribes itself into a paradigm of modern thought that
identifies freedom with a spiritual conversion which makes possible “the
connection of conscience to the universal order”1. This kind of bivalent
philosophy seeks to confer dignity to human by seating the reason sub specie
aeternitatis, by orienting it toward the divine and eternal, toward the “fulfilled
and a temporal essence”. In this perspective, the theory of freedom is grounded
by relating it to a certain absolute differences: necessity–freedom, divine–human
and reason–affect. In the following considerations, I propose an inquire on this
way of conceiving freedom as a projection of reason, circumscribing it to the
representative assertion of the modern philosophy in accordance with freedom is
an arch-founder value to human, conferring dignity through the quality of being
knowledge part of the existence.
“Men think themselves free…”
Spinoza intended to ground the concept of freedom through an apparent
paradoxical formula: the free necessity, a syntagma which constitutes — by the
concepts of God and of intellectual love of God — the centre of the theoretical
display of Ethics, in fact the ontological covered of the author’s political philosophy.
The middle term of this “reconciliation”, hard to be accepted in the
seventeenth century philosophical thought, was the reason. By this solution
Spinoza came to illustrate the evolution of the philosophy through the evolution
of the reflective self, an evolution signified, in Gusdorf`s assessment, by an
ideatical succession which departed from the Cartesian cogito and delayed until
——————
1 Jean Préposiet, Spinoza et la liberté des hommes, Gallimard, 1967, p. 18.
2
113
the transcendental Kantian self. Thus, “the man’s humanity appears ...as measure
of his rational capacity... The man’s liberation, as Spinoza conceive it, recreated
the reason in God’s image and, through this, signified the man’s liberation from
the servitudes of his condition...”2. Moreover, the situating in the space of the
universal constituted the motive or the source of the entire rationalist inspiration
in matters of theology from the Stoics to Spinoza and Kant. But, in Spinoza,
preceded by the deists and the Reformation, “the cipher of the universality
become solidary with the cipher of the personality”3, until its annihilation. “The
result is always the same: the reason reduces and burns up the revelation. This
stake... is achieved continually through the passing from the revealed theology
to the natural theology and then to the rational theology, how can be observed in
Spinoza’s thought in his Theological-Political Treatise or in Kant’s Religion
within the Limits of Reason Alone”4. This focusing on the reason assumes a
complete denaturizing of the original sense of the sacred, a transformation of the
religion in moral, a separation of the religion from philosophy. Spinoza affirmed,
incendiary for his time that only the philosophy has as aim the truth through
reason, “our biggest gift and godlike light”. Reason, as the domain of truth and
of wisdom, transcends the piety, the religious obedience and the consolation
brought by the Scripture. To Spinoza the reliable path to come to a “certain and
indisputable revelation”5 of God’s will remained the reason inclined on God
namely on the nature or “the substance composed by infinite attributes”.
God, close to the terms and the argumentation of the scholastic kind, is the
first, the efficient and the immanent cause. In Brunschvicg’s interpretation, in
Spinoza only God “exists from the reason of his self-sufficiency, and his
possibility (puissance) is nothing else than his essence”6, because only him
“really acts and guides all things only from the necessity of his own nature and
perfection and finally, that his decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and
always involve necessity...”7. But, in contact with the Jewish tradition, especially
with Maimonide’s inheritance, and with that of Renaissance’s Neo-Platonism
and naturalism, the sense of Spinoza argumentance and his linguistic transposing
is radically modified. Thus, “the more we understand singular things, the more
we understand God”8. Moreover, Spinoza affirms that “by God’s guidance I
understand the fixed and immutable order of nature, or the connection of natural
things” and by universal laws of nature “nothing but the eternal decrees of God,
which always involve eternal truth and necessity. Therefore, whether we say that
all things happen according to the laws of nature, or whether we say that they
——————
2 George Gusdorf, Mythe et métaphysique, Paris, Flammarion, 1984, p. 209.
3 Ibidem, p. 223.
4 Ibidem, p. 228.
5 Benedict de Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, in The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza,
translated from the Latin, with an introduction by R.H.M. Elwes, Vol. I, London, George Bell and Son, 1908,
chap. XVI, p. 211.
6 Leon Brunschvicg, Spinoza et ses contemporaines, Paris, Felix Alcan, 1932, p. 76.
7 Benedict de Spinoza, op. cit., chap. IV, p. 65.
8 Idem, Ethics in The Ethics and Other Works. A Spinoza Reader, edited and translated by Edwin Curley,
Princeton University Press, 1994, fifth part of the Ethics, p. 256.
114
3
are ordered according to the decree and guidance of God, we say the same
thing’9. On this ground Spinoza considers that to affirm that all things are done
by virtue of the law of nature or that all things are achieved by God’s decision
and guidance means the exclusion of any contingency and of any free will. Thus,
“things have been produced by God with the highest perfection, since they have
followed necessarily from a given most perfect nature”10, from the eternal
necessity. In this context only him who is in self and is conceived by self, namely
only the God is considered a free cause. Only him exists from the necessity of
his nature, only God acts from the laws of his nature alone and, therefore, is
constituted as natura naturanta. Otherwise, what Spinoza defines as natura
naturata, or the modes understood as states of the substance, does not exists
independently but is constrained to exist and to work in a determinate way since
it derives from the necessity of God’s nature.
Only God exists necessarily and, nevertheless, freely (“because he exists from
the necessity of his own nature alone”) and therefore in Spinoza freedom is
placed “not in a free decree, but in a free necessity”11 In this way the author
seeks to unite in God the “what can not be unified” or to reconcile in God the
“irreconcilable”: the freedom and the necessity. The free necessity represents the
core of the Spinoza system because every concept of the system is derived from
this “axiomatically truth”. In this respect Gabaude’s interpretation is illustrative
for the peculiarity of Spinoza’s ontology: “The God’s free necessity is a manner
to express the increate existence of the Totality of existence or of the unity, the
self-subsistence and self- sufficiency of this Totality”12. The free necessity
signifies thus the absence of the determination understood as an external
determination, namely an indetermination and, by causa sui, a self-determination.
In this way Spinoza does not put in opposition the necessity and the freedom, but
the freedom, understood as God’s free necessity, and the constraint.
Yet if only in God the necessity is identified strictly with the freedom and if
the necessity of the world is comprised in the necessity of divine existence, then
the man, as a mode or as a modification of the substance which expresses the
God’s nature in a certain and determined way, “is in God’s power, necessarily
exists”13. In consequence, Spinoza considers that is a common prejudice the
men’s claim to think themselves free14. This opinion is proved to be false
because it expresses just the fact that the men are conscious of their actions, but
not of the causes by which they are determinate. To Spinoza, the sayings that
human actions hang from the men’s will are just sayings which are not correspondent
to any idea. The opinion, the thought that the men are free or that they act free,
according to “their volitions and their appetite” reflects that “they do not think...
——————
9 Idem, Theological-Political Treatise, chap. III, p. 46.
10 Idem, Ethics, cit. ed., first part of the Ethics, p. 74.
11Spinoza to Schuller for Tschirnhaus, Letter 58, Objections and Replies. From the correspondence
between Spinoza and Tschirnhaus, in The Ethics and Other Works, cit. ed., p. 267.
12 Jean-Marc Gabaude, Liberté et raison, Vol. II from the Philosophie compréhensive de la nécessitation
libératrice, Publication de l’Université de Toulouse–Le Mirail, serie A, tome 14, 1972, p. 62.
13 Benedict de Spinoza, Ethics, cit. ed., p. 77.
14 See Ibidem, p. 110.
4
115
of the causes by which they are disposed to wanting and willing, because they
are ignorant of those causes”15. This ignoring of the causes that determine the
human actions and choices expresses in fact the presence of the inadequate ideas
and of confusions. As an implication of this argument, Spinoza considers that the
actions, equally as the conduct and the mental life of human beings, are
determined and that the free will is an illusion. In this way, the will as free will
(in the Cartesian sense) and in the imagination that “can make us to consider
things as being contingent” is denied. Denying the free will Spinoza denies the
freedom that, consonant with the medieval thought, God concedes to man. In the
same, time by this denial the authors tries to correlate the human option with the
truth understood as a known necessity and, thus, as an assumed necessity.
In this perspective the freedom becomes a merit concretized in the effort to
know the truth, to obtain the adequate ideas on the necessity. “In the mind there
is no absolute or free, will, but the mind is determined to will this or that by a
cause which is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to
infinity”16. Moreover Spinoza considers that the decrees of the mind are not free
because the nature itself impedes this thing. The man, as the present existence of
the mind that includes the present existence of the body, presumes a bivalence
that expresses both “the opening” and “the closing” to the freedom, actually, to the
free necessity. “The opening” is produced through the quality of mind, understood
as will, as intellect and self-conscience, to be able to relate itself to his own
aspirations. “The closing” or, let say, “the restriction” supervenes since the man’s
reference concomitant to the mind and to the body is made by affects, by “man’s
own essence” and serves to his preservation.
To remain just submitted to the affects and to the passions means to remain
“passive”, “slave” “subjected by the fate”, powerless, namely, to remain “a part
of the nature that can not be conceived by self”. In Spinoza this is the condition
of the determined and ignorant man, a state issued from the fact that the men do
not respect the teaching of the reason. The author opposes to this condition
another one in which the human freedom is defined by the co-ordinates of
necessity and of reason. According to it, the salvation consists in reason, in
knowledge and in understanding, in a mental and spiritual conversion which
makes the freedom possible and, together with it, the exceeding itself of the
common man’s condition — “the natural common order” —, hence the
obtaining the wisdom. Since only the wise man, which is the free man, is capable
ever “to posses true peace of mind,...the wise man, in so far he is considered as
such, is hardly troubled in spirit, but being, by a certain eternal necessity, conscious
of himself, and of God, and of things he never ceased to be, but always possesses
true peace of mind”17.
The similitude of the Spinoza solution with that of Stoics, in tone and
contents is evident. But to the stoic’s ideal Spinoza adds specific accents. What
matters to him is not an extension of the determinism also on the mental life, but
——————
15 Ibidem.
16 Ibidem, second part of the Ethics, p. 146.
17 Ibidem, fifth part of the Ethics, p. 265.
116
5
the assertion with founding value that liberation consists in rational knowledge.
Thus, the wise man reaches the peace in his mind, namely the freedom, by
reason and by acquiring adequate ideas on Totality whose mode is himself, by
surpassing his passivity, “the hope and the fear”, by acquiring the possibility “to
order to the fate”.
“The power of reason” or “the path to come to freedom”
In order to come to the state of freedom, hence, we have to let ourselves to
be guided by reason, in the first row in order to exceed our ignorance, to know
and to love God — what equates with “to order to the fate” — and, then, to enter
in the condition of morality and to dominate our own affects — what equates
with a sort of active and opened mental activity. The reason is the way by which
Spinoza defines the freedom and by which he forces “to coincide the prime
necessity from an ontological point of view and the prime freedom from an
ethical point of view”18.
In Spinoza the essence of the reason, as the striving of the mind for a clear
and distinct knowledge, has as basis the notions which explain “what is common
to all the things”. The knowledge by reason or the knowledge of the second kind
is realized through the adequate ideas on the features of the things and is
sustained by a maximum positivism of the will (expressed as a force of knowledge).
The second kind of knowledge means the knowledge of the causes, “the exercise
of the necessity”, the recognition of God’s and nature’s laws indetermination.
The rational knowledge rises above the vague or indefinite experience and the
knowledge of the first kind, namely the opinion or the imagination generating,
in the same manner as the free will, false representations. The causal knowledge,
or the order of nature, becomes an instrument of liberation. Speaking strictly and
in a crude formula, it could be affirmed that “Spinoza resorted to the same
general rationalization as the Stoics did in the resolving the problem of human
freedom in a mechanistically determined universe. By understanding that what
happens must happen, that all is a result of universal law and destiny — or of
God — we are delivered from intellectual bondage. In other words, a knowledge
that we are not makes us free”19. It could be added that in Spinoza the knowledge
of the law permits their use, so that the freedom results from an understanding
of the necessity and an application of the outcomes of this process in the human
activity. This solution seems possible since Spinoza conceives the reality as a
system functioning harmoniously, mechanical-repeatable, without conflicts of
physical, psychical and social nature.
The idea of the liberating power corresponding to this known necessity,
developed by Hegel in his specific “dialectics” (“the truth of the necessity is the
freedom”) and put again in a historical manner by Marx and Engels, is already
——————
18 Jean-Marc Gabaude, op. cit., p. 215.
19 Harry Elmer Barnes, An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World. From the Renaissance
through the Eighteenth Century, third revised edition, vol. II, New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1965,
p. 729.
6
117
a common place. Undoubtedly, the wear of the expression does not reflect the
wear of the idea. The recognition of the causality and its importance to the
human manifestations, especially in the contemporary science and philosophy,
needs any more the theoretical endeavor which constituted the novelty and the
originality of the Spinoza system.
It has to be specified that in order to express the articulation of freedom at
human level and its connection with the divine or absolute freedom, Spinoza
adds the third kind of knowledge, the intuitive knowledge, the knowledge that
realizes the comprehension and the promovation of the necessity. Its result is the
awareness of the insertion of the necessity at particular level, as natura naturata,
in the necessity of natura naturanta. The intuition is situated by Spinoza above
the reason and defined as possibility of locate the man in the nature, as possibility
of forming an active conscience of the necessity. So that, freedom means to
assume the necessity, to be adequate and to resonate with the divine or with the
nature, to make inner the exterior and, as such, to recreate the own self.
In this context freedom is “not the freedom of option (as in Descartes — a.n.),
but of the progressive assimilation of the thought in a substance which understands
that she is no more determined to act but by herself”20. As follows, the
comprehension becomes actually the promovation of the necessity. The liberation
by acquiring the adequate ideas means for the man the acquiring of the quality
of cause. Thus, reason becomes co-extensive to the reality.
The reason and the intuition determine concomitant a re-education of the
wish, a peculiar moderation of the individual not in the sense of outlining the
own personality, neither in that of the option for an alternative or the other, but
in that of a guided evolution of subjectivity. Certainly in this process of knowledge
and of implication is annihilated not only the subjectivity through the free will,
but also the individuality. In consequence “the man becomes free through the
intellectual progress which liberates him by his individuality... The law of nature
appears to him as the law of the own activity, and the freedom is the conformity
with the nature”21. In an absolutes expression, that of Windelband, which does
not distinguish in Ethics a freedom in psychological sense, “from a metaphysical
point of view freedom can signify only the absolute existence of the undetermined
divinity, and from an ethical point of view only the ideal of dominating the
passions by reason”22.
I think that we can accept that Spinoza wanted much more than that. By the
knowledge of the third kind the freedom is raised above the conformation of the
individual’s activity to the universal order. This signifies the acquiring of the
conscience of the absolute existence’s eternity and of the possibility to participate,
only fragmentary in it. Since, to liberate himself, the man must situate himself
in the nature and become a part of the necessity, of the divine essence.
——————
20 Paul Hazard, Criza conºtiinþei europene, Bucureºti, Editura Univers, 1973, p. 280.
21 Leon Brunschvicg, Écrits philosophiques, tome premier, L’umanisme de l’Occident. DescartesSpinoza-Kant, PUF, 1951, p. 127.
22 Wilhelm Windelband, A History of Philosophy, vol. II, New York, Harper & Row Publishers, 1958,
p. 413.
118
7
As such, Freedom imposes the knowledge of the universal necessity, the
consciousness of it, “the possession of all causes of our action”, without free
will, so that “we will be the more free so as we will be reduced the force of external
determination to the force of the inner determination”23. Delbos emphasizes a
maximal type of innering the necessity that is, to Spinoza, the more acute so as
the man, as a part of nature and of God, “only know in part”24. Analogically,
freedom is partial, partitive, is a part of the absolute or divine freedom, as far as
the man’s acts can be adequate always with the necessity or with “the nature of
another man”.
The freedom understood as an innerving of the necessity through the reason
and understanding changes the sense of necessity at human level: from the
constraint to the necessity free assumed and, moreover, to the intellectual love
of God. To Spinoza, it is not possible to know God indeed without to love him
because God or the nature is the supreme Totality from which everyone is a part.
Thus, “between the part and the entire exists a relation of homogeneity: the man
exists as far as participates to God”25 and participates to God as far as is princeps
rationis. Since to Spinoza God’s power, “the universal power of the entire nature
that is not anything else than the power of all individuals together”, Amor Dei
intellectualis, as understanding and innerving of the natura naturanta necessity,
means the transposing in the condition of the universal cause. This transposing
constitutes the highest freedom and signifies, in the same time, the love for the
others, for the fellow men.
In this way freedom appears as ontological virtue, reported to the exteriority, that
makes possible a freedom as ethical virtue, a pure inner freedom. Brunschvicg
appreciated “that Spinoza’s moral is, absolutely speaking, a moral of the good
and of freedom...” destined to justify from ontological and moral perspective the
democracy.
Spinoza’s social and political theory proposes, on the route of his ontological
construction and in the context of a critical approach of the theology and politics,
specific for the entire “civilization of the contract” in Burdeau’s expression,
democracy as a form of government “the most natural, and the most consonant
with individual liberty”26. Only a democratic society in which the institutions
assure the private rights, the freedom of faith, of “saying and teaching what one
thought”, would fulfill a political and civic concept, constitutive and positive to
freedom. Exceptionally for his epoch, Spinoza affirmed that “the ultimate aim of
government is...to free every man from fear... that the true aim of government is
liberty”27, that the state must assure the freedom of judging and feeling, the
rationality of human beings and the possibility to everybody “to employ the
reason unshackled”. The democratic society, that transcends the state of nature,
——————
23 Victor Delbos, Le problème moral dans la philosophie de Spinoza et dans l’histoire du spinozisme,
Paris, Felix Alcan, 1893, p. 232.
24 Benedict de Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, cit. ed., chap. XVI, p. 202.
25 Leon Brunschvicg, Spinoza et ses contemporaines, p. 298.
26 Benedict de Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, cit. ed., chap. XVI, p. 207.
27 Ibidem, chap. XX, p. 258–259.
8
119
imposes the state in which the individual has the possibility to achieve in full
safety the functions of his spirit and body, so that the finality of political order
is the peace and the security of life and its aim is freedom.
The freedom acquired by reason represents in the last analyses a validation
of the acceptance of the universal nature laws or God laws. The reason proves
itself being the middle term not just between the freedom and the necessity, but
also between the individual and the society. This freedom, as salvation, can be
appreciated as “recognition by spirit of what possesses the entire eternity”28.
What individualizes Spinoza’s conception on freedom in the modern philosophy
is the supreme effort to understand and to adhere to the necessity, to conferee a
sense into a particular and temporary life. He offers a mental, behavioral and
existential matrix to the conditions specific to the univocal causality. Freedom,
if it exists from the individual point of view, must be reported to the total
Thought, to the integral rationalization. Certainly, Spinoza had the intuition of
the unity of the individual and of the Totality, of individual as “cosmic spirit”
and of the nature or the immanent substance, but his victory remains that of the
effort to interiorize the exteriority by annihilation of the transcendence and of the
individuality. The freedom manifests itself as an assimilation of the Totality and
an implication in exteriority. By a progress in the order of knowledge the
individual succeeds a freedom in the limits of the necessity, as such, the freedom
in and by necessity, the wise man’s freedom, not the common or political one, is
a projection of reason.
——————
28 Jean Preposiet, op. cit., p. 37.
“NATURE” AND “REASON” IN THE LEVIATHAN
HENRIETA ANIªOARA ªERBAN
Abstract. The thoughts of man are representations of objects, qualities, or
events that are in a continuous movement, factors of incertitude and anxiety.
For Hobbes, man is a rational but not reasonable creature of nature and we
speak of man’s reason in relation to a universe of the individual, one
marked both by passions and reason.
The thoughts of man are representations of objects, qualities, or events that
are in a continuous movement, factors of incertitude and anxiety.
For Hobbes, man is a rational but not reasonable creature of nature and we
speak of man’s reason in relation to a universe of the individual, one marked
both by passions and reason. He says: “...the names man and rational, are of
equal extent, comprehending mutually one another. But here we must take
notice, that by a name is not always understood, as in grammar, only one word;
but sometimes by circumlocution many words together.”1
Man is in Hobbes’s works a type of animal and yet the only one able to reason
at the same time embracing senses, using imagination to think regulated
thoughts. Hobbes tries to offer a new science of politics approaching all the
details of his argument in a scientific manner.
Hobbes defines reason “amongst the faculties of mind”. Within this specific
perspective, he explains: “For REASON, in this sense, is nothing but reckoning
(that is, adding and subtracting) of the consequences of general names agreed
upon, for the marking and signifying of our thoughts; I say marking them when
we reckon by ourselves; and signifying, when we demonstrate, or approve our
reckonings to other men.”2
Leviathan is attempting to concision and precision on what concerns
physiological detail as to the inner-workings of the mind, but Hobbes’ ideas provide
the conceptual background for the major schools of thinking about thinking
which follow in the next two centuries — particularly “skepticism” and
“associationism”. The text presents itself as a mediating step between Burton
and Locke. It expands and sharpens many of Burton’s ideas about categories of
thought and, as Locke will later do, bases a total socio-political philosophy upon
them.
——————
1 Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, part I, ch. 4, p. 22.
2 Ibidem, p. 28.
2
121
Hobbes’s model is based upon an application of the rules of “mathematics
geometry”, “physics”, to the human sciences. Science is defined by Hobbes as
“the knowledge of consequences”. Hobbes professed, first of all, a theory of
motion. The movement is as important in the natural and physical world, as in
men’s attempt towards science, sapience or safety. Following the theories of
Galileo (whom he visited in Europe) he believed that, contrary to the opinion of
his day, all matter was in motion and would remain in motion unless acted upon
by another force or general accident. Based upon this philosophy, Hobbes
constructs as well a model of the human psyche in which all train of thoughts is
explained by the motion of things in the material world impacting the senses.
This impact upon the senses is the event, which creates a subsequent motion in
the “sense”, which creates a subsequent motion in the brain, which continues to
exert its pressure on the brain until its motion is degraded sufficiently by the
interference of other new motions.
There are three fundamental premises underlining this model: 1) that
everything is material, including the mind, and the soul; 2) that we are brought
into the world with the mind a “tabula rasa” and 3) that the senses are
responsible for all mental activity. Based upon these primary tenets, Hobbes
constructs an elaborate model of categories of thought, which build one upon the
following until one reaches the highest levels of abstract thought.
Hobbes starts from a descriptive approach to an analytical one, moving from
consequence towards consequence to arrive at a philosophical construction.
First, there is the “representation”, Representation for Appearance, which is the
initial motion, carried by the senses to the brain. Once a representation enters the
brain, it follows a train, which is the path of its motion in the brain, as it interacts
with other representations on the way. Within such a specific movement, a newer
representation will, necessarily obscure to some extent the older representations
in the brain; hence, as a representation proceeds along its train, its influence
becomes lesser. As Hobbes puts it, the sense supporting the representation
“decays”. Any interaction of these trains of varying degrees of intensity and
scope, Hobbes terms “imagination”, which is, he claims, “nothing more than
decaying sense”. It is, however, “the first internal beginning of all voluntary
motion”.3
Hobbes is very explicit in the second chapter of the Leviathan about the fact
that Imagination defines the particular state of all the various trains of thoughts
that are present in the mind at one time and not the process of decaying, which
he names “memory”. Having defined imagination, Hobbes goes on to refine his
definition by distinguishing between two distinct types: simple and compound.
Simple imagination describes the presence of a particular train of thoughts
separate from all others — “as when one imagineth a man, or horse, which he
has seen before.”4 In this sense, imagination is the same thing as experience.
Compound imagination describes the interaction of separate trains of thoughts,
——————
3 Ibidem, p. 11.
4 Ibidem, p. 12.
122
3
“as when from the sight of a man at one time, and of a horse at another, we
conceive in our mind a Centaure.”5
Those individual trains of thoughts are subject to two types of development
within the brain: regulated and unguided. Interestingly enough, precisely unguided
thoughts are those “wherein there is no passionate thought, to govern and direct
those that follow, to itself, as the end and scope of some desire, or other passion:
In which case the thoughts are said to wander, and seem impertinent one to
another, as in a Dream.”6
Therefore passions seem to be given a regulatory function for thinking and
living one human being’s exposure to reality. On the other hand, regulated thoughts,
to the contrary, are those that are directed by some “desire, and designe” such as
fear. The importance of this fear as well as the reality of this feeling seems
self-explanatory with Hobbes. He neglects to convincingly explain, but his position
springs from a multitude of sources, mainly from his perspective upon the
human nature and from his (mathematical) argument in what concerns human
equality. Hobbesian reality is, as a general rule, complex and frightening.
At this point in his construction, Hobbes shows his impressive understanding
of the connection between thinking and speaking and he makes an important
“leap” to the realm of speech.7 Expanding upon an earlier definition of the
functioning of the imagination as “mental discourse”, Hobbes argues that the
function of speech is to transfer our mental discourse to verbal discourse. From
this definition, Hobbes then constructs of model of “understanding”. Understanding,
in his view, is “nothing else, but conception caused by speech”, marking not a
separate function of cognition, but rather a particular group of trains of thoughts
— those initiated by the exposure of the senses to speech.
There are uses and abuses of speech. The general use of speech is to help
humans express their thinking and it is explained accurately by other four
detailed uses: 1) to acquiring experience and the arts; 2) to counseling and
teaching one another; 3) to make known to others our wills in order to make
possible mutual help of one another and 4) to pleasing and delighting oneself.
The duality influences Hobbesian construction entirely. To the four uses of
speech he proposes four abuses of speech as follows: 1) the inconstancy of the
signification of words; 2) deceiving others through a metaphorical use of the
words; 3) using the words to lie to the others and 4) to grieve another by words.8
Passions (appetites) and speech are the most important factors underlining
Hobbes’s individualism. They are for the exclusive benefit of the individual who
might choose or not to use those passions and speech to relate to the others.
Sociability is in what concerns Hobbes’s individuals a question of choice, according
——————
5 Idem.
6 Ibidem, p. 16.
7 Ibidem, p. 20–27.
8 Unless, explains Hobbes, this is happening in the process of governing, when grieving is not grieving
anymore, it is not an abuse of speech anymore, but a necessary act of correcting or amending the others. Thus,
when Hobbes is discussing the definition and role of speech in human beings, he arrives at a point of inflexion
where human nature, morality and a double, natural and civic necessity of a commonwealth meet.
4
123
to their selfish interests. His methods, i.e., naturalism and mechanicism, do not
lead Hobbesian thinking towards a model of a bee-like society or of a mechanism
that would remind his readers of a watch. His perspective on individualism is so
strong because Hobbes uses also another modern method: political realism. This
is the reason why he has such a frightening vision over the individual depicted
in strong dark lines to justify his authoritarian political solution. The Leviathan
state has to be as strong, rational and coercitive, as impulsive, passionate, selfish
are the individuals creating it (the state, the commonwealth), as a their negative
almost.
The last area of cognition, which Hobbes defines, is that of reason. According
to Hobbes, “when a man reasoneth, he does nothing else but conceive a summe
total, from addition of parcels; or conceive a remainder, from subtraction of one
summe from another: which, if it be done by words, is conceiving of the
consequence of the names of all the parts, to the name of the whole; or from the
names of the whole and one part, to the name of the other part.”9
Having dealt with what he perceived to be all the categories of cognition,
Hobbes goes on to attempt to explain the sources of Appetites for Desires and
the Will. His explanation begins with a type of stimulus response, which he calls
a Voluntary Motion.10 The Voluntary Motions are the result of the senses affecting
the inner organs of man.
The Motions of this brand are a type of pre-acknowledged response within
the organs to particular stimuli. Different stimuli cause different types of Voluntary
Motions, known as Endeavours; and when an Endeavour becomes directed at an
external object, it becomes a Desire or an Aversion. The Will, subsequently, is the
last appetite or aversion in which mental motion gets converted into physical motion.
There are several interesting and important observations and theories, arising
as Hobbes explains his model of cognition, attempting to extrapolate a theory of
politics from it. Of particular interest is the way in which Hobbes deals with
dualism, with the materiality of the human subject. As noted before, Hobbes
states specifically that all things, including thoughts, are material. However, his
model of cognition still predicates a specific type of division between the
individual thinking subject and the rest of the material world; for, according to
Hobbes we never actually experience the true materiality of the thing we sense.
“The cause of Sense, is the external body, or object, which preseth the organ
proper to each sense, ...which pressure, by mediation of the nerves, and other stings,
and membranes of the body, continued inwards to the brain and heart, causeth
there a resistance, or counter-pressure or endeavour to the heart, to deliver it self:
which endeavour because outward, seemeth to be some matter without. And this
seeming, or fancy, is that which men call sense ... But their appearance to us is
fancy, the same waking, that dreaming. And as pressing, rubbing, or striking the
eye, makes us fancy a light ... the object is one thing, the image or fancy is another.”11
——————
9 Ibidem, p. 27.
10 Ibidem, p. 33–42.
11 Ibidem, p. 9–10.
124
5
Here we see the seeds of later Skeptical thought which argued similarly that
all experience is really perception and that we have not real knowledge of the
material world. In Hobbes, this philosophy becomes particularly interesting because
he insists, in the face of this skepticism, in maintaining that all thought is still
material. It should also be noted that Hobbes, both inherits and proliferates,
some of the standard divisions of mental functioning from his period. Those are
categories such as Namely, Fancy, Imagination, including a subsequent two part
sub-division — Reason, Understanding and Will, although, his use of these
terms is quite different than many other mainstream authors of his times, fact
that underlines his modernity.
Also of interest, is Hobbes’ treatment of language. Hobbes devotes an entire
chapter to language and its right usage, during which he embraces an interesting
model of the function of language in political society12 — one in which function
of speech is to transfer our mental discourse to verbal discourse, at the same time
reasoning and relating in a correct manner to our human fellows.
The chapter dedicated to speech shows how important necessity and passions
are in men’s lives. Passions and necessities go hand in hand and they trigger
human speech at the same time triggering human reason. While it is inconceivable
to think without words (and Hobbes reminds us here that with the Greek
philosophers logos/λογος meant at the same time speech and reason), the
passionate and playful nature of the human beings makes possible the existence
of speech without reason. Passion is with Hobbes deeply involved both in any
human attempt to reasoning or to speech, as is in any human action.
In his book Private Interest, Public Benefit, A.O. Hirschman goes through the
whole Western history of modern ideas to build a theory of the passions that are
at work in a liberal democracy, but his main pillar is this approach to Hobbes.13
As hectic and multiple and difficult to anticipate in their scope and action human
passions are, they are not to be erased or eliminated. Hobbes considers that
among their complex nature there is room for the passions for thinking and
peace. Those passions are something to build on in terms of developing a lawful
(with Hobbes, the only context for a liberal) society. Hirschman construes Hobbes’s
approach to support his own perspective, where human passions are useful
mainly in the public sphere. While Hirschman’s implicit concept of human
nature is far more optimistic than Hobbes’s, he agrees with the latter in what
concerns the tremendous importance of the passions not only in individuals’
life, but in constructing and preserving (a safe and lawful, with Hobbes) liberal
society.
Human passions are in Hirschman’s theory responsible of the enjoyment
of the individual who’s completing public tasks. Here is where the two
thinkers differ dramatically. Hobbes appreciates only the human passions for
peace and only those passions are to trigger the building of a safe but not really
——————
12 Ibidem, p. 20–27.
13 Hirschman, Albert O. Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1982.
6
125
liberal society — a Leviathan. Hirschman respects and trusts all human passions
in his admiration towards and certitude that with necessity human passions
would lead the great majority to get involved with the activities of the public
sphere to create public benefit to his satisfaction and for the general benefit at the
same time.
According to Hirschman, there is a personal satisfaction resulting from creating
something of a public benefit and this is not equal to the remains of subtracting
the effort from the benefit, but it equals the sum of those two terms of the social
equation.14 While at Hobbes there is no other social and political benefit more
important than safety, for Hirschman those benefits are many more and they are
not arranged in any hierarchy, as the ends of a liberal society are multiple and
not all of them predetermined. Also in the spirit of Bernard de Mandeville,
Hirschman considers that individuals need to be trusted in what concerns their
passions because they turn eventually towards the benefit of the whole society.
Hobbes on the contrary, believes that individuals need lawful limits created either
by an assembly or by one person only (the Leviathan) to their passionate nature
in order to make the life in society possible and bearable.
With Hobbes as with Hirschman, the term “interest” carries also a positive
connotation. It is a characteristic of almost all the seventeenth-century writers to
appreciate the craving for honor, dignity, respect and recognition, seen as a basic
preoccupation of man. Specific for Hobbes is the distinction that he made
between that craving for honor, respect dignity, etc., and the caring for necessary
things. The latter is common for all men, while the first is more likely to be
identified in those men who otherwise live at ease and do not fear want. Only
those who live at ease are more complicated in their passions and actions,
because the others are simpler. Differently from Hirschman though, Hobbes’s
man has insatiable desires and ambitions and his passions are erratic and
fluctuating, hence dangerous in spite of their multiple good aspects (after all,
even the commonwealth is made possible, with Hobbes, by the fact that the
passion for peace dominates people).
Hirschman embraces a more enlightened way of observing the conducting of
public affairs, private as well as public. The passions can assure a good climate
both for public affairs and for private affairs, while “the generous causes” do not
exclude, in his view, the calm passion of making money, as the latter does not
exclude the first.
As a conclusion, with Hobbes passion does not exclude reason. In fact human
reason is put at work, generally, by the human passion. The fact that the art and
the science of politics are complementary with Hobbes is not an accidental parallel
to the fact that reason and passion are in a relation of “complementarity”, as
opposed to one of mutual exclusion relationship, as shown by Hobbes himself in
a table like the following.
——————
14 Hirschman, Albert O. The Passions and the Interests. Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its
Triumph, Princeton: Princeton University Press (20th anniversary edition) 1997.
126
7
Science or Philosophy — The knowledge of the consequences
Yet, while Hobbes states clearly that man and reason are of an equal extent,
man and passion are not. Here lies a specific difference.
MACHIAVELLI ON GROWTH AS AN END
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
Abstract. In Machiavelli’s view it was a mistake for a republic to subject
its neighbors and become a limited territorial state. Far from a prophet of
the unitary territorial state, our examination of Machiavelli’s ideas on
empire, the treatment of subject tertitories, and the problem of civic
discord reveals him as what he in fact claimed to be at the outset of the
Discourses: a writer who sought in the history of Rome’s growth a new
and “untrodden” path for solving and moving beyond the problems of
what today we call his historical “context.”
One of the major, well-recognized aims of Renaissance scholarship in recent
decades has been the reconstruction of the historical context of the writings of
Niccolo Machiavelli. Calls for a “contextualized” Machiavelli have come, some
in reaction against the idealized readings ot the past, and some in an honest effort
to resolve the widely disparate interpretations that have been advanced
concerning a relatively small and well-of texts. Understanding Machiavelli’s
ideas by placing them “in context” been a cherished goal of members of the socalled “Cambridge School” in the history of political thought, but these scholars
have by no means been alone in looking to Machiavelli’s intellectual and
political environment for answers to what Felix Gilbert used to call “the
Machiavelli question.”1 In the absence of a consensus on Machiavelli — and
some scholars still see him as a counselor to tyrants, while others view him as
the advocate of moderate Aristotelian republicanism — there is something
eminently sensible in looking to contemporary ideas and events tor aid in
understanding not just the meaning of important phrases and passages, but also
the author’s general intent.
Indeed, the appeal to context was not really new in Machiavelli scholarship,
where it had already developed out of earlier research. It used to be the case that
most historians who studied Machiavelli belonged to one of two groups, each of
which emphasized a particular Machiavellian “context” in developing its
interpretations. Thus, Meinecke, Chabod, and others preferred to study
Machiavelli with a view to the international diplomacy of the early sixteenth
——————
1 See the collection Meaning & Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics.ed. James Tully (Princeton,
1988), esp. p. 29–67 (Skinner), p.194–203 (Nachan Tarcov), p. 218–28 (Charles Taylor), and p. 246–73 (the
kernel of Skinner’s response).
128
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
2
century2. These historians emphasized the politics of power, realism in historical
and political writing, and the transformation of Europe’s national monarchies
into modern states. The texts they privileged were The Prince and the dispatches
from France, Germany, and the Papal Court. A second group of scholars instead
preferred to interpret Machiavelli in the context of the republican politics of
Florence, and its relation with the tradition of classical republican thought. Such
scholars as Hans Baron, J.G.A. Pocock, and (more recently) Quentin Skinner
and John Najemy tended to see the republicanism of the Discourses on Livy as
indicative of Machiavelli’s genuine political beliefs, and they treated The Prince
as something of an exception in Machiavelli’s œuvre.3
It was argued by some that apparent differences between what might be
called the “internationalist” and the “republican” approaches of Machiavelli
stemmed from substantive changes in the Florentine writer’s own political ideas,
changes that would have occurred in the period between the completion of The
Prince and the completion of the Discourses4. But students of Machiavelli’s
style and imagery, and even more importantly, of his anthropology and ethics,
have confirmed time and again a fundamental consistency in the outlook of the
Florentine secretary’s major works5. As Felix Gilbert demonstrated, however,
the two approaches may be susceptible of synthesis, once the historian’s method
comprises both the way in which citiens of the Florentine Republic viewed the
outside world and the way it percieved them.6
——————
2
Friedrich Meinecke, Die Idee der Staatsrason in der neuren Geshichte (Munich and Berlin, 1924);
Eugenio Dupre Theseider, Niccolo Machiavelli diplomatico. I, L arte della diplomazia nel Quattrocento
(Como, 1945), esp. p. 197–204 on the Venetian relazioni; Federico Chabod, Scritti su Machiavelli (Turin,
1964); Sergio Bertelli, “Machiavelli e la politica estera fiorentina” in Studies on Machiavelli. ed. Myron P.
Gilmore (Florence, 1972), p. 31–72.
3 Hans Baron, “Machiavelli: The Republican Citizen and Author of The Prince” (1961) in his In Search
of Florentine Civic Humanism (Princeton,1988), II, p. 101–51; J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment:
Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, 1975); Quentin Skinner,
Machiavelli (New York, 1981); idem, in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner,
and Maurizio Viroli (Cambridge, 1990), p. 121–41, 293–309; John M. Najemy, Between Friends: Discourses
of Power and Desire in the Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513–1515 (Princeton, 1993). See also William J.
Connell, “The Republican Idea,” in James Hankins, ed., Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and
Reflections (Cambridge, 2000), p. 14–29.
4 The argument for a strong distinction between The Price and the Discourses on grounds of intention,
content and date of composition was made by J.H. Hexter, “Seyssel, Machiavelli and Polybius VI: The
Mystery of the Missing Translation,” Studies in the Renaissance. 3 (1956), p. 75–96; and Baron, “Machiavelli:
The Republican Citizen.” Compare the remarks of Felix Gilbert, “Machiavelli in Modern Historical
Scholarship,” Italian Quarterly 14 (1971), p. 25 n. 20. On a longscanding tendency to find “dichotomies” in
Machiavelli’s work see Dante Della Terza, “The Most Recent Image of Machiavelli: The Contribution of the
Linguist and the Literary Historian,” Italian Quarterly. 14 (1971), p. 91–113.
5 For the most forceful statement of the coherence of Machiavelli’s thought, see Gennaro Sasso, Niccolo
Machiavelli. Storia del suo pensiero politico. 2 vols. (Bologna, 1980–93). Mark Hulliung, Citizen Machiavelli
(Princeton, 1983); Sebastian de Grazia, Machiavelli In Hell (Princeton, 1989); Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, Fortune
is a Woman: Gender and Politica in the Thought of Niccolo Machiavelli (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984);
and Victoria Kahn, Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton (Princeton, 1994), p.
15–59, argue (each in an original way) for a single Machiavelli.
6 See especially, Felix Gilbert, “Florentine Political Assumptions in the Period of Savanarola and
Soderini”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 20 (1957), p. 187–214; and idem, Machiavelli aud
Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century, Florence. rev. ed. (New York: Norton,1984). For
another treatment of the changing mutual perceptions of an Italian republic and the outside world, see William
J. Bouwsma, Venice and Republican Liberty: Renaissance Values in the Age of the Counter Reformation
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), esp. p. 162–251, 417–82.
3
129129
In another effort to bridge the gap between the “internationalist” and
“republican” readings of Machiavelli, a few scholars have recently indicated
another context for Machiavellian research, namely the territorial State in
Tuscany that was administered by Florence in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries7. The suggestion would seem to make good sense, for it was in the
Florentine “dominion” — the territory that lay between the city walls and the
Republic’s outer political boundaries — that Machiavelli received his own
apprenticeship in statecraft. In his position as Second Chancellor, he oversaw
correspondence with Florencine officers in the dominion; as Secretary to the Ten
of Liberty and Peace, he helped manage the defense of Florentine territory; and
as Chancellor of the Nine of Militia, Machiavelli raised and trained troops in the
dominion. Moreover, Machiavelli’s writings as a chancery officer reveal a close
attention to the mechanics of territorial government8. But what is perhaps most
surprising is that, in contrast with his diplomatic experience, where influence on
the later writings has often been demonstrated, there is a disjunction between
Machiavelli’s work in Florentine territorial administration and the later
discussions of The Prince and the Discourses.
Notwithstanding the many claims that have been made with respect to
Machiavelli and the development of the concept of the modern state, there was
a decided primitivism to his treatment of the actual administration of states by
their own governments. Certainly, Machiavelli was no Weberian. One finds in
his writing little recognition of the growth of bureaucracy, the legal revolution
of the later middle ages, or the rise of a capitalist economy.
The department of government he treated most extensively was the military,
and here Machiavelli was both unreasonably idealistic and technically backward.9
Especially indicative is Machiavelli’s near silence about the two areas of
Renaissance state building in Florence that have been most investigated by
modern historians: the chancery and the fisc.10 The chancery was the area of
administration that Machiavelli knew best, yet he referred to it not once in the
——————
7 Elena Fasano Guarini, “Machiavelli and the Crisis of the Italian Republics” in Machiavelli and
Republicanism, p. 17–40; Giovanni Silvano, “Dal centro alla periferia. Niccolo Machiavelli tra stato cittadino
e staco territoriale”, Archivio storico italiano. 150 (1992), p. 1105–41.
8 Fredi, Chiappelli, “Machiavelli as Secretary,” Italian Ouarterly, 14 (1971), p. 27–44, suggested
Machiavelli’s thought could be discovered in nuce in this writings, but the resulting Machiavelli was stripped
of many essential qualities. Jean-Jacques Marchand, Niccolo Machiavelli. I primi scritti politici (1499–1512).
Nascita di un pensiero e di un stile (Padua, 1975), an exemplary study, squeezed as much as possible from the
early works, but found more “stile” than “pensiero.”
9 Piero Pieri, Il rinascimento e la crisi militare italiana (Turin, 1952). Felix Gilbert, “Machiavelli: The
Renaissance Art of War,” in The Makers of Modern Strategy. 3rd ed., ed. Peter Paret (Princeton, 1984), p.
11–31, was only more sympathetic to Machiavelli.
10 On the Florentine fisc in relation to state-building, see Anthony Molho, “L’amministrazione del del
debico pubblico a Firenze nel quindicesimo secolo. “In I ceti dirigenti nella Toscana del Quattrocento (Monte
Oriolo: Papafava, 1987), p. 191–207; and idem, “Lo Stato e la finanza pubblica. Un’ ipotesi basata sulla storia
tardomedioevale di Firenze,” in Origini dello Stato. Processi di formazione statale in Italia fra medioeva ed
eta moderna, ed. Giorgio Chittolini, Anthony Molho, and Pierangelo Schiera (Bologna, 1994), p. 225–80). On
the chancery, see especially Alison Brown, Bartolomeo Scala. 1430–1497. Chancellor of Florence: The
Humanist as Bureaucrat (Princeton, 1979), p. 161–92; and Robert Black, “The Political Thought of the
Florentine Chancellors,” Historical Journal. 29 (1986), p. 991–1003.
130
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
4
Discourses or the Florentine Histories. Two chancellors, Leonardo Bruni and
Poggio Bracciolini, were remembered as “historians,” but there was no mention
of their service to the Florentine government.11 The only person mentioned as a
“chancellor” in the Histories was Cola di Rienzo, a figure Machiavelli possibly
admired, but who abandoned that line of work in 1347 when he seized power in
Rome and declared himself Tribune.12 Machiavelli shows a similar lack of interest
in fiscal matters. The argument in the Discourses and the Art of War against the
common opinion that “money is the sinews of war” underlined his consistently
held view that fiscal might was a secondary factor in the government of states.13
A state‘s fisc might reflect the “industry” of its citizens,14 but wealth alone
would not always enable it to find good soldiers when they were needed. In the
Florentine Histories he discussed the imposition of the 1427 catasto primarily in
terms of the political struggle between the grandi and the popolo.15 He overlooked
the catasto’s formidable centralizing role when he discussed its imposition on
the dominion; and he seems to have viewed the Volterrans’ resistance to it with
sympathy.16 Discussing the French, Machiavelli suggested the absence of fiscal
uniformity helped keep their kingdom united.17
Clearly, Machiavelli found little that was worthy of imitation in Florentine
administration. And yet, it was once assumed that Machiavelli was an advocate
of the processes that transformed Florence into an early modern territorial state.
An early proponent of this idea was Francesco Ercole, who in 1926 wrote that
Machiavelli “recognized... the... tendency of the city-state to... transform itself,
in one way or another, into a unitary and territorial state.”18 But the adjectives
“unitary” and “territorial” as used by Ercole are quite misleading. One of the
reasons Machiavelli stood out among the poltical writers of his day was that he
rejected such conventional legal and institutional understandings of the territorial
state. As we shall see, Machiavelli remained the consistent advocate of a quite
different mode of government. For throughout his writings, the Florentine
argued against the territorial state and in favor of an expansionist republican
empire. In wishing to be free of the mistakes of the present, Machiavelli was thus
rebelling against his “context.”19
——————
11
Istorie florentine. Proemio, in Tutte le opere. ed. Martelli (cited hereafter as Istorie), p. 632.
12 Note the assimilation that takes place when Machiavelli, Istorie, i. 3 t, p. 653, calls him “Niccolo di
Lorenzo, cancelliere in Campidoglio”, using the Tuscan form of Cola’s Christian name. Machiavelli preserved
the dialect form, “Cola,” for another historical figure, “Cola Montano,” at Istorie, vii. 33, p. 814.
13 Nicolo Machiavelli , Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Toti Livio, ii 10, in Tutte le opere, ed .Martelli
(cited hereafter as Discorsi), p. 159; idem. Arte della guerra. Vii, in Tutte le opere, p. 386.
14 Istorie. Proemio, p. 633, referring to Florence’s war with Filippo Maria Visconti.
15 Ibid., iv. 14, p. 722–23.
16 Ibid., iv.i 5–7 , p. 723–25.
17 Il Principe, ed. Giorgio Inglese (Turin, 1995 — cited hereafter as Principe). iii. 10, p. 13.
18 Francesco Ercole, La politica di Machiavelli (Rome, 1926), p. 106–7. For similar views of Machiavelli
and the modern state, see: Alfred Schmidt, Niccolo Machiavelli und die allgemeine Staatslehre der Gegenwart
(Karlsruhe, 1907); Leonhard von Muralt, Machiavelli Staatsgedanke (Basel, 1945), p. 35; and Herfried
Munkler, Machiavelli. Die Begrundung des politischen Denkens der Neuzeit aus der Krise der Republik Florenz
(Frankfurt a.M., 1984), p. 329–37.
19 Compare Joseph R. Strayer, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (Princeton, 1970), whose
“modern” state Machiavelli would certainly disliked. For the Florentine context, see Lauro Martines, Lauyers
and State-craft in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1968), which might be read as a description of the world
Machiavelli was trying to escape.
5
131131
Machiavelli’s most careful formulation of his views on territorial expansion
can be found in Book I, chapter 6, of the Discourses. Here, in a passage that has
sometimes been misunderstood, Machiavelli examined the differences that
distinguished a popularly based republic such as Rome, from narrowly based
aristocratic republics such as Venice and Sparta. The two kinds of republic presented
the would-be founder of a republic, with an important choice. As Machiavelli
put it, If anyone should wish to order a new republic, he would have to examine
whether he whised that she expand (ampliasse) in domination and power, like
Rome, or that she remain within narrow confines. In the first case, it is necessary
to order her like Rome (with a popular constitution)... In the second case, you
can (puoi) order her like Sparta and like Venice (with an aristocratic constitution).
But, because expansion is the poison of republics of this (latter kind), he who
establishes them most prohibit their aquisition of other territory (lo acquisire) in
all possible ways, because when such acquisitions are piled upon a weak
republic they are invariably its ruin.20
Modern commentators have sometimes interpreted this passage as establishing
equally suitable alternatives for the founder of a republic21. However, the
passage was constructed in such a way as to lead the reader to believe the second
alternative was less desirable. Thus, Machiavelli used an abstracted third person
when speaking of the founder of a republic like Rome, but changed to a tu of
condescension (with the verb puoi) when describing the founding of a republic
like Venice or Sparta.22 Sparta and Venice were thus “weak” republics because
they could not stand the burden of territorial acquisitions.
Machiavelli acknowledged that non-expansive republicanism had a certain
appeal. That he was sincere in this is confirmed by a passage in his poem,
L’Asino, in which he criticized Athens, Sparta and Florence for having subjected
the territory surrounding them, and also by Castruccio Castracani’s deathbed
wish in the Vita that he had made “friends” (amici) of neighboring states, rather
than try to conquer them23. In the Discourses, Machiavelli wrote that he “would
like to believe” that a long-lived republic might be founded by establishing it on
a strong site and endowing it with only as much power as we needed for its own
defense. “And without doubt I believe that if the thing (i.e., the constitution)
could be kept balanced in this manner, that this would be the true political life
(vivere politico) and true peace for the city”.24
——————
20
Discorsi. i.6, p. 86.
21 Alfredo Bonadeo, “Appunti sul concetto di conquista e ambizione nel Machiavelli e sull
antimachiavellismo,” Annali dell’lstituto orientale. 12 (1970), p. 245–60; idem, “Machiavelli on War and
Conquest,” Il pensiero politico. 7 (1974), p. 334–61. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment, p. 196–99 got it right,
and so did Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Machiavellian Virtue (Chicago, 1996), p. 85–92.
22 Machiavelli’s use of the tu and the voi was more complicated than indicated in the nonetheless
perceptive comment of Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Chicago, 1958), p. 77; later endorsed by Gian
Roberto Sarolli, “Un dichirografo inedito del Machiavelli ‘dictante’ e ‘scribente,’” Modern Language Notes.
80 (1965), p. 58–9. In this regard, it might be mentioned that Sarolli’s article failed to distinguish between the
normal use of the second person singular in letters from Florentine magistracies to their officers (a “collegial”
tu) and the customary use of the voi in private correspondence in this period.
23 L’asino. eh. 5, in Tutte le opere. ed. Martelli, p. 966; Vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucea. p. 626.
Careful consideration of Machiavelli’s language in these two passages confirms that neither contradicts the general
conclusion of the Discourses.
24 Discorsi. Ii. 6, p. 86.
132
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
6
But, reading further, it becomes clear that Machiavelli thought the alternative
represented by Sparta and Venice was a false one. Since all human affairs are in
motion, “necessity” forces “you”25 to undertake “many things to which reason
will not induce you”. Other states have their own interests and ambitions, and
inevitably, the “necessity” of warfare impinges on even the republic of limited
ambition. The republic without ambitions will be faced with a choice between
expanding in order to maintain its liberty to seeing its liberty extinguished.26
Since he did not believe that it is possible “to balance this thing”, Machiavelli
thought that it was neccesary in ordering a republic “ to think of the more honorable
outcome”, and to establish the regime in such a way, “that even if necessity
should induce it to expand, it would be able to preserve that which it had
occupied”. Sparta and Venice, the republics of reason, were not ordered with
empires in mind, and both lost within brief periods the empires that necessity
forced tehm to acquire27. Only the German city-states of Machiavelli’s day were
able to be free (and also economically and militarily strong) while also being
unacquisitive — but this was owing to their living under Imperial protection28.
Were such protection removed, Machiavelli implies, the German too, would be
forced to expand, if they wished to preserve their liberty.
Machiavelli’s argument is stated so plainly that it might be easy to overlook
the extent to which his endorsement of the imperialism of the republic of
“necessity” marked a significant break with earlier republican theorists. For
Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, the purpose of government was the inculcation of
virtue in the citizens of a regime: in Machiavelli’s writings empire takes the
place of virtue as the end of the republic. Thus Plato and Aristotle condemned
territorial expansion because they believe city-states would lose their ability to
effectively shape citizens when they grew too large. The large polis would lose
its “political” character.29 Among Roman writers, similar views were expressed
by the historians Sallust and Livy, but this was not the opinion of Cicero in one
of the most influential discussions of the problem of imperialism. In the De
officiis — a text Machiavelli knew from his boyhood — Cicero argued that
empire was a consequence of Roman virtue.30 Although Cicero’s position was
quite different from Plato’s and Aristotle’s, the Roman orator agreed with Plato
——————
25
Again, a tu accompanies the lesser alternative.
26 Discorsi, ii.6, p. 86. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment. p. 199, rightly explained Machiavelli’s choice of
Rome over Sparta on the grounds that “to reject expansion is to expose oneself to fortune without seeking to
dominate her”.
27 Here, as has often been noted, Machiavelli ignored the astonishing revivel of Venetian fortunes after
the battle at Agnadello (known to him as “Vaila”). For Machiavelli’s consistent belittling of Venetian political
achievements, see Innocenzo Cervelli, Machiavelli e la crisi dello stato veneziano (Naples, 1974).
28 On the strenght (potentia) of the German cities that yet resulted in no acquisition (acquisto), see the
Ritracto della cose della Magna. in Marchand, Niccolo Machiavelli. I primi scritti. p. 525–32 (esp. 525, 530).
Similarly in a draft version, the Rapporto di cose della Magna. ibid., p. 480: “le comunita sanno che la acquisto
d’Italia farebbe pe’ principi e non per loro, potendo questi venire ad godervi personalmente li paesi d’Italia e
non loro.”
29 Plato, Republic, 423 b-c; Aristotle, Politia. 13246b-13276 b-13336 b-13343 a.
30 Cicero, De officiis. 2.26–27. Roberto Ridolfi, Vita di Niccolo Machiavelli rev ed. (Florence, 1978), p.
424 n. 7, noted the presence of a borrowed copy of the De officiis in the home of Machiavelli’s father,
Bernardo. For Ciceronian influences on Machiavelli, see Marcia L. Colish, “Cicero’s De officiis and Machiavelli’s
Prince.” Sixteenth Century Journal. 9 (1978), p. 81–93. See also Patricia J. Osmond, “Sallust and Machiavelli:
From Civic Humanism to Political Prudence,”Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies. 23. (1993), p. 407–38.
7
133133
and Aristotle on the crucial point that the “end” of the republic was virtue: empire
was a manifestation of virtue, not an end in itself.31
That Machiavelli disagreed with the republican theorists of antiquity on the
question of imperialism is notable, since it shows him diverging from another of
the “contexts” in which he is often discussed, namely classical republicanism.
Of course, Plato was not always taken seriously, but Aristotle and Cicero were
authorities of a different order. Interestingly, Machiavelli only once cited
Aristotle favorably in his writings — on the violence done to women by tyrants
— and elsewhere he preferred to criticize him.32 Was Machiavelli thinking of
Aristotle’s moderate politeia — and not only of the regimes of Plato and
Xenophon — when he wrote in The Prince against “republics and principalities
that have never been seen to exist in truth”?33
But it was by inverting the key, terms of Cicero’s position that Machiavelli
really changed the nature of the discussion concerning empire. Machiavelli ‘s
vocabulary was perfectly Aristotelian and Ciceronian in its discussion of “ends,”
their tele or fines becoming his fini, but the conclusion he reached was directly
opposite. In Book I, chapter 29, of the Discourses, Machiavelli stated that the
city has “two ends” (fini). The first is “to acquire” (lo acquisire) territory; the
second is “to maintain its independence”. In Discourses, Book II, chapter 2,
Machiavelli stated even more directly that “increase” (accrescere) is “the end of
a republic” (il fine della republica). Thus expansion, not the inculcation of
virtue, was the goal of Machiavelli government. To virtue in the classical sense
Machiavelli assigned a subordinate role, as one of the means assisting expansion;
and in so doing, he changed the meaning of virtue itself.
Concomitant with the redefinition of virtue, which scholars have often discussed,
Machiavelli’s endorsement of expansion predicated his reworking of other
aspects of contemporary political language.34 It is true that Machiavelli’s political
vocabulary and his stock of metaphors remained essentially those of the political
writers who preceded him, and also of contemporary politicians, statesmen and
bureaucrats; however, in the pages of Machiavelli’s chief works, some of these
traditional elements assumed novel meanings.35 Time and again the reader of
——————
31 For Cicero’s views on Roman expansion, see Hans Dieter Meyer, Cicero und das Reich, (Cologne,
1957); and P.A. Brunt, “Laus Imperii,” in Imperialism in the the Ancient World. ed. P.D.A. Garnsey and C.R.
Whitaker (Cambridge, 1978), p. 159–91.
32 Discorsi. iii.26, p. 233. For Machiavelli’s otherwise negative view of Aristotle, see his letter to
Francesco Vettori of 26 August 1513, in Tutte le opere. ed. Martelli, p. 1156, referring to the Politics, and compare
Vettori’s previous letter of 20 August 1513, ibid., p. 115 3. See also the Discursus Florentinarum Rerum Post
Mortem Iunioris Laurentii Medices, ibid., p. 30.
33 Principe, xv. 4, p. 102. More’s Utopia, published in 1516 and therefore after the first redaction of The
Prince was known to Francesco Vettori, who mentioned it in his Sommario della storia d’Italia dal 1511 al
1527. published in Francesco Vettori, Scritti istorici e politici, ed. Enrico Niccolini (Bari, 1972), p. 145.
34 The best discussions of Machiavellian virtu remain J.H. Withfield, Machiavelli (1946; rpt. New ‘York,
1966), p. 97–105; and Neal Wood, “Machiavelli’s Concept of Virtu Reconsidered,” Political Studies, 15
(1967), p. 159–72.
35 For the context, see Allan H. Gilbert, Machiavelli’s “Prince” and Its Forerunners: The Prince as a Typical
Book “De Regimine Principum” (Durham, N.C., 1938); Felix Gilbert, “Florentine Political Assumptions in the
Period of Savonarola and Soderini,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 20 (1957), p. 187–214;
Federico Chabod, “Alcuni questioni di terminologia: ‘stato’, ‘nazione’, ‘patria’ nel linguaggio del
Cinquecento,” in his Scritti sul Rinascimento (Turin, 1967), p. 627–61; Mario Santoro, Fortuna, ragione e
134
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
8
Machiavelli encounters words and images employed in ways that would have
run counter to such medieval and Renaissance expectations.36
After virtu, the most frequently discussed word in the Machiavellian
vocabulary is stato. An older dispute — whether Machiavelli’s use of the word
corresponded with the modern impersonal meaning of the word “state”37 — has
been answered in the negative, inasmuch as in Machiavelli’s use of stato the
word can be shown always to stand for the stato of some-one — of a person or
a group of people.38 The modern juridical understanding of the “state” reached
maturity only in the decades after Machiavelli’s death.39
The argument has since been recast, however, to show that Machiavelli’s use
of stato differed from that of medieval writers in that he used stato in
“exploitative” and “predatory” contexts, so that stato was generally the object of
verbs of aggression, acquisition, and manipulation.40 It has been suggested
rightly that Machiavelli’s “predatory” use of stato developed among preceding
generations in the grasping, competitive world of Florentine oligarchical
politics, in which “status” might be both acquired and lost.41 Finally, further
study has shown that because of Machiavelli’s advice to both “and republics to
aggrandize themselves, stato becomes in his work merely a static quality, but a
quality whose possession brings with it an inherent obligation to increase.42
Thus, as others have shown, the word stato as Machiavelli uses it, ceases to
indicate an “estate” as a “static” quality, becoming instead a quality the
possession of which entails further increase or promotion.
Machiavelli worked a similar transformation of the metaphor, traditional to
both earlier and contemporary political writing, which likened the political regime
to a human body.43 Although Machiavelli made use of the ancient and medieval
——————
(continuation) prudenza nella civilta letteraria del Cinquecento (Naples, 1967); Nicolai Rubinstein, “Notes on
the word stato in Florence before Machiavelli” in Florilegium Historiale, ed. J.G. Rowe and W.H. Stockdale
(Toronto, 1971) p. 313–26; idem, “Florentina Libertas,” Rinascimento, ser. 2, 26 (1986), p. 3–26. A helpful
introduction to Machiavelli’s vocabulary may be found in appendix to Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans.
Quentin Skinner and Russell Price (Cambridge, 1988), p. 100–13. Fredi Chiappelli, Studi sul linguaggio del
Machiavelli (Florence, 1952), by design paid little attention to contemporary usage, which, paradoxically,
sometimes makes his study all the more useful.
36 Cf. the description of Machiavelli’s refutation of the traditional catalogue of virtues in Felix Gilbert,
“The Humanist Concept of the Prince and The Prince of Machiavelli,” in his History: Choice and Commitment
(Cambridge, Mass., 1977), p. 91–114, esp. II off.
37 A position advanced by Ernst Cassirer, The Myth of the State (New Haven, 1946), p. 133–34, 140–41,
154–55. Compare also Chiappelli, Studi sul linguaggio, p. 59–73.
38 J.H. Hexter, “The Predatory Vision: Niccolo Machiavelli. Il Principe and Io stato” in his The Vision of
Politics on the Eve of the Reformation: More Machiavelli, Seyssel (New York, 1973), p. 73–175; further
supported by Skinner, Foundations, II, p. 353–54.
39 J-W. Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, (1928; New York, 1960), p. 407;
and Skinner, Foundations, II, p. 349–58. Alberto Tenenti, Stato: un’idea, una logica. Dal comune italiano
all’assolutismo francese (Bologna, 1987), offers a rich discussion (esp. p. 15–97), but does not change the
overall conclusion.
40 Hexter, “The Predatory Vision”.
41 Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, p. 390–91.
42 Mansfield, Machiavellian Virtue, p. 281–94.On the obligation to acquire, see for example, Discorsi, i.
5, p. 84: “la paura del perdere genera in loro le medesime voglie che sono in quelli che desiderano acquistare;
perche non pare agli uomini possedere sicuramente quello che l’uomo ha, se non si acquista di nuovo dell’altro.”
43 Jacques Le Goff, “Head or Heart? The Political Use of Body Metaphors in the Middle Ages”, in
Fragments of a History of the Body, 3 vols. (New York, 1989), I, p. 12–27; Paul Archambault, “The Analogy of
the ‘Body’ in Renaissance Political Literature”, Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 29 (1967), p. 32–53.
9
135135
metaphors that spoke of the relationship between a king and his subjects as
similar to that between a body’s head and limbs, it has by now become commonplace
that Machiavelli interjected into this image an “organic” conception of the
regime; that is, he thought of the regime as a living thing, subject to cycles of
birth and death. An essentially traditional use of body imagery to describe
political situations was already present in Machiavelli’s earliest chancery
writings of 1498,44 in accordance with a typical usage of state scribes.45 Thus
Machiavelli’s writings include a number of customary arguments regarding the
relative importance of various parts of the body. An annexed province is “like an
added member.”46 A policy of disarming one’s own people is mistaken, “because
the heart and the vital parts of a body should be kept covered, and not its
extremities.”47 Machiavelli also used a rich store of medical analogies to
describe the illnesses of a state, and the methods for healing them.48
But at some point in the development of Machiavelli’s thought, his use of the
metaphor of the body took a novel turn. For Machiavelli attributed to the political
body an appetite. Herein lies the significance of the story that Machiavelli
borrowed from Vitruvius of Alexander the Great, who, when the architect
Deinocrates proposed building a city in the shape of a human body on Mount
Athos, rejected the plan for the reason that the inhabitants would have nothing
to feed them.49 In the Discourses, Machiavelli stated the position even more
forcefully, asserting that “the end (fine) of a republic is to enervate and to weaken
all other bodies in order that its own body might increase”.50 The republican regime
that Machiavelli praised was a regime that consumed.
Expansion was necessary, then, but how was the state to go about it?
Machiavelli made it clear that he favored some modes of expansion over others.
These were discussed in Book II, chapter 4, of the Discourses. Machiavelli wrote
that the ancient republics employed three modes in aggrandizing themselves51. The
first was to form a league of several republics, none of which had precedence
over the other: Machiavelli adduced the example of the ancient Etruscans, whom
he called “Tuscans”.52 The ancient Tuscans ruled all of Italy north of Rome and
south of the Alps. The first mode had significant drawbacks, however. The
ancient Tuscans were incapable of extending their rule beyond Italy and proved
unable to defend Lombardy against the Gauls. They also left no history of
——————
44 Chiappelli, “Machiavelli as Secretary, p. 34–35.
45 See, for example, S. Grubb, Firstborn of Venice: Vicenza in the early Renaissance State (Baltimore,
1988), p. 26–27.
46 Principe. iii. I., p. 10. For the prince/general as head, and individual Italians as limbs, see xxvi, 16, p. 172.
47 Discorsi, ii. 30, p. 191.
48 E.g., Principe, iii. 26–8, p. 17–18; Chiappelli, Studi sul linguaggio, p. 78 and 88–89; Luigi Zanzi, I
“segni” della natura e i “paradigmi” della storia: il metodo del Machiavelli. Ricerche sulla logica scientifica
degli “umanisti” tra medicina e storiografia (Manduria, 1981); and especially the rich and suggestive
treatment of Anthony J. Parei, The Machiavellian Cosmos (New Haven, 1992), p. 101–12 et passim.
49 Discorsi, i. I., p. 78.
50 Discorsi, ii. 2, p. 150.
51 Discorsi, ii. 4, p. 152–54.
52 On this theme, note Peter Godman, From Poliziano to Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism in the High
Renaissance (Princeton, 1998), p. 258, 288.
136
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
10
themselves53. A second mode of aggrandizement, the one followed by the Romans,
was for a republic to make pattners (compagni: the word for “business partners”)
of other states, always, however, reserving to itself the commanding rank, the
seat of empire, and the title to all undertakings. The third mode was immediately
to make subjects rather than partners of other states. This was the mode
employed by Athens and Sparta in antiquity (although Machiavelli distorted
both examples54), and by the Florentine and Venetian states in his own day.
Machiavelli rejected the last method — immediate subjugation — on the
grounds that governing cities with violence, especially cities that had been
accustomed to liberty, was a difficult and costly business.55 The Athenian and
Spartan empires were both ruined, he said, by the inability to maintain such
dominions once they were acquired. The mode Machiavelli recommended most
highly was the Roman mode, which operated through the adoption and creation
of slightly inferior partner regimes. Although these partners were afforded equality
in most matters, Rome reserved for herself the place of honor in their endeavors.
The result was that unawares the partners spent their own labors and blood in
subjecting themselves to Rome. For after the Romans had led their partners
outside of Italy and reduced many foreign lands to the status of subject provinces,
the partners found they were both surrounded by Roman subjects and oppressed
by a greatly reinforced Rome. The partners revolted (in the Social War), and they
were suppressed and reduced to the status of subjects. Thus, the final result of
the Roman mode of aggrandizement differed little from that of the mode of the
Athenians and the Spartans. But the more efficient Roman mode of expansion
required delaying the final subjection of a republic’s neighbors until such a moment
when the partners forced the republic to subject them. To be sure, the “partnership”
of this mode of expansion was in effect a kind of fraud — and Machiavelli
praised the Romans for their use of fraud as well as force in their conquests.56
Since Machiavelli evidently thought that Florence had made the mistake of
immediately subjecting her neighbors, the first method, illustrated by the
Etruscan league, merits further attention. Machiavelli suggested that this might
be the best option still open to the Tuscans of his day. Castruccio seemed to
indicate this path when he spoke of befriending neighboring states in the Life.57
And, as Machiavelli argued elsewhere, “men born in one ll’keep almost the same
——————
53 Discorsi, ii. 4, p. 154: “La quale potenza e gloria ... fu tanto spenta, che ... al presente non ce n’e quasi
memoria.” And again in the following chapter, Discorsi, ii. 5, p. 155: “Talche, come si e detto, di lei ne rimane
solo la memoria del nome.”
54 Machiavelli’s presentation of the Athenian and Spartan modes of expansion is misleading, since both
Greek cities were the heads of “leagues” for many years before transforming them into empires. For Machiavelli’s
use of Thucydides (but not on this point), see Marcello Simonetta, “Machiavelli lettore di Tucidide,”
Esperienze letterarie, 22, n. 3 (1997), p. 55–68.
55 This explains the seeming anti-imperialism of the statements in The Ass and the Life of Castruccio,
cited at note 23 above.
56 Cf. Discorsi, ii. 13, p. 163, “Che si viene di bassa a gran fortuna piu con la fraude che con la forza,”
which restates Rome’s policy toward her neighbors as described in ii.4 as one of fraud in a laudable cause.See,
too, iii. 40, p. 248–49, where Machiavelli’s iniþial condemnation of fraud was qualified by what followed.Also
Principe, xviii, p. 115–20. R.T. Ridley, “Machiavelli and Roman History in the Discourses”, Quaderni di
storia, 18 (1983), p. 200, is better than Whitfield, Machiavelli, p.153, on this question.
57 Note 23 above.
11
137137
nature for all times.58 A league at least appeared to offer the possibility of
prolonged independence, if not the greatness that had been Rome’s.
But Machiavelli’s recommendation of a league still has something slightly
puzzling about it. Why would Machiavelli have recommended a mode of
aggrandizement that led the Tuscans into “oblivion”‘? Perhaps Machiavelli
believed that the advantage offered by a league was the ease with which it turned
into a network of “partners.” Since the republic that desired to expand was
supposed to deceive others into helping it expand, and since no state would
willingly become a “partner” to another republic if it knew what future was in
store for it, a “league” offered the best practical beginnings for expansion along
the lines laid by the Roman republic.
During the early stages of the growth of an empire, Machiavelli seems to
have envisioned the preservation of substantial local autonomies. Partner republics
would continue to administer justice by themselves, as Capua had done for
three-hundred years while nominally under Roman control; and as Pistoia had
done — though under Florentine control in other ways — during the fourteenth
century.59 In France, similarly, the provinces of Burgundy, Briccany, Gascony,
and Normandy were said in The Prince to have “become one whole body” with
the French kingdom, not despite, but because they were allowed to retain their
former laws and taxes.60 For Machiavelli the cohesion of states was not measured
by unified legal codes or by centralized administrative and territorial structures,
but in terms of a psychological cohesion that could better be achieved by preserving
local autonomies. This is a far cry from Ercole’s “unitary” state.
When, in The Prince, Machiavelli rejected the time-worn Florentine strategy
for controlling Tuscany summarized in the maxim, “Rule Pisa with fortresses
and Pistoia with factions,”61 he was hoping for the establishment of a territorial
order quite different from the one that existed in his own day. Where fortresses
were garrisoned in subject towns, they proved expensive, and, worst of all, they
daily incurred the wrath of the subjects, by furnishing daily reminders of servitude.62
In place of hostile garrisons, Machiavelli would have granted substantial
autonomy to the subject towns of Tuscany. Such towns would be more likely to
defend themselves if attacked. And, as partners rather than subjects, they would
be more likely to give of themselves in military action together with the
Florentines. Factions, for their part, rendered subject towns highly vulnerable to
external enemies63; and there was the risk that such factions would spread to the
ruling city, just as they had spread from Pistoia to Florence in the past.64
——————
58
Discorsi, iii. 43, p. 250.
59 Discorsi, ii. 2i, p. 177–78.
60 Principe,iii, 7–10, p. 12–13. Machiavelli here underestimated the royal interference in these parts of
France. Compare the Ritracto di cose di Francia in Marchand, Machiavelli. Primi scritti, p. 507–24, which
gave a more accurate account.
61 Principe, xx, p. 138–46.
62 Ibid., for criticisms of fortresses; and Discorsi, ii. 24, p. 181–84.
63 Principe, xx. ii, p. 140; although such towns were prince or republic to hold. For the proper way to
acquire a town riven by factions, see see Discorsi, ii. 25, p. 184–85.
64 Discorsi, iii. 27, p. 233–34; cf. Istorie, ii.i 6, p. 668 ff. See also William J. Connell, ‘“I fautori delle
parti”. Citizen Interest and the Treatment of a Subject Town, c. 1500,” in Istituzioni e società in Toscana in età
moderna (Rome, 1994), I, p .118–47; idem, La città dei crucci. Fazioni e clientele in ano stato repubblicano
del ‘400 (Florence, 2000), p. 181–237.
138
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
12
Machiavelli’s rejection of the customary policy toward factions in the territory
leads us back to the capital city, however, to transform political thinking: what
about factions in he capital?
As Quentin Skinner justly pointed out, one of the fundamental ways in which
Machiavelli broke with the expectations of his predecessors and contemporaries
was through his striking praise, in the Discourses, of Roman civic discord.65
Guicciardini’s somewhat amazed response to Machiavelli’s argument was that
“to praise discord was like someone who was ill.”66 But the extent and nature
ment of “disunion” — and what motivated it — have not always been completely
understood.67 To begin with, as we have seen, Machiavelli opposed factions in
subject towns for reasons of security. But if he opposed them there, would he not
oppose them in the capital city for the same reasons? On closer examination, it
seems that Machiavelli distinguished between a healthy form of civic discord —
which was essentially a class struggle between patricians and plebs — and an
unhealthy form of discord, characterized by political factions and parties.
Thus, although Machiavelli praised Rome’s disunion anei her tumults when
these resulted from class antagonism between nobles and plebs,68 he was quite
quick to condemn political factions (parti or sette) that sought to control the state
for private benefit.69 Class divisions, on the other hand, produced both healthy
competition and good laws tending toward the expansion of the republic, so long
as the demands of the competing classes did not become excessive or degenerate
into private hatreds.70 A similar tale was told in the Florentine Histories, where
Machiavelli wrote that under the government of the Primo Popolo — a regime
he interpreted as having originated in the conflict between Florentine magnates
and popolani — “our city was never in greater or happier condition”.71
Machiavelli argued in the Discourses that “those who condemn the tumults
between the nobles and the plebs” in ancient Rome erred by blaming “those
things which were the first cause of Rome’s remaining free.”72 It has been
suggested recently that Machiavelli saw these “tumults” as “a consequence of
intense political involvement,” and hence consistent with internal liberty.
——————
65 Skinner, Foundations, I, p. 181.
66 Francesco Guicciardini, Considerazioni sui ‘Discorsi’del Machiavelli i. 4, in his Opere, 3 vols., ed. Emanuella
Lugnani Scarano (Turin, 1970), I, p. 616: “laudare le disunione e come laudare in uno infermo la infermita.”
67 See Skinner, Foundations, I, p. 181, where it was argued that Machiavelli believed “that, since these
conflicts served to cancel out sectional interests, they served at the same time to guarantee that the only
enactments which actually passed into law were those which benefited the community as a whole.” Because
Skinner did not grasp Machiavelli’s distinction between class conflict (which Machiavelli endorsed) and
factional conflict (which Machiavelli criticized), the result was a Machiavelli inordinately close to the writers
of the The Federalist and Adam Smith — as in Skinner’s Machiavelli, where he wrote (p. 66): “although
motivated entirely by their selfish interests, the factions will thus be guided, as if by an invisible hand [sfic!]
to promote the public interest in all their legislative acts”.
68 Discorsi, 1.4, p. 84; Alfred Bonadeo, Corruption, Conflict, and Power in the Works and Times of
Niccolo Machiavelli (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1973), p. 35–71.
69 See, for example the description of the creation of a parte by an ambitious citizen in Discorsi, iii. 28, p. 235.
70 Discorsi, i.3–7, p. 81–88; Istorie , iii. I, p. 690–91.
71 Istorie , ii. I5, p. 668. Not only was there a popular army, but also “tutta la Toscana, parte come subietta,
parte come amica.” obeyed Florence [my emphasis].
72 Discorsi, i.4, p. 82.
13
139139
Although the airing of political differences was of a certain limited importance
in Machiavelli’s brand of republicanism,73 it seems, however, that the “freedom”
that interested Machiavelli was directed toward foreign powers, rather than
domestic liberty.74 And, as was shown previously, territorial expansion was
necessary to the preservation of freedom. By engaging the Roman people in the
business of the commonwealth, the Roman constitution harnessed popular energy
for Rome’s wars of conquest — toward achieving what Machiavelli considered
the goal or “end” republic. The occasional domestic tumults of an empowered
populace were a small price to pay for the advantages that accrued from a popular
army.75
Machiavelli’s ideal of an imperialistic but minimally centralizing republican
state that permitted class struggle ran quite contrary to the ideas of other
contemporary writers. Francesco Guicciardini, a lawyer who devoted much of
his career to creating an “impersonal” modern territorial state for the Papacy,76
was at great pains in his Considerations on Machiavelli’s Discources to show the
extend to which Machiavelli’s ideas were out or “context” the early sixteenth
century. Thus, Guicciardini argued that the Florentine and Venetian governments
were not weakened but strengthened by having enlarged their jurisdictions and
“domesticated” their neighbors77.
Machiavelli, we have seen, viewed the immediate subjection of neighboring
powers as creating early and unnecessary limits to a republic’s expansion.
Questions of legal jurisdiction, which mattered a great deal to Guicciardini,
were of minimal importance to Machiavelli. At various points in his writings,
Machiavelli juxtaposed the term “imperio,” his equivalent for sovereignty, with
“forza,” which might be best translated as “strenght”. According to Machiavelli,
the expansion of a republic’s imperio, had the effect of weakening its forza. For
a republic to achieve greatness, it was necessary for it to find the means to
increase its forza through a form of imperialism more subtle and therefore more
powerful than the simple of its jurisdiction. If, as Machiavelli stated in The
Prince and the Discourses, men are greedy and ambitious by nature; then the
politics of regione will invariably give way to the politics of necessita; and
necessita requires that a state either expand or be conquered. But the preferred
mode of expansion was not the simple subjection of vanquished states. That was
a path to imperio — to increased jurisdiction — but not to forza.78 While imperio
——————
73 Compare, for example,the criticism of lengthy deliberations in republics in Discorsi, ii.I.5, p. 164–66.
74 See Rubinstein, “Florentina Libertas.”
75 Discorsi, i.4, p. 83: “dico come ogni città debbe avere i suoi modi con i quali il popolo possa sfogare
l’ambizione sua, e massime quelle città che nelle cose importanti si vogliono valere del popolo.”
76 As papal governor, Guicciardini famously defended the territories of the Church from armed attack
even while the Papacy was vacant.
77 Guicciardini Considerazioni, II. 19, in Opere, ed. Lugnani Scarano, I, p. 668. See, too, Osvaldo
Cavallar, Francesco Guicciardini giurista (Milan, 1991).
78 Discorsi, ii.19, p. 175. Compare Ercole, La politica del Machiavelli, p. 114–16, who wrote that there were
two kinds of imperio in Machiavelli, one backed by sufficient forza (“la... forza effettiva di attuarsi e di farsi
rispettare”), the other not. Ercole overemphasized, however, the jurisdictional aspect of the first kind of imperio.
On imperio in the Florentine context, see Alison Brown, “The Language of Empire,” in William J. Connell and
Andrea Zorzi, eds., Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practica of Power (Cambridge, 2000), p. 32–47.
140
WILLIAM J. CONNELL
14
was characteristic of the early modern territorial state, forza, the quality that
made the Romans great, lay in the creation of partners (not subjects), in citizen
arms, and in finding ways to channel the energies of class conflict between the
ambitious few and the popolo into foreign expansion.
To conclude, in Machiavelli’s view it was a mistake for a republic to subject
its neighbors and become a limited territorial state. Far from a prophet of
the unitary territorial state, our examination of Machiavelli’s ideas on empire,
the treatment of subject tertitories, and the problem of civic discord reveals
him as what he in fact claimed to be at the outset of the Discourses: a writer
who sought in the history of Rome’s growth a new and “untrodden”79 path for
solving and moving beyond the problems of what today we call his historical
“context.”
——————
79 Discorsi, i, preface, p. 76: “ho deliberato entrare per una via, la quale, non essendo ancora trita...”. On
the passage, see Najemy, Between Friends, p. 337–38, esp. n. I0.
I N T E R N AT I O N A L R E L AT I O N S
THE MINORITIES OF ESTONIA AND THEIR STATUS
YVES PLASSERAUD
Abstract. The Republic of Estonia is frequently mentioned critically in
the Western press with reference to its treatment of non-citizens. At the
same time, specialized publications praise Tallinn for its excellent and
generous law on minorities. What can be the origin of such an apparent
contradiction? To understand the situation, let us first of all examine the
minority communities of Estonia.
I. Ethnic communities in Estonia today
These can be classified in two groups: A huge one: the Russophiles
comprising the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Belarussians as well as members of
other assimilated populations and a series of small or sometimes minute groups.
The Russophiles
These actually belong to several very distinct groups.
The Russians, the dominant foreign group
The sizeable Russian community of Estonia (about 350,000 individuals) is
far from being homogeneous. Over and above social or cultural divisions, there
is also a difference in terms of their length of settlement. Among the citizens
originating from the Republic of Estonia restored in 1990, there were about
40,000 Russians. Since then, a large number of other Russians, who had arrived
(or were born) in the country during the Soviet period, obtained citizenship. All
Russian citizens of Estonia belong to what the Estonian authorities consider as
“the Russian minority” of the country.
The geographic concentration of the Russian communities is very revealing
of the history of these populations. First of all, there is a massive concentration
in the capital of the country, in Tallinn (47%), for political, administrative and
professional reasons. Secondly, the regions close to Russia which were
industrialized during the Soviet era are largely Russian. Thirdly, the former
“closed cities” and military bases such as Paldiski and Sillamäe continue to be
centers of strong Russian settlement despite the departure of the Russian military
personnel. And finally, mention should be made of the ports where many Russian,
workers live.
142
YVES PLASSERAUD
2
The people in these areas continue to live in the Russian style, following
closely the Russian press, and the younger generation study in Russian. The lack
of contact with the Estonian world makes their integration difficult despite the
real progress achieved in the last few years.
Ukrainians and Belarussians: hardly noticed groups
There are about 40,000 Ukrainians, usually assimilated with the Russians,
and most of them do not know the Ukrainian language. Yet as the memory of the
USSR recedes and the Ukrainian State becomes stronger, some Ukrainians
(especially those from the west of the country) are increasingly claiming a
different identity that in many ways is more western. The authorities naturally
encourage the Ukrainians to distance themselves from the Russian and, above
all, Soviet model.
On the other hands the Belarussians, about thirty thousand of them, are on the
whole much closer to the Russians from the linguistic (Belarussian is rarely
used), cultural and sociological points of view. They do not seem to have strong
ties with their State of origin, which in fact does not show much interest in
them, and in general, they share the same memories and preoccupations with
the Russians. There is very little identity or nationalistic activism among this
group.
Both Ukrainians and Belarussians live mainly in the region of Tallinn and the
north-east of the country.
The small groups
These compose a colorful palette.
The Setus
The Setus are at present a small community1 of about 10,000 individuals in
the east of the country, who originated from the present Estonian territory and
practiced the Orthodox religion since the 13th century. Living to the south of
Lake Peipus, and initially speaking a south Estonian Finno-Ugric dialect, most
of them now speak Russian and belong to the Orthodox religion2. The Setumaa
(land of the Setus) or Petserimaa (named after the town of Petseri, at present
Petchori in Russia) and its big Orthodox monastery, covers an area of 2,000
square kilometers which, under the regime of Imperial Russia, belonged to the
province of Pskov3. During its first independence, this region and its Eastern
borders, which in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Tartu had been
handed over to Estonia, had a population that was two thirds Russian and one
third Estonian. Most of the latter — 14,961 during the 1934 census — were
Setus. This is when a westernized Setu intelligentsia emerged, with an awareness
of the value of its cultural heritage.
——————
1 There has been no recent census.
2 Jakob Hurt, Ûber pleskauer Esten oder die sogenannten Setukesen, Anzeiger der Finnish-ugrischen
Forschungen 3 (1903), 185–205.
3 In 1897, 14,000 Setus had been counted.
3
143
By the end of the annexations of the Soviet period, the region (populated by
the Setus straddled over the Estonian-Russian border (5,000 individuals in
Russia, slightly less in Estonia). After the return to independence, the border was
gradually sealed and visas became necessary to cross it4.
The Ingrians: almost Finnish
The Ingrians are a Finno-Ugrian people whose historic land is situated at the
bottom of the Finnish gulf, between Karelia and Estonia. In Estonia, they are
frequently assimilated with the Finns. The Russian settlement the region of Saint
Petersburg disturbed their traditional habitus. The collectivization in the Soviet
Union in the 1920s and the destruction of existing cultural institutions came as
a terrible blow to this small community. From 1928 onwards, there were mass
deportations, which continued until the war.
In 1944, 60,000 Ingrians were transported to Finland via Estonia. In accordance
with the terms of the Soviet-Finnish peace treaty, the latter were then repatriated
as Soviet citizens and settled far away from their homeland. After 1956, the
survivors were finally allowed to return to the region but not yet to Ingria
(Ingermanland). Some of them settled in Estonia. In this country, it is estimated
that since 1989, 4,000 left the country for Finland where they have been granted
the “right to return”. The others, mastering about 12,000 are now concentrated
in four counties in the east of the country. Their vernacular language is 60%
Estonian, and three quarters of them are Lutherans.
The Jews: a community of destiny with the Russians
Today, the small Jewish community, consisting of about 3,000 people5 —
very well integrated if not actually assimilated — is divided into two distinct
groups. One group is composed of Estonian Jews, old residents of the country
who speak the national language, who are accustomed to democracy, and
consider themselves to be Estonians in their own right (about one third of the
total). The other group is composed of Russian Jews who arrived from the USSR
after 1945. The latter share the same lifestyle and outlook as the more recent
Russian immigrants.
There ate very few expressions of anti-Semitism in daily life in Estonia and,
on the whole, the community lives peacefully6. It has a number of religions and
cultural structures organized as associations. In terms of schooling, the first
minority school to be reopened in Tallinn even before independence was the
Jewish one. In 1999, about 260 pupils attended its 12 classes.
According to practice in Tallinn, only individuals having the citizenship of
the country are considered to belong to a minority. This concept, which in the
last ten years has created a conflict between Tallinn and Western humanitarian
organizations, is nevertheless considered crucial by the authorities of Tallinn. In
——————
4 Indrek Jääts, Ethnic Identity of the Setus and the Estonian-Russian Border Dispute, in Nationalities
Papers, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2000.
5 Including 2,000 in Tallinn.
6 An active Community Centre enables it to keep in contact.
144
YVES PLASSERAUD
4
the following review of the various communities, this criterion will not be taken
into consideration.
The topic of this paper being the protection of minorities, we shall particularly
insist hereunder on the law of minorities. It is nevertheless not possible to refrain
from giving here some information about the main issue, which concerns the
bulk of the Russophiles (frequently just referred to as “Russians”) and which is
repeatedly mentioned in the international press, the integration question.
II. The Citizenship Acts and the National Integration Program
In 1989 (last Soviet Census), there were 61% of Titulars (Estonians) and 19%
of “Russians” in Estonia. Most of these Russophiles had arrived in Estonia
during the Soviet Era and had little kinship with the newly born Independent
Estonian Republic. Fearing to be overwhelmed by a population with such mixed
feelings toward Estonia, the authorities of the reborn state chose to reconstitute
the pre-world war two Corpus of Citizens that is to say to grant citizenship only
to the pre-world-war two citizens and to their descendants.
According to the March 30,1991 Act on Citizenship, this citizenship
acquisition was submitted to a series of strict conditions (period of residency of
2 years after March 30, 1990, knowledge of the language, of the institutions of
the country, oath and payment of a tax).
The beginning of the process (starting legally March 31, 1993) was hesitant
because the authorities — without saving it of course — wished as many
“Russians” as possible to leave the country spontaneously. Nevertheless, the
desire of integration was so strong amongst part of the Russian population that
the process started quickly; in 1995 more than 85,000 persons had already
received the citizenship. On January 15, 1995, aiming — for political reasons —
at slowing the process, a new stricter law on Citizenship was adopted by the
Riigikogu (Parliament). The number of applications for naturalizations fell
dramatically immediately.
After a friendly beginning of the Estonian-Russian state relationship Moscow,
unhappy with the pace of the naturalizations and the treatment (a number of
“non-citizens” suffered some professional exclusions, etc.) of its compatriots in
the Estonian “near abroad”, progressively started to use the citizenship issue to
exert a pressure on Estonia (particularly via international organizations). The
situation became tense between the two countries.
Around 1977, when it became obvious that the Russians (often locally called
Migrants) who had not left the country were here to stay, Tallinn changed its
mind and an integration plan was adopted by the Estonian authorities and rapidly
implemented7. On March 31, 1998 a National Foundation for Integration was
created with the support of European Organizations and in 2000 a Program for
integration in the Estonian society 2000–2007 was adopted. Since then, the
naturalization process has proceeded at a satisfactory pace.
——————
7 February 10, 1998.
5
145
At present, the situation is the following: about 101,000 “Russians”, usually
elderly and without any particular ties to the country other than the fact that it is
their place of residence, have opted for Russian citizenship and they live in
Estonia as foreign residents. Around 150,000 people acquired the citizenship
and, finally, there are some 150,000 stateless persons of “Russian” origin. Many
of them are poorly qualified and the majority of them do not speak Estonian8. In
total, in 2003, 83% of the residents possess Estonian citizenship (compared to
68% in 1992).
Despite these instances of progress, the situation concerning Moscow and the
representative organizations of the local “Russians” remain tense and especially
in Tallinn and in the Narva area, where the Slavic population is very concentrated,
the integration process develops slowly and sometimes chaotically.
But again, according to the Estonian authorities, these non-citizens do not
belong to the category of minority populations and are thus not directly concerned
by the laws on minorities.
Moscow does not agree on this point of view and keeps acting against the
Estonian government in various international circles. This is the origin of most of
the harsh criticism voiced against Estonia in respect of its “Russian Minorities”.
Considering all this is largely known, we shall, concentrate our attention here
on the Estonian treatment of National Minorities in the narrow sense of the word.
III. The Law of Minorities
In total, in Estonia there are currently eight ethnic groups of more than 3,000
individuals (potential users of the legislation on cultural autonomy discussed
below) and 13 groups of over1000 members.
Let us now examine this legislation on cultural autonomy, bearing in mind
that it functions in a legislative framework of laws on citizenship, where notions
such as foreigners, the national language and everything else introduced at the
end of the 1990s to implement the National Program for the Integration of NonCitizens. It is appropriate to start by examining the historic origins of the present
law.
Origins of the current system
At the beginning of the 20th century, since independence was not on the
agenda, Estonian patriots favored the concept of cultural autonomy in general,
and that of their people in particular. When independence became a possibility,
most of them changed their position to become nationalists, and at that point, the
supporters of autonomy were mainly Germans. At the Constitutional Assembly
entrusted with the task of organizing the structures for the new State, four out of
120 delegates represented minorities, three of which were German.
The manifesto announcing the independence of Estonia in 1918 was based on
the concept of a national Estonian State, and in a democratic spirit, mentioned
——————
8 ECMI, Baltic Seminar 1998. Minority Rights and Integration in Estonia, Flensburg, 1998.
146
YVES PLASSERAUD
6
cultural autonomy for all ethnic minorities of the country9. In these circumstances,
it was logical for the Constitution of 15 June 192010 to provide for guarantees
for minorities.
The Constitution also guarantees minorities the right to an education in their
mother tongue, and in the case of Germans, Russians and Swedes, the possibility
of communicating with the central authorities of the State m their own language.
The question of communicating with local authorities and law courts, on the
other hand, is covered by the application texts except for regions where these
populations are in the majority or where this possibility represents a right.
According to the Constitution, minorities have the right to establish private
community institutions as long as they do not run counter to the interests of the
State. As a result of this legislation, a specific Jaw on cultural autonomy shall
guarantee the culture of minorities.
The 1925 law on the cultural autonomy of minorities
It was then left to Tallinn, to draft a bill on the autonomy of minorities. The
authorities were in no hurry in this respect. The attempted Communist putsch of
1924, revealing the urgent need for “national consolidation”, made them decide
to take the necessary steps. Werner Hasselblatt, a Baltic German jurist and
internationally recognized expert on minorities, undertook most of the task. He
received the assistance and advice of the Russian Economics Professor; Mikhail
Kurchinskii. This law, inspired by Austrian Marxist and Bundist conceptions and
in keeping with the international commitments of the country, was drawn up,
approved by vote11 and implemented.
According to the terms of the Law on the cultural autonomy of national
minorities of 5 February 1925, minorities with the right to autonomy are the
German, Russian and Swedish ones and, more generally, any ethnic group with
at least 3,000 members. This figure was adopted to enable the small Jewish
community of 3,045 members to benefit from the legislation. Membership of a
minority group is a voluntary act and any citizen can register in the relevant national
register as of the age of 18 years old.
Subject to the approval of the government, the autonomous instructions of a
national minority were authorized to introduce “regulatory decrees” that were
compulsory for all members of the group, as well as to impose community taxes.
The State itself also participated in the system.
According to the law, minorities could benefit; from education in their mother
tongue and have their own cultural12 institutions13.
——————
9 This bill was drafted, mainly by Hans Kukk, Deputy of the Labour Party at the Landesrat (Maandukogu).
10 Estonian constitutional law makes provisions for the autonomy of a certain number of social bodies,
including the professions and later (1937) churches and scientific institutions. On this subject, see: Klessment
Johannes: Personal Self-Government in Estonia, in Revue Baltique, June 1940, No. 2, Vol. 1, 232 s.
11 With the assistance of a good number of Estonian members of parliament since there were only 4
German MPs out of 100.
12 The bill for social institutions was turned down by Parliament.
13 It should be noted that this text also applied to Estonians in the regions where they themselves were in
the minority (east of the country after the Tartu Treaty that attributed the overwhelmingly Russian speaking
region of Ivangorod to Estonia).
7
147
The organization of the system of personal autonomy was based on a pyramid
pattern. At the base were the local authorities and at the top was the Cultural
Council, elected for three years, which handled cultural affairs and appointed a
cultural committee headed by a chairman. Their task was to organize, manage
and supervise the schooling system and various community activities. The central
administration was organized in five departments: schools, culture, youth and
sports, finances and land surveys. As a public law institution, it was authorized
to issue orders in the areas of its competence, receive the compulsory contributions
of the State, and levy community taxes.
The bill came into effect on the 3rd of March 1925 and the system was
implemented very soon afterwards. It functioned for several years to the satisfaction
of the groups (particularly Germans and Jews) which had succeeded in setting
up the appropriate community institutions. Despite numerous attempts, the Russians,
too heterogeneous and inadequately organized but sufficiently concentrated
geographically not to have a real need for it, never adopted the system and were
content with communal autonomy.
The mechanism of cultural autonomy nevertheless very soon came up against
a certain number of criticisms14. The first comment put forward was that it was
only a “Framework Law” and that it was too vague about the contents of the
application instruments. For instance, the Germans, who were anxious about
their ageing population, denounced, the absence of a community system of
social welfare. On the Estonian side, on the other hand, there was bitter criticism
about a veritable “State within a State”, reflected in the educational autonomy of
minorities. As for the day-to-day functioning of the system, the criticism was not
less pronounced. The following examples can be mentioned:
— The Cultural Councils could be suppressed by the Government at any
time, and they were in reality “controlled” by the Ministry of the Interior.
— In places where Estonians were in the minority, they could obtain their
autonomy directly from the public authorities without having to set it up
themselves.
— The system had no international guarantee, and at every renewal of the
legislature, the new Parliament had the power to cancel it, at least in theory.
In fact, despite these criticisms, the system was applied properly, and it was
constantlyput forward as a model by the League of Nations. After functioning
for about fifteen years, the system came to an end on the 1st of January 1940 in
the case of the Germans, and shortly afterwards in the case of the Jews, with the
disappearance of the respective communities.
The cultural autonomy system today
At the end of 50 years of oblivion, the 1925 law reappeared in the time of the
renaissance of the Sovereign State of Estonia in 1991. From the very outset,
——————
14 See, Cornelius Hasselblatt, Minderheitenpolitik in Eastland. Rechtsentwicklung und Rechtsentwirkligkeit,
1918–1995, Bibliotheca Baltica 1996; the same author, Der Geschehen der Kulturautonomie und seine
gesetzliche und organisatorische Verwirklichung, in B. Meissner & al.
148
YVES PLASSERAUD
8
going back to the 1925 law appeared to be a highly symbolic component in the
restitution of the national legitimacy of the country.
In Estonia today, over 30% of the residents are not ethnically Estonian, and
among them, the majority do not have Estonian citizenship (80%), either because
they are (still) stateless, or because they opted for the citizenship of another State
(usually Russia). Among these minorities, only those with Estonian citizenship
can benefit from the special status of members of a national minority (Article 1
of the law mentioned below).
The advantage of this law, which endows minorities with a legal personality
and enables their members to enjoy personal, “extra-territorial” cultural autonomy,
was initially reserved — and this is the first paradox — for only a small
percentage of the population of the country15. However, it has been observed
that the number of minority citizens is rising along with rhythm of naturalization
at a fairly satisfactory rate; between 1992 and 2000, 115,000 received Estonian
citizenship. Secondly, according to Article 6 of the law, nothing prevents noncitizens from participating in activities organized by “national minorities”. They
simply do not have the right to vote. However, the paradox goes even further.
This law, used by all experts as a model, following the example of the Hungarian
law of 1993, has until recently remained a dead letter. We will see why further on.
The law on the autonomy of minorities (1993)
By resuming independence in 2001, Tallinn wished to pay tribute to a
legislation16, which at the time had earned it a flattering international
reputation17. This new law is directly inspired by the one of 1925, except for a
few adaptations dictated by the passage of time.
The first article defines as belonging to a cultural community of Estonian
citizens who observe the following traits:
— reside in Estonia,
— maintain solid and lasting links with this country,
— have different ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic features from Estonians,
— wish to preserve their identity, religion or cultural traditions.
The main objective of the law is to allow minorities to benefit in concreto
from the cultural rights incorporated in the Constitution18 through a system of
cultural autonomy. This bill is in principle applicable to German, Russian,
Swedish and Jewish minorities (but not to Roms19, because there are not enough
of them!) and to any other group of more than 3,000 persons (Article 2).
——————
15 This is, incidentally, in keeping with the position of the United Nations and of the Council of Europe.
16 Adopted by the Riigikogu on 26 October 1993 and promulgated by the President of the Republic on 11
November 1993.
17 The Law of 15 December 1989 (JO: 1989, 40, 618) on the ethnic rights of citizens of the Soviet Republic
of Estonia was repealed simultaneously.
18 Article 49 of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that “Everyone has the right to retain their ethnic belonging”
and Article 50 says that “National minorities have the right, in the interest of ethnic culture, to create
institutions of autonomy under the conditions and procedures laid down by the law on the cultural autonomy
of national minorities.”
19 There are about 800 of them at present. The authorities seem to have forgotten them to a certain extent.
9
149
There is one uncertainly over a vital point, the notion of “lasting ties”. Who
maintains these ties, individuals or groups? And what does durable mean?
Durability for a group is calculated in centuries, for an individual in decades, and
this fact can change everything! Unlike the predominant interpretation, the
formulation of the article, as well as the globally “individualistic” nature of the
law, seem to prevail over the idea, of individual ties. The debate, however, is still
open.
The law stipulates then the right of every minority to preserve its identity and
sanction any breaches of it, particularly forced assimilation (Article 3). According
to the terms of Article 4, members of national minorities benefit from a certain
number of positive rights especially in matters of self-organization of the
community. Public use of the minority language is permitted within the limits set
by the law on language.
Among the main, objectives of the law, Article 5 refers to the organization of
education in the minority language and, more generally, the management of the
minority’s cultural life.
Institutions of cultural autonomy
Article 2 of the law defines what should be understood by cultural autonomy.
This is the right of individuals belonging to a national minority to form
autonomous cultural governments with a view to exercising their cultural rights
as recognized by the Constitution. Minorities that have decided to adopt the
regime of the law will thus have a national organization, directed by an
institution elected according to the terms fixed by the State and functioning
under its supervision. Its areas of competence are teaching the minority language,
managing schools, organizing cultural events and, more generally, administering
the cultural organizations of the said minorities.
In view of the law, a provision has been made for a National Register of
National Minorities (NRNM20) in Chapter II. Requests for cultural autonomy
are formulated on the basis of the NRNM21. The specific registers for each of the
groups concerned will be prepared by the ethnic cultural societies or by their
federations but the State will be responsible for handling the registers. Individual
registration (or voluntary cancellation) on a register will depend solely on a
decision (in writing) of the person concerned. Children below the age of 16 years
old will be registered by their parents. The personal nature of the autonomy lies
in this voluntary and individual approach. The list is submitted to the Ministry
of the Interior for verification and then made official by the Department of Culture.
Provisions are made for the creation of organizations of cultural autonomy in
Chapter III of the law. The principal cultural autonomy institutions are the Cultural
Council (elected for three years by the registered minorities and composed of 20
to 60 members), and the Cultural Committee of each group. Any person wishing
to set up such an institution must submit a request to the State. The Cultural
——————
20 Called rahvusnimekiri in Estonian, meaning “list of nationalities”.
21 Decree of 1st October 1996.
150
YVES PLASSERAUD
10
Council of each minority is elected by direct and uniform suffrage through secret
ballots. Voting is carried out within the electoral districts, under the responsibility
of a general Electoral Committee functioning under State control.
The statutes of cultural autonomy institutions must be adopted at the first
meeting of the Cultural Council, together with their functioning principles. The
expenses incurred by the Cultural Council of each minority are covered by
autonomy authorities except those related to the election of the Cultural Council,
which are borne by the State.
The Cultural Council has great liberty in matters concerning the action it
takes to promote the language and culture of the minority. If can, for instance,
set up “Cultural Commissions” (kultuurivolikogu) at the local or regional levels,
appoint local representatives (kohalik kultuurivolinik) and, above all, set up the
following autonomy institutions as provided for by the law:
— Primary and secondary schools in the minority language,
— Ethnic cultural institutions,
— Ethnic cultural companies and publishing firms,
— Minority charity institutions.
Minority schools come under the regulations governing private schools. The
institutions of each Cultural Autonomy ate independent moral entities. They can
own property and are-responsible for their financial obligations. The financing
of cultural autonomy and its (Article 27) is covered by:
— Grants from the State budget as provided by the law 23,
— Contributions from regional authorities,
— Fees from members of the autonomies,
— Voluntary contributions, subsidies and donations,
— Donations from foreign organisations.
Institutions of minority autonomies can be dissolved by the authorities if the
population in question falls below 3,000 members during five consecutive years,
if it turns out to be impossible to draw up electoral lists, or if less than half the
members registered have participated in two successive elections, and finally if
the Cultural Council recommends this suspension.
The functioning of the system
The deficiencies noted about the 1925 act have been remedied to in the new
text. However, new critical remarks have been formulated.
At the end of 50 years of German and Soviet occupation, the ethnological
situation of the country no longer has much in common with what it was like
before the war. The old communities, with their rich historic past and strong
identity, have disappeared. There are practically no Germans (3,500 in 1989) or
Swedes (600) left and a large number of the Russian-speaking population tends
to be rootless, having an individualist immigrant mentality rather than being a
minority attached to its roots. In these circumstances, the logic behind the adoption
of the above-mentioned law is no longer very relevant.
11
151
In consequence, the law of 25 October 1993 has until very recently been a
dead letter in that no group has yet created an institution in accordance with its
terms. Even the Department of Culture does not seem to have much faith in it (the
decree laying down the detailed terms for the election of a Cultural Council has
yet to be introduced).
A few years ago, however, two groups (the Ingrians of Estonia and the
Association of Slav Educational and Charitable Organisations) asked the
Department of Culture for permission to draw up lists of names with a view to
setting up minority institutions. Although the Russians seem to have neglected
their project, the Ingrians have moved ahead. In may 2004, the Ingrian autonomy
was formed and on June 1, 2004, the result of the subsequent elections was approved
by the authorities. This is certainly a great step forward but it is however not yet
possible to judge the pertinence of the criticism levelled at a system that some
people look upon as outmoded while others feel it was introduced merely for
cosmetic purposes22.
Between 1997 (18 June) and 1999 (22 March), two proposed draft amendments
to the law, mainly on the modification of the legal status of the autonomous cultural
government, transforming it from a corporation under public law to a non-profitable
association, were submitted to Parliament. Withdrawn for consultation, the last
draft seems to have subsequently been dropped, thus giving an idea of the intentions
(that are fluctuating to say the very least) of the authorities on this matter.
Conclusion
At the end of this brief study, it appears that the paradoxes mentioned at the
beginning are more apparent than real and cannot be analysed in a univocal way.
The fact of having an advanced law on minorities has in no way prevented
the government of Tallinn from treating its Russian-speaking community in a
summary manner, and in all legality since the said law does not concern them.
The same Estonia can therefore be easily praised by international authorities for
its legislation on minorities and at the same time criticised for the application
terms of its national integration programme.
What is more, the fact that the law of 1993 has almost remained a dead letter
is not too serious either in that:
— In the world of today, unlike the 1930s, an active association movement,
with an international outlook, irrigates minorities.
— Other structures, such as the Presidential Roundtable, already mentioned,
or the Council of Minorities at the Department of Culture, set up in 1997, play a
similar role in liaison with the OSCE and the Council of Europe.
— Furthermore, the approach of the law, which is centralist, costly and Stateoriented, is no longer entirely in keeping with the spirit of the times.
— Finally, the objective of the law was widely circulated in society and the
fact that no group has decided to use it proves that it is now possible to function
without it.
——————
22 There are still some uncertainties on this point.
152
General
YVES PLASSERAUD
12
BIBIOGRAPHY
Kemp, Walter, A. Quiet Diplomacy in Action. The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. Kluwer
Law International, La Haye, 2001.
Lesage, Michel (co-ordinated by), Constitutions d’Europe centrale, orientale et balte. La Documentation
Française, 1995.
Nahaylo, Bohdan, Swoboda, Victor, Après l’Union Soviétique, les peuples de l’espace soviétique, (translated
from), PUF, 1994.
Minorities of the Baltic States
Hiden, John, Defender of Minorities. Paul Schiemann, 1876-1944. Hurst & Co., Londres, 2004.
Plasseraud, Yves, Les États baltiques, les sociétés gigognes, Armeline, Crozon, 2003.
Sepp, Tanel (& al Eds.) Keeping the Pot Boiling. Students on Integration in the Baltic States. EuroUniversity,
International Relations, vol. 2/4, Tallinn, 2001.
Smith, Graham, The Ethnic Democracy Thesis and the Citizenship Question in Estonia and Latvia.
Nationalities Papers, 1996, vol. 24, N° 2, p. 199–16.
Smith, Graham, Law, Vivien, Wilson, Andrew, Bohr, Annette, Allworth, Edward, Nation-building in the PostSoviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities. Cambridge U.P., 1998.
Villecourt, Louis, La protection des minorités dans les pays baltiques et la société des Nations, J. Bière,
Bordeaux, 1925.
Zaagman, Rob, Conflict Prevention in the Baltic State: The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, ECMI Monograph N1°, 1999.
Ziemele, Ineta, The Role of State Continuity and Human Rights in Matters of Nationality in the Baltic States,
in: Talavs Jundzis (ed.): The Baltic States at Historical Crossroads. Riga: Latvian Academy of Science,
1998, p. 248–271.
Minorities and Integration in Estonia
Angelus, Oskar, Die Kulturautonomie Estland, Detmold, 1951.
Aun, Karl, Der Völkerrechtliche Schutz Nationaler Miinderheiten in Estland, 1917–1940, Hamburg, 1951.
Heidmets, Mati, Integration of Minorities into Estonian Society: Developmental Scenarios, in: The Integration
of National Communities in Ida-Virumaa in Estonian Society. 27–29–11–1996. Collection of Materials.
Tallinn: Disantrek, 1997, p. 162–172.
Jarve, Priit, Ethnic Democracy and Estonia: Application of Smooha’s Model, ECMI Working Paper N° 7,
Flensburg, July 2000.
Kask, Peer, National Radicalisation in Estonia: Legislation on Citizenship and Related Issues. Nationalities
Papers, 1994, vol. 22, n°2, p. 379–392.
Katus, Kalev, Puur, Allan, Sakkeus, Luule, National Minorities in Estonia, paper presented to the third
Conference on Baltic Studies in Europe, Tallinn, 1999.
Kirch, Aksel, The Integration of Non-Estonians into Estonian Society: History, Problems and Trends, Estonian
Academy Publisher, Tallinn, 1997.
Lauristin, Marju & al. Integration of Estonian Society, Monitoring 2000, Integration Foundation, Tallinn, 2000.
Saks, Katrin, Cultural Societies of Ethnic Minorities in Estonia, Directory, Support to the Estonian State
Integration Programme, Tallinn, 2001.
Semjonov, Aleksei (Ed.) Ethnic Minorities in Estonia: Domestic Laws and International Instruments, Report
of an International Seminar, LICHR & Presidential Round Table on National Minorities, Tallinn, 1997.
Trifunovska, Snezana, Minorities en Europe — Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia, Kluwer Law International,
Nimègue, 1999.
Viikberg, Jüri (Ed.) Eesti Rahvaste Raamat: Rahvus vähemused-rümad ja killud (The Book of Nationalities of
Estonia: National Minorities and Ethnic Groups: from the Biggest to the Smallest), Tallinn, 1999.
The Russians of the Baltic States
Brusina, O.I, Novaïa russkaia diaspora (hronika) The New Russian Diaspora (chronicles), Etnographicheskoié
obozrenie (Ethnographic Revies), 1993, N° 4.
Chinn. J & Kaiser, R., Russians as a New Minority. Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Soviet Successor States.
Westview Pres, Boulder, 1996.
Dawiska Karen & Parrott Bruce, The Legacy of History in Russia and the New States of Eurasia. The
International Politics of Eurasia, Vol. 1, M.E. Sharpe, NY, 1994.
Melvin, Neil, Russians beyond Russia, The Politics of National Identity. The Royal Institute of International
Affairs. Chatham House Papers, 1995.
Rose, Richard, Russians outside Russia: A 1991 VCIOM Survey. Studies in Public Policy, N° 283, Glasgow,
University of Strathclyde, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1997.
Shlapentokh, Vladimir, Sendlich, Munir, Payn, Emil (Ed.), The New Russian Diaspora: Russian Minorities in
the Former Soviet Republics, Armonk, NY, ME Sharpe, 1994.
HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE OF EUROPE
AND THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION
LUCIAN JORA
Abstract. The idea of a Europe is basically untraceable, not because it does
not exist or is indefinable but because it exists in a form that makes it hard
to pin down on account of a large number of contradictions that prevent our
finding a logic on which to base a definition. That is also why the best way
of approaching Europe is not to try to find out about some dispiritingly
complex object, but to identify the values that allow us to keep under
constant review all the attempts to come to terms with it. Europe is primarily
perceived in terms of its diversity, and to live that diversity it quickly
became indispensable to identify similarities, as when detailed comparisons
of education and training systems reveal identical or very similar concerns
despite greatly contrasting administrative and teaching arrangements.
Efforts to arrive at an undisputed definition of Europe fail. They do not reveal
an essence of Europe that might form the basis for its identity and the
characteristics of that identity. Attempts in this direction are hampered by
contradictions which prevent the characteristics being integrated into a unitary
structure, or by characteristics which are not peculiar to Europe but belong to
most countries in the world. All the statements on the European dimension
allude to a heritage that Europeans supposedly have in common. This may
embrace historic events, geographical features, trends in literary and artistic
creativity, and many other traits which will vary depending on the time and place
at which the statements were made. Even in the 19th century, conservative circles
did not refer to the same shared tendencies as did the adherents of the early
democratic movements. And, as is demonstrated by the arguments about whether
to mention the role of Christianity in the European heritage when the European
Constitution was being drafted, these disagreements still persist today. A first
point to stress is therefore that it is far from easy to identify the heritage that
Europeans are supposed to share1.
Attempts at world history or at histories of large areas or periods have
frequently been criticised on these grounds, and a similar reaction continues to
greet enterprises of this nature. It has been argued, for example, that there is no
such thing as European baroque art because the baroque breaks down into a
——————
1 Jean-Michel Leclerq, The European Dimension in History Teaching: Plural Images and Multiple
Standpoints, DGIV/EDU/HISTDIM (2007) 03, p. 32.
154
LUCIAN JORA
2
number of styles, the contrasts between which cannot be bridged artificially or
simplistically2.
Discovery of supposedly common heritage shared by Europeans is also at
risk of being based on questionable knowledge that is easily dismissed as
impossible, rather than on incontrovertible evidence that it was hoped would
instantly unveil a Europe needing no further definition. It is difficult to see how
features will emerge by themselves that are sufficiently significant to allow those
who share them to feel a sense of common belonging akin to that which has
grown up in the nation-states. In the latter case the shared heritage is assumed to
have the solidity and self-evidence conferred by a supposedly intangible past,
while it is merely a future promise in the case of Europe3.
Analysis of aspects of the European dimension reveals that each of them
takes the form of a set of practices that refer to values. The linguistic aspect is
the quest for communication between interlocutors who mutually respect one
another on the basis of acceptance of multilingualism and multiculturalism. The
spatial aspect is characterised by exchanges in which others are not always
treated as equal partners because the rules may not permit it despite providing
an ideal that shows up inadequacies. The situation is similar with the cognitive
aspect: knowledge of a shared heritage is problematic, but it is still a requirement
that signals the key goal to aim for. The 1994 Commission green paper on the
European dimension caused some concern by giving priority to knowledge of
European institutions, thus seemingly borrowing the civics model used in member
states, with its implicit compulsory acquisition of attitudes and behaviours laid
down in advance by the powers that be. It is well known that this is not the way
to introduce the European dimension4.
Going even further in this direction, one author believes that Europe can be
recognised by its “secondarily” — that is, the absence of any claim that is has
made choices that are its alone — and by the plurality of heritages with which it
has to contend and which cannot always be reconciled5. It is remarkable that even
in the dossiers, or looked at from the standpoint of secondarily; the process of
defining Europe and its identity never arrives at a one and single Europe. It is
always a matter of assemblage through a process of overcoming obstacles. Even
the European Union adopts this approach. We never find, therefore, an immediately
comprehensible, absolute identity. Hence the identity is far more potential than
actual, always needing to be discovered rather than already there, with the result
that Europe will probably always be a project. It therefore remains to be shown
that, contrary to widespread opinion, this is a form of existence which, far from
being a sign of fragility and inconsistency, has substance and is not without
advantages over other forms6.
——————
2 See for example Pierre Charpentrat, L’art baroque, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1967 (quoted
by Jean-Michel Leclerq).
4 Ibidem.
5 Rémi Brague, Europe, la voie romaine, 1999, Folio Gallimard, Paris.
3
155
Some are emphasising the need to accept the idea of a Europe that is basically
unfindable, not because it does not exist or is indefinable but because it exists in
a form that makes it hard to pin down on account of a large number of
contradictions that prevent our finding a logic on which to base a definition. That
is also why the best way of approaching Europe is not to try to find out about
some dispiritingly complex object, but to identify the values that allow us to keep
under constant review all the attempts to come to terms with it. It is therefore
less a matter of working out a concept or concepts of Europe than of encouraging
the attitudes most likely to ensure participation in the European project7.
In addition to the interest in history teaching, there has been parallel interest
in historical knowledge itself. This is well seen in the project “History teaching
in the 21st century” (1997–2001) and the project “The European dimension in
history teaching” (2002–2006). These projects had two main aims. One was to
encourage teaching of European history that took account of the results of the
latest research and of interpretations promoting pluralist, tolerant visions. The
other aim, particularly in the second project, was to address the European
dimension more effectively8.
It should be pointed out that the orientation chosen by the Council of Europe
projects risked exposing identification of the European dimension to certain
difficulties. It was agreed first of all that the focus should be on a study of “key
events” in the history of Europe, without spelling out from the outset whether
this should mean events that revealed the European dimension and if so, in what
way. Secondly and most importantly, all the key events selected were associated
with conflicts, mostly of great violence and degenerating into massacre. The
question was therefore raised as to whether the European dimension, conceived
up to that point as generally peaceful, could still be invoked, and if so, how, in
these spirals of violence of which the outcomes were very uncertain.
This Committee of Ministers recommendation of 30 October 2001 is of
particular importance from two points of view. On the one hand it restates the
guidelines on history teaching as detailed in earlier documents. On the other it
explicitly sets out for the first time in practical terms how the European dimension
is to be seen and applied. Three objectives stand out in particular in relation to
history teaching which, it must be stressed, is not clearly distinguished from
historical knowledge here any more than anywhere else. History teaching, and
in consequence a knowledge of history, are essential to European construction.
This was also the thinking behind Recommendation 1283 (1996) on history
teaching in Europe, Article 2 of which states that history also has a key political
role to play in today’s Europe, and had been the line taken by the 1994 Delphi
symposium on history teaching and European awareness9. Secondly, the study
of history plays a key role in the development of mutual understanding between
peoples and between individuals (an aim likewise found in Recommendation
1283, according to which a knowledge of history fosters a democratic, tolerant
——————
7 Ibidem.
8 Ibidem.
9 Idem, p. 36.
156
LUCIAN JORA
4
and responsible civic attitude10 and in the recommendation on teaching history
in the 20th century, which favoured a pluralist, tolerant conception and open
approaches to sensitive issues in the teaching of history). Thirdly, history
teaching needs to stimulate respect for difference and a range of ways of looking
at historical events and situations, as had already been explained in the
recommendations referred to and in many other documents, particularly those
concerned with democratic citizenship.
The project on the European dimension in history teaching followed up the
recommendation just examined, which is reason enough to consider it in detail.
But the recommendation viewed the publications that were to form part of the
project as one way of promoting the European dimension, giving us further
reason to devote attention to them. This is all the more natural in that the project
chose to study “key events” in European history, reflecting the objective assigned
to the European dimension of teaching about periods and developments with the
most obvious European dimension.
This project gave rise to five symposia: The year 1848 in the history of
Europe; 1912–1913: impact of historical events on the changing lives of
ordinary citizens; 1919; The year 1945; and 1989. Each symposium was given
ten or so papers by high-level specialists, mostly on the situation in a particular
country during the period in question.
But another equally strong impression is the paucity, and indeed absence, of
reference to the European dimension of the events11. There is never any doubt
that these events are of signal importance in European history (“major” events,
“key” events). The 1848 Revolution marked the beginning of Europe’s march
towards the spread of democracy and the nation-state. The sequel to the Balkan
wars was implacable hatred between neighbours, which produced unmanageable
situations for which the rest of Europe eventually paid the price of a first world
war that bled it white and destabilised it for many years. It is scarcely necessary
to reiterate how crucial the post-Yalta split was from a European point of view
or the reunion after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Or was there a “Europeanness”
so obvious that to mention it in terms of a European dimension would have been
a huge understatement? Were these events thought self-evidently European,
having embroiled vast portions of the continent and so many European states?
Equally self-evidently, the events had an undeniable European impact which
could, for example, be seen at a glance from the new maps that had to be redrawn
after each conflict.
The publication The European dimension in history teaching in the 20th
century discusses the European dimension at great length12 without revealing
clearly what it is or how it can be used in practice. According to the author, there
are two possible options as to what best characterises Europe, one being its
shared heritage, the other its diversity. Each option has its advantages and its
drawbacks. The first, which emphasises a continuous narrative, favours a linear
——————
10 Article 4.
12 Op. cit., p. 29–39.
5
157
development embracing the main branches of the European heritage such as the
Greco-Roman philosophical tradition, the main artistic and architectural trends,
and the emergence of the nation-state. Hence it rests on the idea of a European
civilisation that presents common phenomena within different cultures, but it
ignores the areas and periods not demonstrating the influences considered essential.
The main feature of the second option is the diversity that manifests itself in the
dynamism that Europe has displayed in all fields — political, economic and
cultural. There is thus a danger either of developing an atomised vision of Europe
or of highlighting darker aspects not tempered by developments which might
generally permit greater optimism. A balance has to be struck between these two
points of view, between the general and the particular, between a vertical
perspective emphasising vast periods and general trends, and a horizontal
perspective emphasising specifics. But there are no details as to how this balance
is to be reflected in the practice of history, and we constantly come back to the
need to focus on what is historically important and has had a major impact on a
large part of Europe. As will be shown briefly, these aspects of the European
dimension remain usable but have to be adapted to the context, and the images
of the Other to which they refer have to change appreciably. Even among
historians, there was still no very clear distinction between fiction and what was
verifiable. As is evident from the works of Michelet and many others, the roman
des nations was an acceptable genre which did not start to be decried until after
the second world war. There was thus a presumption of knowledge fairly comparable
to what we see with the European dimension as envisaged now, but with less
care taken to avoid over-ambition and unfounded statements. This, then, is also
an aspect of the European dimension which is still absolutely relevant despite
necessary qualifications because of the specific nature of the context.
Talking about diversity implies referring to relative differences rather than to
the marked contrasts. For many philosophers, historians and sociologists, the
issue is one of opposing and even contradictory phenomena rather than reducible
diversity. The attitude of Edgar Morin is well known. Many agree with him
when he writes: While Europe is law, it is also force; while it is democracy, it is
also oppression; while it is spirituality, it is also materialism; while it is
moderation, it is also hubris; while it is reason, it is also myth, including the inner
core of the notion of reason13. And this means that we need to acknowledge the
disagreements of all sorts and the conflicts resulting from them which have
punctuated the history of Europe. There is therefore no question of inventing a
“soft” version of it14. The history of Europe has to accommodate all the wars and
the violence that have caused bloodshed not only in Europe but also on
practically all the other continents, frequently on Europe’s behalf. If we look for
historical continuity we discover a history composed as much of disjointed,
contradictory periods as of periods linked by some hidden meaning in some
miraculous unity. Nor can the Europe that, in theory, is at peace today always
escape their reappearance. It is the hope of finally eliminating the risk of this
——————
13
Penser l’Europe, Gallimard, 1987, p. 33.
14 To borrow from Jean-Frédéric Schaub’s article Les dangers d’une histoire douce de l’Europe, presented
at the colloquium Les détournements de l’histoire: un enjeu pour l’éducation en Europe au XXIème siècle
(Council of Europe July 2001).
158
LUCIAN JORA
6
which drives contemporary European projects, but this is not some happy ending that
means we can forget the past. As Jean-Frédéric Schaub again writes, European
countries have had relations sometimes and indeed often dominated by violence
rather than transaction, by contempt rather than understanding, by resentment
rather than by recognition and nothing could be more contrary to the vocation
attributed to historians than to forge a golden legend with no historical substance15.
The primacy of the national framework stems both from political concerns
and traditions of historical research. From the 19th century onwards the nationstate relied on history, backed by civic education, to give its citizens points of
reference for reinforcing their attachment to the values enshrined in the political
model. By celebrating the nation’s uniqueness, continuity and merits, national
history provided it with a unique destiny that justified the devotion and sacrifices
it demanded. Historians played their part in this by writing national histories
based on archives that were also national, because they had been collected on
that principle and were frequently only available to the citizens of the country in
which they were located.
A plural vision of events should prevail, encapsulating the ethical dimension
of historical enquiry. This recognises the fact that there is never one single definitive
interpretation of a series of events, and it is this recognition which makes it
possible for historical knowledge to make a crucial contribution to the development
of dialogue and mutual understanding both between teachers and pupils, and
among pupils themselves. This should lead pupils naturally to develop critical
minds, independent objective judgment and curiosity. A feeling for research
should also be encouraged so that all the information available is used to best
advantage, from archives to the new information and communication
technologies. This is necessary to guard against subversion and manipulation of
history, of which racism, xenophobia and nationalism are the most poisonous
examples. This approach will also give considerable space to comparison, which
is in fact inevitably encouraged by the application of key concepts and key skills,
although this is an aspect of historical enquiry that is too often neglected.
Europe is primarily perceived in terms of its diversity, and to live that diversity
it quickly became indispensable to identify similarities, as when detailed
comparisons of education and training systems reveal identical or very similar
concerns despite greatly contrasting administrative and teaching arrangements.
The exchanges of all sorts that are still growing in number today throughout
Europe are very often comparisons experienced locally or at first hand before
being extended more widely. Comparison is part and parcel of Europe16: our
glances inevitably meet on account of a proximity which is a constant invitation
to penetrate the mystery surrounding our neighbours. This is probably what
makes it possible to distinguish between a European dimension and an
international dimension, the former leading to an actual relationship between
partners who can have quite easy and frequent contact because of their spatial
and human proximity, and the latter involving partners much further apart from
each other both physically and ethically.
——————
15
Ibidem.
IN FOCUS
A FORM OF RE-ACTIVATING
THE POLITICAL FREEDOM — MASS-MEDIA
(Theoretical aspects of a Postmodern Simulacrum)
VIORELLA MANOLACHE
Abstract. For more than fifteen years since we (re)conquered the freedom
of expression, a reality of a different kind established itself within the
Romanian space: a system of indexes, emblems, constituents of a typical
language which asks for solving out, first and foremost politically speaking,
the terms of the polis. These terms are clear of haphazard dross, conjugated
and anchored in a background level, where we refine ourselves as carriers
and victims of discourse.
In order to approach mass-media as a form of re-activating the political
freedom, I am going to analyze the process of liberty (as a nimrod vision, creator
of polis with all the syndromes of left-right over adding becomes a network of
intentions) describing the contemporary political context. Seen from this
perspective, “the faces of liberty” present a geography of the concepts of a term
understood as always-postpone speaking, as a worn out, shabby, damped term,
semantically speaking but which asks for rewriting capital letters. There is a
need to philosophically (re)shape a new conceptual space very well-marked, by
a lake of concord, availability or participation in providing arguments.
Romanian society, which has just gotten out of the Soviet isolationalism and
protectionalism, has tried to diminish the impact between the Romanian
phenomenon and the global one. The idea according to which communism, as a
social-political ideology, manifested itself, paradoxically, in the LeninistBolshevist variant (of socialist revolution) upon the “weakest link of the chain”,
in the under-developed countries, is nowadays more and more difficult to accept.
As compared to the model from the West, communism signified a type of
accelerated development (with forced, quickened steps), of modernization
through the “dissolution of intermediate steps” (which means nothing else than
the transposition not only of the steps, but also of the order itself of the genesis
of a social reality!). This so-called Romanian modernization took place through
“an immense and brutal work of social engineering”, typical for the East-European
peripheral societies.
If on the one hand, in the West the coming out of modernity was achieved
simultaneously, and almost unanimously, in an organized manner, through the
160
VIORELLA MANOLACHE
2
Europeanization of the structures, in the East, on the other hand, the coming out
of modernity was forced. Thus, Romania did not step out of modernity. “Romania
was stolen its modernity” (Sorin Alexandrescu), as it was forced to head towards
regression, towards premodern behavior and mentalities. Romanian postmodernity
can be sooner accepted as a version of our (re)integration in a Europe which is
mostly postmodern. This is why in Romania, the postmodernity does not replace
modernity, but it joins it, creating the impression of a society which, if it is not
hybrid, it certainly is heterogeneous, marked by a “violent imaginary” (Ruxandra
Cesereanu). Our getting out of modernity corresponds to a sort of ecumenism,
which is rather vague, open to the values from the West or to present-day
experiences. The political alternative of “coming out from modernity” and of
accepting a postmodernity which would result in a definitive abandonment of
modernity and its values would presuppose a serene contemplation, the acceptance
of a hard, polemical, indecisive version. The Romanian politics is embodied in
the deconstructive, intentionally distorting and annihilating, discourse, breaking
into pieces any form of discovering a rhetorical finality. Postmodernity is a
concept which invites us to take part to a debate over the nature and the direction
of movement of our present-day society, in the context of globalization.
Most of the political parties meet the political and social dissatisfactions,
offering some guidelines capable of diminishing the differentiation. We call to
mind, in this respect, Durkheim’s sociological theories, mostly on the difference
between the notion of work and that of spare time, religion, home etc. Thus, the
Romanian public life is also, in its turn, distinguished from the private life,
sometimes even leading to rationalized forms, in Max Weber’s terms. The
unpractical creation/ foundation is a political one, sequentially reduced to a
contextual approach from the perspective of the one used to liberty, to the
assessment of any praxis of thinking and action.
The political practice implies a derivation of politics from principles, the
(re)thinking of a course of (inter)action of the principles of liberty, embodying
the same structure of the perspectives: from the individual to the community,
from micro to macro, from the validity of norms to the clarifying version of the
problem of liberty. We take into account the liberty understood in a liberal way,
as the liberty of the individual subject towards the choices and political
judgments of the subject (negative liberty) and the liberty of the individual
subject to accede to or to fall, respectively to detect politically speaking as a
result of the individuals exclusive thinking (positive political liberty!).
Freedom from the ferocity of the unique, structural, artificial discourse
presupposes a coming back in force to “the enlightened rationalism”, to a
(re)conquering of the language, in which a species of instinctual nominalism
established itself. Liberty reappears, therefore from the perspective of a cultural
accomplishment in a space specific for temporal refuge, in which the citizen
gradually processualizes the liberties (in a defensive or a projective way) within
a quotidian institutional reconstruction found at the basis of impartial assessment
of moral conflicts of action. The expansion of liberty functions in the sense of
diminishing to the minimum of the exterior constrains and in the sense of the
3
A FORM OF RE-ACTIVATING THE POLITICAL FREEDOM
161
necessity of assuring the subject. The assertion of liberty, the assertion of the
cumulative forces of liberty, participation as a political reaction, involvement,
impose the portrait of the citizen, perceived as a guarantee of freedom, as
participant at reasoning. “The faces of liberty” impose to the citizen metamorphoses
of various nuances: socialization and solidarity, individualization and
attachment, as well as socio-political protection, sanction and promotion.
The umma society1 involves living together in terms of freedom and a
reciprocal influence of the “I” and the “other”. The structural and basically or
only random limits clarify the status of state-freedom, by avoiding abuse of any
kind. Society becomes the compound shape, in which man’s disposure to his
equal with a view to living together receives a special significance. The empiric
diagnosis of the disintegration of the liberal public sphere and the standard
point-of-view of the democratic-radical appear require the redemption of the
functional interpenetration of the objectives of state and society. If it is analyzed
in a conceptual manner, political freedom appears as a correct measure among
law, coercition, obligation, responsibility, creation and assertion.
The political liberty in Romanian follows the route: from international codes
to national ways of defining. It can be easy seen, that the butte of the Romanian
freedom covers the way from a logocratic society towards regaining the status
of freedom, including everything that means non-devouring, incoherence of
settlement, non-assuming of freedom as objective reality. Our established
conviction is that in order to function, freedom needs not only guarantees from
the institutions of the state. Freedom needs to be rallied according to the cultural
inheritance and the model of socialization of political culture of population used
to its hardships.
——————
1 Using a deluged register, I am going to approach two concepts: umma society and political freedom —
concepts which hold forth dual antimonies: pressure / oppression.
According to C. Gellner, umma society is more than a hafiz form of reciprocal influence, is a community,
an invariant for the social and political conditions of liberty. I assimilate the concept of new tribes (as a postmodern
invariant for the umma society) to a conscious self, and the political freedom space to a habitable substrate.
The variability: the citizen overlaps to the oppressive dichotomy — captive/inhabitant into a status space.
Taking over a concept by Michel Mafesoli, we consider the community as new tribes. The new tribes are
sociability outbursts, spontaneous expeditions into the world of the inaccessible morality. Because these are
not some hereditary or legislative patterns, the new tribes organize short recognition invasions. These are like
a phenomenon described by Ilyia Prigogine , that of creating the crystal in saturate solvents.
In the Romanian territory, sociability is assaulted by socializing. It is a tendency that won consistency
along with the means of rebuilding the social and political organism after December 1989. Bauman thinks that
this tendency has acquired power while local traditions, persistently undermined, lost their influence and “the
ability to establish moral duties and to supervise their implementation”. It is a phenomenon that we identify in
the time of Ceauºescu’s mass politics, when the gradual dissipation of community in masses was a general
phenomenon. This tendency can be seen in the practice of the ex-socialist body of countries that attempted to
achieve what George L. Mosse considered to be an integrative part of a political theory in which even
spontaneity is planned.
The communists, as well as the Nazi, are acknowledged to be masters in the building of the sacred destined
to serve the profane. At this point we remember the invention of “new traditions” adapted to the needs of the
nation and comply with under its strict supervision. (23th August, the President’s and his wife’s birthdays, etc.)
Bauman remembers the “fascination of the intelligentsia” that, with “a mixture of admiration and envy”, used
to watch the unfolding manifestation of popular enthusiasm created by command. Such enthusiasm in the
postindustrial world of the West was missing, disclosing an exhausted, weary face of civilization. The
stereotypy of daily duties, of duties that were mechanistically carried out would institutionalize the mania.
162
VIORELLA MANOLACHE
4
The citizen appears disputed by the exterior sphere of opportunities, by that
the interior one of constraint. In the sphere of privacy, the individual organizes
it morally and politically, according to the driving principles and the principle of
concord that require means of manifestation and liberation from the pressure of
its negation as an entity, and the achievement of certain ways of manifestation at
the level of individual, the group, the micro-macro community.
Searching for reasons to validate it self, the individual that is subdued to freedom
suggests extensive variants of choosing freedom as a resurrection of a dynamic
way of making history. For the human being, essential remains the practice of
freedom, perceived both from the inside — as means of interior manifestation
— as well as from outside — as political action. The constant question concerning
the existing relationship between the “ever greater influence of reason” over
thinking, ideology and techniques of government, over the ever increased
restrictions brought to the individual and collective liberties nowadays appears
on the background of a “recoil” of hope in a general emancipation of mankind.
The zoonpolitikon appears cultivating the “productive hypnosis” (Cioran) of
becoming accustomed to freedom. What is produced by tearing from the
communist logocracy is the attempt to organize these principles of freedom step
by step, to take them serious, in order to draw pre-requisites and conclusions.
The removal of all the elements of “supervising history (Foucault) transposes us
into a sphere of (re)irrigating the human perspective from a perspective of
liberating decisive historical close-ups.
The totalitarian forms, heresies and ecumenist tendencies involve each other
and the authority self-annihilates. The “encounter of liberty (Baudrillard) requests
its inventory from the point of view of its practical nuance of outburst in history
and reality: on one hand, freedom means the possibility of the subject to choose
its shape of human achievement and on the other hand, freedom means the free
subject’s possibility to create itself and the world according to its nature.
These “laws” imply the existence of an active subject, whose actions start and
become obvious through constructions and permanent de-constructions of
freedom. As part of this actionable motivation, the individual that is subject to
the “reasons of subjectivity” distinguishes between freedom as rational choice
and freedom as volunteering, pathos or dissolution.
Far from abandoning projection, concept and experience, we are outlined an
interpretation which pleads in favor of liberty as a principle that can support
itself, after a main weighing. Even if the liberties nowadays are perceived as
essential subject-liberties for the individual and personality as an object,
negative liberties, and as direction-liberties of the risk and of exploring, liberty
as a principle must be understood as a progressively democratic value and
perception. In the attempt to get accustomed to freedom as a vision and mission,
the Romanian space is required to eliminate any kind of means of alienation in
the framework of a viable community consensus, as a reverse of passivity and
technical reasoning.
After so many haphazard cold-hammerings, we understand to treat the
phenomenon of manifestation in / through politics from the point of view of art,
5
163
it is because this suffers a “widening” of the perspectives. Its approach differs
from commitment by the fact that it is less a politicizing of art, but an extension
of the creative spirit, that has become structurally political, to the processes of
social adjustment and upheaval. Despite any pressures, the writing and (re)writing
of the political segment, especially on its discursive and image side, follows the
route of a socialized art, which requires an activity of political socialization, of
interiorizing any standards, and reactivate it by “in situ” approaches. I therefore
suggested, in a first phase of analysis, a socialization of the public conflict / public
discourse, banking on establishing the legitimacy from the interior of the sociopolitical networks. If art bears a socio-political meaning, it is because, according
to Haskell2 meditation is conversely proportional to that of art, considering that
the horizon of political expectation (still!) demands an aesthetic leap.
Jauss3 systematically invites to a removal of the contrast between passive
consumption and active understanding, reaching a constitutive experimentation
which is referential to aesthetics of interception.
The receiver is a political mediator. The confusions and difficulty pile up: the
receiver — public (which often appeals in its approach especially, to the
responsible public organizations) considers it self repelled / rejected, guided
towards the private sector.
According to Habermas, the support of a public sphere implies the homology
between art and politics, both structured in this public space considered as
intermediate sphere of analysis.4
The matrix of discourse follows the approach of the political receiver situated
between private and public, thus creating an “enlarged private”. But in a full
postmodernist disintegration of the public sphere, we can only speak about a
sphere of alchemy and hybridization as exponential reference of a project about
political resumption: an art enlarged towards the political.
The moment politics — arts that we might catch on the Romanian segment
after 1989, simulates the paradox and the communicational network, banking on
a generalized interaction, by connection to the discourse / image / political
action. We can speak, in this case, about duplicity and tension: the political
communication lays possession over art, allowing it yet to artificially maintain a
certain appearance.
In this respect, the Romanian political shows do not but place itself in the
prolongation of some technologies displaced towards diffusely. The political
consequences of these images reconstitute a public space, suggesting a “return
to” in the hypostasis of seizing / monopolizing the past, as up — to — datedness
and heading towards the minor / secondary.5
——————
2 C. Haskell, La norm et la caprice, 1986.
3 H.R. Jauss, For an Aesthetics of Interpretation, 1978.
4 See Jurgen Habermas, Conºtiinþã moralã ºi acþiune comunicativã, Substanþial, Bucureºti, 2000 and
J. Habermas, Probleme de legitimare în capitalismul târziu, Institutul European, Iaºi, 2000.
5 It seems that, according to the author of Postmodern Ethics (Cambridge, Blackwell, 1993), we are
involved in a new worldwide disorder or, in other words, in a game of reorganizing the world. It is the rule of
a political puzzle in which the potential of disagreement and dissonance between spheres (moral, political,
minority, sexual) “never totally halted, erupts and comes to light”. Bauman’s conviction restricts to the fact
164
VIORELLA MANOLACHE
6
In Foucault's Pendulum, Umberto Eco deals less with the Templars than with
the story that Belbo transcribes on the computer. According to J. Jacques Gleizal,
this return to the collectors and the beginning of the 1990’s is filtered by the
interest for design, for maintaining a functional memory of the object.6 The
“filtering in” into this fault of an “eternal network”, defines the political network
as a system of informing, having a self-organizational and self-referential character,
that functions in an organics way. The positioning of the communication
product, the framework of the network, establishes the passing from decision to
communication, as a phenomenon which represents a major danger.
If, however, communication works by help of the political paradox and the
semblance, it remains virtual and destructive. While interpenetrating, the parts
dissolve, starting from the level of emission to that of reception.
“Everything lies in everything”! This risk of the network imparts a tension
on the “society show”. The unstable balance of recognition by a partial deviation
towards the outskirts of communication, organizes itself in large places, in which
great mutations take place. We are thus placed out of an organic criticism (as
inventing and preparing political mediators, placed beyond the public orders)
and close to the improvement and territorization of the political.
The territorization policy implies (re)defining the relationship among the
political actors. Generally speaking, it replaces a sector function with a
coordination function, pleading for a public actor / private actor partnership.
While the network is a social term, the territory, as redistribution of chances,
belongs exclusively to the political domain.
The symbolical structuring of the territory implies the contract procedure
mediator / receiver, as reconciliation between autonomy and political purpose of
the transmitted political message. The reconstruction of the public space, in its
territorialized hypostasis requires the urban territory7, as a relay-point of the
——————
(continuation) that there is no efficient centralized control that could offer to the unsafe area, continuously
reproduced, a naturalness appearance. Indeed, as Foucault had demonstrated, “the fight for power and the
endless war” are the only safe foundation of an organized abode. At this moment, despite globalization and its
effects that were felt in the common effort to build a new social, economic, political sphere, we are going through
a time of insecurity and of dissolution of megalothymy in contemporary liberal democracies. We are, in
Fukuyama’s words, free and unequal. Thus, the liberal democracy could be overthrown whether by the excess
of megalothymy, whether by that of izothymy, that is of the fanatic desire of equal recognition. The only forms
of megalothymy that are not allowed in contemporary societies are those which lead to political tyranny. The
difference between these societies and the aristocratic ones proceeding them is that megalothymy has not been
chased away, but left to manifest itself subterraneous. The democratic societies start from the premise that all persons
are created equal, and that their predominant ethos is that of equality. Thus, those manifestations of megalothymy
that survived in modern democracies are somehow opposed to the ideals that society publicly sustains.
6 J. Jacques Gleizal, Art and politics, 1990.
7 The new aspect of Romanian localities best illustrates the bent towards the culture of consumption.
Where in the past there were only mix stores, food stores, butcher’s shops, joineries, tailor’s shops etc., now there
appeared the new forms of stimulating the consumption: fast-food, shops with technical outfit, computers, all
dominated by the attractive image of banks, associations or travel agencies ready to offer their customers all
sorts of facilities. These marks of the Romanian postmodernism are, naturally, associated with a society in
which the consumer’s life style, mass consumption, dominate its members’ conscious life. This is a society in
which fashion and taste are eclectic, “opportunities” seem numberless, and the search of new market segments
seems constant. The services and industries mainly offer entertainment. It is known that, in its canonic sense,
the term nation-state used to imply, beside its juridical nature, (in this sense, as a set of norms that euphemize
and dissolve forces and interests within some legitimating illusions) a civic nature, as a system of force
rapports. Yet, the nation-state gives way to the prerogatives of the wealth-state. This represents an attempt to
mobilize the economic interests as a means of setting free the political calculation from moral restraints.
7
165
centre. The new territory of communication is the meeting place of fluxes and
networks, but also of achieving symbolical productions, according to an imperative
of institutional exigencies.
The elements implied, according to Murray Edelman8 into this “route” of
territorial politics, are marked by referential symbols and concentration. The
transmitted political opinions, especially social adjustment, thus contributing to
the relieving of the anguish, may they be or not according to the reality. The
blurring of the political detail, its dilution, organizes itself according to an
“instinct of handicraft”, often assuming political realities, profitable maneuvers,
economic mobility, or efficient models that pull on the public. Therefore, a
maximum adherence as obsessive attachment is viewed, so as benefit of real
feed-backs, easy to anticipate as a “minimum necessary”.
At a local level, the detailing of the activity of the reform groups abounds.
These groups serve rather as a means of expression, because “symbolical forms
/ shapes can be applied to any object”. The local television and press make up a
model of communicational identification, taking into account the existence of
behaviour of consenting behalf of the receiver (whether it is about public policy
or detailing of an act of violence!).
The characteristic of this type of territoriality, according to Bauman is
represented by the fact that politics implies “that public dialogue, that noisy
conversation that society keeps up with itself in order to produce and manage its
own historicity, as a faithful–performant expression of a social formation that
proves capable to tell in a conscious way, what it wants and what it can be”. Such
political options about public risks of technical communicational difficulties,
view a double axiom, according to which, by these public variants “what you
can do, but also what you must do” is accessed. What can be decoded from the
score of these models is the fact that, from the point of view of the present
political transmitters technology has become a closed system.
According to Bauman, this means that she considers the rest of the world an
environment, a “source of food, of raw materials for technological processing,
or the place for depositing offal”, who defines her own mistakes or several older
or more recent accidents as effects of her own /personal insufficiency. The
problems resulting from this communicational (and local!) crisis are taken over
by the discursive variants as a surplus, built on the assumption according to
which “the more problems technology creates, the more technology is needed”.
The absence of concepts like the Left / the Right, street movements, trade
union terrorism, erosion and infused endemism, inculcates upon the “danger” of
——————
(continuation) However, the effects of urbanism are best felt in the “lewd economics”, a concept launched by
J.F. Lyotard. Indeed, urbanism is dependant on what Marx named “power of production”. The axiom according
to which each political economy is lewd starts from the conviction that there is no reference to external reality.
In Michel Foucault’s words, urbanism, psychiatry, criminalities, sexology etc. — all this knowledge constitutes
“legitimation” and a new way of applying the power. “The power” is everywhere. The sovereignty of the state,
as juridical-reflexive frame, or the domination of a minority is not initial attributes, but “ending forms”. The
postmodernist preference for hybridization presupposes a boundless availability in which the ruling word is,
in one of Guy Scarpetta’s terms, “impurity”.
8 Murray Edelman, Politics and the usage of symbols, 1999.
166
VIORELLA MANOLACHE
8
the media, equal doses, making its way from the antipodes of a yesterday's
antinomy and of a new source of polluting the social mental.
The televised alarming, the exaltation of the mass-media, display a culture of
the interjection and the capital letter, in a concessiveness that is almost insane of
tricks and shock: the screen crystallizes the essence of the person, decisively
placing a personality in the horizon of expectance / frustration of the spectator /
reader. Apart from these “centrings” and “uncentrings”, the exultant synonymy
of mass-media causes a certain mechanism of “language forgetting itself”, as a
process of forgetting and discovered memory.
The “method of language” (re)thinks the breaking-up, as a way to recreate
small restrained ensembles (totals). The flexions of the media language follow
their political applicability as (over) added facts.
The former presumption of my analysis starts from former comparing,
designed according to the following prerogatives:
1. the debasement from its rights of the symbol / political language. The facts
stated in the media, appear synchronically restrained as prevailing of the diachronic
explanation and
2. the restoration of the initial complexity.
The rehabilitation of this space bends on a comparison of the types and ways
of action of the political characters. The assumption of the detail gives off coherent
ensembles, political codes/strategies as a variant of a regular and repeated form
in different contents. The potentially infinite number of enunciated forms formalizes
and displaces the content towards effective political structures, established in
redistributed repertories. Be it about the morphology, physiology or the generality
of the political discourse, the enunciation conditions the technique, as a desultory
succession / sequence of technical dimensions.
Fetishism, despite so many irreconcilable oppositions and fractions, settles in
mass-media a “zero degree” of representation, regarding structure and drama. These
blind ideograms9 suggest a coordination of some agreements — repetitions,
imitations, minimum frequencies of representable images, of simultaneous
apprehension of some aspects, forms, things, ideas and facts which are the aim
of collective — effervescent representation. Resorting to the political act,
——————
9
Serge Moscovici model of a social psychology seem to fit better to the (apparently!) politically
functioning Romanian reality. Borrowing a set of concepts that Paul Ricoeur used to employ (Memory, History,
Forgetting, Amarcord Publishing House, Timiºoara, 2001), we hold that the Romanian political sphere of the
1980s has been subject to the parallelism and complementarily of forced memory and forgetting abuses. The
postmodern denouncing of “the duty of memory” presupposes the guilty approximation of the distance
between history and memory. This deepens, in its explanatory form, the link between explanation and
understanding, continuing to keep the ability to decide exerted by the social agents and the self-understanding
indebted to memory.
Such political reality confirms us the fact that we are prisoners of some assemblies made up of series and
acts. The picture of Breugel’s blind people places us too in the neighborhood of a violent denial of the survival
instinct in case of redressable lesions at the level of suggestion and decision. Breugel’s blind people (cranking
blind ideograms) are united by object (fetish), as an idea that the total and finite world cannot contain its own
image any longer.
The postmodern culture institutionalizes the “melancholy” by the contempt towards ceremonies and
rituals, fights against passions on the field of personal interests and against collective outburst of enthusiasm
in the name of organization. It is a condition of active indifference, counterbalanced by promoting the national
spirit, overbidden by left-right parties. The postmodern break that Bauman speaks of can be identified in the
fact that the Romanian state, in its version after December 1989, does not claim anymore the capacity, the need
and the desire to dominate, setting the antistructural forces of sociability free, either unwillingly or on purpose.
9
167
Romanian mass-media causes unequal, cumulative assaults within the framework
of the public language.
The real is possible, only as virtuality, as incomplete, cyclic image.
The reference points of these co-ordinates are the egocentric private persons,
disguised as actors and receivers, integrated into a relation of referential designation.
“The message of the second grade” incubates an operational zone of
transgression of precision to the transmitter, marked by dissemblance and
indetermination. The multiple transmissions make the rigour of the factors which
participate in the determination of the discourse questionable.
Nevertheless, the denial of the traditional structures, the overlapping of
successive movements make up an answer given to the public necessity of
“putting on stage” as a way of concentrating feelings, of organizing events or
determining space.
No matters how serious the crisis of the Romanian mass-media might be, the
fact that the need to introduce one into “foreign” universes and to follow the
coordinates of the event seems consubstantial to a political conditioning,
remains a constant. Ecstatic or imaginary, planted or extirpated, the exclusively
political time penetrates into the public co-ordinates.
Thus, Romanian television as well functions as a machine of the consumption
civilization, in the sense that it is no longer a stage for the manifestation of life
style. The pretensions and the power of absorption of the message by each
category of population guide those who finance, for instance, the political
advertising. The new political direction in the U.S.A that of “yuppes” groups that
in Romania correspond to wealthy technocrats, with a limited social consciousness
and an extremely developed consumer consciousness, adapt the social category
of the “average man” to the new reality. The fundamental values acknowledged
by this “average man” (“the common Romanian person”) are those of friendship,
of solidarity, of his acceptance by a whole community. The commercials for
cleaning products, beer, etc., and overbid the common Romanian person’s
tendency, especially of those from the countryside, perceived as “keepers of old
traditional customs”. On the other hand, the attention is also directed towards the
new “blue jeans” generation, the “Pepsi and Orbit generation” that esteems the
“unity of the group” constituted beyond any social prejudice. The policy of
altruism, of lacking any sense of identity, of blurring the outlines of personality,
up to its total absorption in the group is addressed precisely to this category.
To conclude, the political economics of Romanian television has a circular
nature, in the sense that its serial movement cannot sustain but the image of the
spectator-self, a simulacrum, in fact, of its way of life.
How is mass-media a form of re-activating the political freedom?
The decisive role in the rise of a probable Romanian postmodern society is
mainly taken over by mass-media. Mass-media define the Romanian society
after December 1989 not as “a more transparent, more self-aware, more enlightened”
society, as Vattimo would say, but as a more complex one (even chaotic). My
conviction restricts to the finding that it is precisely in this chaos (viewed by
some political persons as a dimension of a society in transition, which is, by the
way, questionable) that the Romanian hopes of emancipation reside. If I place
168
VIORELLA MANOLACHE
10
these means (newspaper, radio, television, etc.) at the foundation of Romanian
postmodernity and as a form of re-activating the political freedom, I shall do it
on the ground that the pressure they exert has been decisive in “bringing about
the dissolution of the central point of view”, of what J.-F. Lyotard called the
supremacy of “great narratives” (political, cultural, economic, social, scientific,
a.s.o.). Starting with the cessation of the “great communist story”, we can speak
of the instauration, in our country, of the mass-media effect. This is an effect
contrary to the image that the philosopher Th. Adorno created in his work, The
Dialectic of Enlightenment, in collaboration with Horkheimer, or in Minima
Moralia (imitated as a pastiche by the Romanian A. Pleºu), through which he
foresaw that the radio, and afterwards television would achieve the general
approval of society, an aim towards which the communism ideology guiltily aspired
(transposed in the reports at the Romanian Communist Party congresses). The
events from December 1989, as all that happened in the East-European communist
countries, demonstrated that, despite any efforts made by monopoly, mass-media
became the sustaining element of the new “explosion” of the general multiplication
of the Weltanschauung, of particular, fragmentary outlooks on the world.
The hypothesis on which my study is built restricts to the fact that Romanian
postmodernity is assumed primarily as a “means of communication society”. In
this world, the place of the ideal of emancipation (modeled after the self-conscience
of the one who knows how things are going — Hegel’s Absolute Spirit or Camus’s
or Marx’ Man of Revolt) is subjected to erosion, oscillation and plurality.
Torn posters, empty canvasses, burnt and rent newspapers, instantaneous
explosions of displays, drawing lots for speeches, the awkwardness of political
reverence imposes the following, re-active imperative: what is going on, an
apparent the desire to communicate, is in fact the need of sharing, as a “double
reality”, as a puzzle and a decreeing of a fascination, by difficulty!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauman, Zygmund, Intimation of Postmodernity, New York, London, Routledge, 1992.
Bauman, Zygmund, Postmodern Ethics, Cambridge, Blackwell, 1993.
Bell, Daniel, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. The information Technology Revolution, Oxford,
Blackwell, Cambridge M.a., Mit Press, 1980.
Brown, G., Yule, G., Discourse analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
Deleuze, Gilles, Guattare, F., Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism ºi schizofrenie, New York, 1977.
Derrida, Jacques, The Ends of Man, in “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research”, Vol. XXX, No. 1
(September, 1969).
Debord, Guy, Society and the Spectacle, Detroit, 1983.
Habermas, Jurgen, Conºtiinþã moralã ºi acþiune comunicativã, Substanþial, Bucureºti, 2000.
Habermas, Jurgen, Probleme de legitimare în capitalismul târziu, Institutul European, Iaºi, 2000.
Hutcheon, Linda, Postmodernism goes to the Opera, in “Euresis”, nr. 1–2, 1995.
Hassan, Ihab, Postmodernism — The Postmodern Turn, Ohio State University Press, Ohio, 1987.
Havel, Vaclav, The Power of the Powerless, ed. John Keane, New York, 1985.
Krocker, Arthur, Cook, David, The Postmodern Scene: Excremental Culture and Hyper-Aesthetics, New York, 1968.
Lange, Yasha, Palmer, Andrew, Media and Elections, Tacis, Bruxelles, 1995.
Lyon, David, A bit of Circus: Notes on Postmodernity and New Age, in “Religion” 23: 2, 1993.
Lyotard, J.F., Thebaud, Loup, Just Gaming, Minneapolis, University Press, Philadelphia, 1993.
Masaryk, T.M., Psilosophy and Political Change in Eastern Europe, ed. Barry Smith, University Press,
Chicago, 1989.
Menson, Wayne, The talk-show in Media Culture, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1993.
Morley, David, Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies, Routledge, London, 1994.
Parsons, Talcott, Social Systems and the Foundation of Action Theory, New York, Free Press, 1995.
I S P R I ’s A C A D E M I C L I F E
SCIENTIFIC EVENTS WITHIN THE WORLD
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS1
32nd Congress of the International Committee of the History of Arts (CIHA) on
“Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration, Convergence”
The University of Melbourne 13–18 January 2008
Please visit: http/www.cihamelbourne2008.com.au/
5th EuPRA Conference: “Challenges of Peace and Democracy in Europe”.
Sakarya University, Turkey
21st – 24th August 2007
The conference of the European Peace Research Association (EuPRA) in co-operation with
Sakarya University, Department of International Relations. Conference Coordinator: Dr. Nesrin
Kenar, Assistant Professor, Sakarya University e-mail: [email protected]
“Nationalism(s), Postnationalism(s )” Annual International Two-day Conference
CICLaS – Université Paris Dauphine, France
11th – 12th October 2007
Submissions Deadline: 31st May 2007
Call for papers: In the Age of Globalisation a certain discourse of crisis has arisen around the
notions of national identity, culture and sovereignty, and some have declaimed the loss of local
cultural and social values in favour of a nebulous globalised system. For some we are already in
a postnational world in the 21st century and the political, social, economic and philosophical
notions implied are food for debate and discussion.
This conference invites participants to discuss how European and Postcolonial societies are
imagining themselves in this historical moment.
Enquiries and submissions (± 300 words) + biographies (± 100 words) should be sent to
Martine Piquet <[email protected]> and Deirdre Gilfedder <[email protected]>
Submissions for the forthcoming no 13 issue of Les Cahiers du CICLaS (ISSN 1637-7060) on
the same theme are also welcome.
PSAI25
Dublin city (Ireland)
19–21 October 2007
The 2007 PSAI (Political Studies Association of Ireland) Annual Conference is hosted by the
School of Law and Government at Dublin City University. Many of the 25th anniversary celebrations
will be held here — included the launch of a new reader on Irish politics to be published jointly
with Routledge. The theme of this year’s conference is ‘Politics and the Law’. A roundtable
discussion of the relationship between the courts and politicians is planned.
For further details, please contact: http://webpages.dcu.ie/~omalle/PSAI251.htm
ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research)
For information on ECPR Joint Session and Conferences, please visit: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/
——————
1 Courtesy of Melbourne University, Centre for Research on Europe.
170
ISPRI’s ACADEMIC LIFE
2
4th ECPR General Conference, Pisa (Italy)
The University of Pisa (Italy)
6–8 September 2007
Deadline for paper proposals is 1 May 2007.
Please visit: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/generalconference/pisa/callfor.aspx
2008 Joint Sessions, Rennes (France), April 2008
Deadline for applications is 16 February 2007.
Deadline for workshop proposals is 14 February 2007.
General information is available at http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/index.aspx
2nd ECPR Graduate Conference in 2008
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (Bellaterra campus)
25–27 August 2008
2009 Joint Session, Lisbon (Portugal), 14-19 April 2009.
Further information, including exact dates, will be available in due course.
2009 General ECPR Conference, Postdam (Germany), 10–12 September 2009
Further information, including exact dates, will be available in due course.
International Sociological Association (ISA) – Sociology Conferences
For ISA events see the following web site: http://www.ucm.es/info/isa/cforp0.htm
European Sociological Association (ESA) — Conferences
For ESA events see the following web site: http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/esa/conferences.htm
Although the submission deadlines for the following items have already lapsed, there might be
some interest in attending the events below or in following up presented papers.
“Responding to Genocide before it’s too late: Genocide Studies and Prevention”
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)
7th Biennial meeting Institute for Research into Crimes against Humanity and International
Law, University of Sarajevo
9–13 July 2007
Please note that only paid members of IAGS may present papers. For information on
membership, please contact the IAGS Secretary-Treasurer, Professor Steven Jacobs, at:
[email protected]
2007 European Congress on “Transcending Europe’s Borders: The EU and Its
Neighbours”
Humboldt University (Berlin, Germany), 2–4 August 2007.
Please visit: http://www.iccees-europe.de/
37th UACES Annual Conference on “Exchanging Ideas on Europe 2007: Which
Common Values, Which External Policies?”
Centre for European and International Studies Research, University of Portsmouth (UK), 3–5
September 2007.
For further information, please visit: http://www.uaces.org
European Sociological Association (ESA) 8th Conference on “Conflict, Citizenship and
Civil Society”
Glasgow (UK) 3–6 September 2007.
For further information, please contact [email protected] giving your name,
address an contact email. Alternatively, please visit http://www.esa8thconference.com/
3
171
Beyond the Nation: Critical Reflections on Nations and Nationalism in Uncertain Times
Queen’s University, Belfast (UK), 12–14 September 2007.
For more information, please visit: http://www.qub.ac.uk/pisp/NewsandEvents/
Making Sense of a Pluralist World: Sixth Pan-European Conference on International
Relations
University of Turin, Italy, 12–15 September 2007.
For further information, please visit: http://www.sgir.org/conference2007/index.htm
Summer Academy on Political Consulting and Strategic Campaign Communication
International University in Germany, Bruchsal
25th – 29th September 2007.
For more information, please visit: www.political-campaigns.net
The Economics of Corruption — University Training on Good Governance and Reform
University of Passau, Germany
7th – 13th October 2007.
This international event continues to be offered on a pro bono basis. It joins the world of
research with the world of practice, attracting graduate and post-graduate students in the social
sciences and anti-corruption policymakers and practitioners.
The program consists of training modules, lectures, workshop sessions, case studies, and
poster and keynote presentations.
For applications and the full program please visit: http://www.icgg.org
The Evolution of the European Courts: Institutional Change and Continuity
6th International Workshop for Young Scholars (WISH)
16th – 17th November, 2007, University College, Dublin (Ireland)
The Workshop will take place over one and a half days. It will comprise six panels (two per
half-day). Each panel will include approximately three presentations by young scholars.
Another young scholar will serve as discussant. Each panel will be chaired by a senior scholar.
Ample time will be left for discussion. The working languages are English and French.
The costs of travel and accommodation (up to 2 nights hotel: Friday, Saturday) of paper-givers
and discussants will be covered by the organisers.
For further information, please visit http://www.ucd.ie/law/WISH.htm
“Anthropology, Ethnography and Comparative Folklore of the Balkans” Summer School
University of Ioannina, Greece
30th July – 10th August 2007
The summer school offers the following:
— 1st Week courses: Anthropological theory and the understanding of the Balkans;
Ethnography of “socially marginalized groups”: Theoretical and methodological approaches;
Introduction to the study of oral tradition: Comparative method, fieldwork and ethnography;
Ethnographic research in border areas: Field practice in both sides of the Greek-Albanian border;
the migratory phenomenon: evidence and policies.
— 2nd Week courses: The migratory phenomenon: evidence and policies; doing fieldwork in
contemporary world: Epistemology of post-socialism in South Eastern Europe; Music and dance
in the Balkans: Culture, identity, and power.
Workshops: The Future of anthropology in the 21st century; Culture and space in
anthropological perspectives.
Guest lectures: The Future of anthropology in the 21st century; Sitting culture.
For any further questions and clarifications regarding the Konitsa Summer School contact the
School’s email address: [email protected]
172
4
ECPR Summer School in Methods and Techniques
Ljubljana, Slovenia
22 July – 4 August 2007
Fifteen two-week courses will be offered, including the following: Mathematical concepts and
formal modelling; Generating qualitative data: expert interviews and documentary sources; Crossnational survey design; Multivariate statistics; Multiple regression analysis; Ethnographic
methods; Quantitative narrative analysis; Comparative research design and introduction to
configurational comparative methods; Comparative historical analysis and case study design;
Network analysis; Qualitative textual analysis; Web-based research methods; Time and sequence.
The tuition fee for ECPR participants has been set at a flat rate of 590 Euro, with a 50 discount
for those participants who register and pay before 1st April 2007.
In addition to the above courses, we will also be offering some crash courses, beginning
immedialy prior to the start of the summer school. The crash course tuition fee for ECPR
participants is set at a flat rate of 200 Euro (please note that as places will be limited and priority
will be given to those students who are attending the full two week programme).
For further information, you can visit: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/summerschools/
ljubljana/index.aspx.
Alternatively, you can also contact Emer Padden ([email protected]).
European Training Institute
European Training Institute is the only training centre in Brussels offering a full range of
programmes and seminars dedicated to European Public Affairs. European Training Institute
programmes and seminars are fully interactive. They examine all aspects of Public Affairs management,
the working of the European Institutions and the best ways of influencing their policies.
For information on upcoming training programs in EU Public Affairs, please visit:
http://www.eutraining.be
Internships in the Institutions of the European Union
For information on internships, trainee ships and stages in EU institutions, please visit:
http://www.delaus.cec.eu.int/employment/Internships_europe.htm
Calls for Papers, Articles, Submissions and Prizes
“Much ado about nothing? The European Neighbourhood Policy since 2003”
University of Nottingham, UK
25th – 26th October 2007
The organisers of this workshop invite paper proposals in three broad areas: What are the
appropriate methods and theories for the study of the ENP? How does the ENP fit into the broader
framework of the EU’s external relations and foreign and security policies? What are the
achievements of the ENP to date, and how can we explain successes and failures in individual
cases and of the policy more generally?
Papers can be theoretical/conceptual in nature, and/or focus on one or more case studies. It is
envisaged that selected papers will be published in an edited volume and/or special issue of a
relevant journal.
Proposals (to include a paper title and a 250 abstract of the proposed paper) should be
submitted via email as MS Word attachment to Richard Whitman ([email protected]) and
Stefan Wolff ([email protected]).
Europe and Asia — between Islam and the United States
The Lessons of Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Iran
5–7th December 2007
Melbourne, Australia
Jointly sponsored by The Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe University; The Innovative
Universities European Union Centre; Contemporary Europe Research Centre, University of
Melbourne; Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, Naples, Italy; The Institute for Social
5
173
Ethics, Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan; The Institute of International Relations, Warsaw
University, Poland; The Cold War Studies Centre, London School of Economics (UK)
1) Conference Background
This conference follows on from a number of other workshops and symposia that have been
organised by the Centre for Dialogue in collaboration with other institutions in Europe and Asia.
They form part of a larger research programme Europe and Asia between Islam and the United
States: Politics of Transition.
The question of Islam now rightly occupies centre stage in many discussions of contemporary
international relations. Such discussion are of central importance for Europe, given its large
Muslim minorities, its proximity to the Middle East, the cultural and political relevance of the
Mediterranean for the whole of Europe, and the importance which the various conflicts occurring
in different parts of the Middle East have assumed in relations between Europe, the United States,
the world’s sole superpower, and the Middle East. For Europe the relationship with the Muslim
world generally and with the Middle East and North Africa in particular has been a critical factor
in its history. It remains just as pivotal today.
Precisely the same issues apply to Asia: proximity to Muslim neighbours; presence of
significant and growing Muslim minorities; alliance relationships with the United States, which
have led junior partners to deploy troops in Iraq and or Afghanistan and to become involved in the
‘war on terror’; actual or potential vulnerability to terrorist attacks; varying degrees of dependence
on Middle Eastern (Muslim) oil, especially in the case of Japan.
A major debate is rapidly developing in Europe and Asia as to the long-term implications of
these complex relationships. An important part of this debate bears upon Europe’s and Asia’s
alliances with the United States and the extent to which Europe and Asia, two major centres of
geopolitical gravity can forge a distinctive and constructive relationship with the Islamic World.
The purpose of this conference is to create a productive encounter between leading European
scholars and their counterparts in the Asia-Pacific region. Attention will focus on European
perspectives and policies, informed and illuminated by comparison with Asian policies and
perspectives.
Comparative analysis will highlight the role of regional institutions, in particular the EU and
ASEAN.
This project is unique in the way it proposes to combine, and analyse the interaction of three
key dualities:
— the juxtaposition of the European and Asian experiences, with particular reference to the
role of regional institutions;
— the relationship between culture and religion on the one hand and geopolitics on the other;
— the complex nexus between the domestic and international dimensions of conflict and
dialogue across major religious and cultural traditions. These three dualities will play a critical part
in shaping Europe’s and Asia’s future place in the world.
2) Call for Papers
A Call for papers is now addressed to scholars and experts interested in considering any of the
themes outlined above. Proposals should be received by 14 May 2007.
Proposals should include: Title of proposed paper; 250-word abstract; Author’s name and
institutional affiliation; One paragraph bio-note of the author.
In line with the themes outlined above, proposals are encouraged to consider one or other of
the following key questions:
— To what extent have the conflicts in the Middle East and the ‘war on terror’ (and the
underlying hostility of much of the Muslim world towards key aspects of US policy) impacted on
Europe’s and Asia’s self-understanding of their place in the world? What have been the
implications for transatlantic and transpacific alliances?
— How have European and Asian regional institutions (as well as member states in the two
regions) handled these conflicts, and with what impact on the development of regional approaches
to foreign and security policy?
— How have EU efforts to develop a Common Foreign and Security Policy been affected by
the tensions that have characterised the post-September 11 international environment? How have
174
6
the Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle East conflicts impacted on the EU’s internal and external
relations? — What have been the implications for EU enlargement and for current negotiations
regarding Turkish entry into the EU?
— What has been the tenor of the responses of states, media, and the wider community in
different parts of Europe and Asia to domestic and international tensions associated with these
conflicts? To what extent and in what way have issues of culture and religion intruded into
domestic politics and external policy making, and with what consequences?
— How have post-September 11 tensions impacted on the role of Muslim minorities in Europe
and Asia? To what extent, if any, have the EU and ASEAN been able to harmonise the responses
of member states to these questions?
— To what extent has the European Union and ASEAN (as well as other regional attempts at
multilateralism) developed responses to terrorism that synthesise different areas of policy,
including external relations, home security, immigration and refugee policy, citizenship and
cultural policy?
All applicants will be informed of the Organising Committee’s decision by 1 July 2007.
Successful applicants will be given two weeks to confirm their participation. The Conference
Organising Committee must receive by 1 November 2007 the written papers (approximate length
6,000 words), which have to represent an original contribution not published elsewhere. The
Conference’s working language is English.
Those selected to present a paper will not be required to pay the registration fee which will
cover lunches, morning and afternoon teas and copies of papers. The Organising Committee is not
able to provide support covering participants’ travel and accommodation expenses.
Please submit paper proposals, preferably as a Word or Rtf document, together with full
contact details to:
Dr. Luca Anceschi, Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe University Victoria 3086 Australia
Ph: +61 3 9479 2295 Fax: +61 3 9479 1997
Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Mechanisms of Religious Influence in Politics: Call for Chapters
Edited by Paul A. Djupe, Denison University
You are invited to contribute to a novel enterprise in the study of religion and politics:
experimental tests of mechanisms of religious influence. Experimental work is widespread in the
study of public opinion and voting behavior, but this method has not been adopted in the study of
religion and politics. Experimental work can be employed effectively to assess the efficacy of
cues, arguments, and imagery from religious figures and elected officials. When many of us often
lament the fact that religion and politics scholarship has not been distinguished by broad
theoretical progress, rigorous experimental work can help make a major contribution by narrowing
the rangeof theories worth pursuing and opening up new ways of thinking about religious influence.
Research to be considered for the volume should be original (not previously published). It must
include some experimental manipulation that tests a mechanism of religious influence on public
opinion or voting behavior. Ideally, research will focus on the effects of religion on contemporary
attitudes, but all submissions will be considered. Additionally, multiple submissions are welcome.
Included chapters need not be long (though they can be) nor must they include exhaustive
literature reviews. The goal is to include many explorations to cover as many different types of
questions as possible. I am ecumenical about the populations involved in the experiments, whether
special populations (such as evangelicals, Catholics, and students) or the general population. If
there is sufficient interest, I plan to submit full panel proposals to professional conferences
(especially the WPSA and MPSA) to support development of this research.
Chapters will be requested by the end of Summer, 2007. If you are interested, please contact
me to discuss your design.
Paul A. Djupe
Associate Professor Department of Political Science Denison University Granville, OH
43023-0810
Phone: 740-587-6310
Fax: 740-587-6601
Email: [email protected]
7
175
Nations and Nationalism
“Nations and Nationalism” is one of the world’s leading journals in the field of ethnicity,
nations and nationalism. The journal publishes high quality and innovative political science
research and is now seeking papers on the politics of ethnicity and nationalism. The journal
encourages submissions based on research in every region of the world, as well as comparative
and theoretical work.
Articles for the journal should be addressed to: The Editors, Nations and Nationalism, Room
H808, Connaught House, London School of Econonmics & Politics, Houghton Street, London
WC2A 2AE, UK. Books for review should be sent to the Book Review Editor at the same address.
Typescripts: Authors are required to submit four copies of their article, which should not be
under consideration by any other journal. A copy of the article should also be retained by the
author. Articles should be typed on white A-4 sized paper on one side only and should be double
spaced throughout, including notes and list of references. All pages, including notes, references
and tables, should be numbered. In order to meet the criterion of anonymity we would strongly
advise authors not to refer to themselves by name in the text of their submission. A statement of
the author’s title and position, as you would wish them to appear in the list of contributors, along
with a brief summary of your recent work and research in progress should be typed on a separate
sheet. An abstract of 100–150 words should also be typed on a separate sheet.Authors must also
include a copy of the article on a 3.5 in. floppy disk (IBM-PC formatted), preferably in Microsoft
Word.
Length: Articles should not exceed 9000 words (including Endnotes and References), 3000 for
Review Articles and 800 words for Book Reviews. The minimum length for Articles is 7000 words
(including Endnotes and References). A word count must be provided in all cases. The Editors
regret that articles and reviews over the stipulated word lengths cannot be considered.
For further information, please visit: http://blackwellpublishing.msgfocus.com/q/12iaK8riaojhx/wv
UACES/Routledge Book Series on “Contemporary European Studies”
Proposals are now accepted.
The new UACES/Routledge book series, Contemporary European Studies, is inviting proposals
for high quality research monographs in all sub-fields of European Studies. We are particularly
keen to publish interdisciplinary research, but all proposals will be given serious consideration.
For further advice and information, or to submit proposals, please contact one (or all) of the
series editors: Tanja Boerzel ([email protected]); Michelle Cini ([email protected]);
Alex Warleigh ([email protected]).
Journal of Contemporary European Research (JCER)
Submissions throughout the year
The editorial team of the JCER would like to invite scholars and practitioners to submit their
work for publication. The JCER is committed to promoting original research and insightful debate
in European Studies. To this aim, it publishes full-length research articles (7000–8000 words) as
well as shorter comment pieces (3000–5000 words) in the fields of European politics, law,
economics and sociology.
JCER aims to provide a forum for emerging scholars of European Studies by allowing them
to present their ideas alongside those of more established academics and practitioners. Therefore,
contributions from PhD students in the advanced phase of their doctoral research, post-doctoral
students, as well as the wider academic and practitioner community are encouraged. The journal
is published biannually in May and November. Please note that the closing date for submissions
for November issue was 30 June 2005.
The contributions should be emailed to the Editor, Lars Hoffman ([email protected]).
Should you want to review books in your area of expertise, please send an email to Stijn Billiet
([email protected]) with your name, institutional affiliation, position and up to three areas of
expertise, and you will be included in the JCER pool of experts.
Further information as well as guidelines for authors are to be found on our web site:
http://www.jcer.net
176
8
European Journal of Political Research
Submissions throughout the year.
The European Journal of Political Research, published by Blackwell Publishing on behalf of
the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), would like to invite scholars and
practitioners to submit their work for publication, or offer their services as reviewers. Potential
author and referees are welcome to register at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ejpr
For further details, please visit: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0304-4130/
Masters in Peace and Socioconflict Studies
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), ANU (Canberra), and Bjørknes College (Oslo)
Rolling Application Deadline
A joint exciting postgraduate degree program in international relations specialising in peace
and conflict studies. This innovative program brings together academics at the forefront of
international relations, peace and conflict research from two sides of the globe. For further
information, please visit http://www.prio.no/education/australia/
Master in European Economy and International Finance
The University of Roma, Italy.
The purpose of the Master is to fulfill the demand of expertise which comes from: Public
national and local Administrations subject to European directives and recipient of resources from
the European Union; Firms which operate in the real and financial sectors of the economy,
interested in the incentive and regulatory policies of the European Union; International and
European institutions with a focus on European affairs and directives. The program is full-time and
lasts one year. It is divided into two terms. Classes are taught in English. For further information,
please visit: http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/MEEFI/
NOHA: Joint European Master’s in International Humanitarian Action
Application Deadline: 13th December 2007
The Joint European Master’s in International Humanitarian Action is an inter-university,
multidisciplinary postgraduate programme that provides high quality academic education and
professional competencies for personnel working or intending to work in the area of humanitarian
action.
This European Master’s Degree was created in 1993 as result of concerted efforts on the part
of the Network on Humanitarian Assistance (NOHA) Universities, working in close collaboration
with two Directorates-General of the European Commission: DG for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO)
and DG for Education and Culture. The initiative was a response to a growing need for higher
educational qualifications specifically suited to addressing complex humanitarian emergencies.
In September 2004, the European Commission awarded the NOHA Master’s the status of an
Erasmus Mundus Programme. The latter is a co-operation and mobility programme in the field of
higher education that promotes the European Union as a centre of excellence in learning around
the world. It provides EU-funded scholarships for a limited number of outstanding third-country
nationals participating in Erasmus Mundus Master’s Courses.
In 2005, NOHA was awarded by the European Commission Erasmus Mundus Partnerships
Programme in order to establish and develop a framework for cooperation and student and scholar
mobility between the NOHA institutions and the following partner universities: Monash
University (Australia), Universidade de Brasilia (Brazil), York University (Canada); Universidad
Javeriana (Colombia), Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia), Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth
(Lebanon), University of the Western Cape (South Africa), and Columbia University (United States).
Third country scholarships are available: http://www.nohanet.org/online.aplication.asp
For further information, please visit: http://www.nohanet.org/
EU Immigration and Asylum Policy Certificate
Brussels University, Belgium
2nd – 13th July 2007
After five years of successful experience with a summer school, the Odysseus Network has
decided to create a one year certificate in European Law on Immigration and Asylum. The aim of
9
177
this new programme is to provide its participants with an in-depth understanding of the legal rules
on immigration and asylum adopted by the European Union. The courses will also have a
comparative dimension and cover the internal laws of the Member States, in particular the way
they transpose EU directives. This programme will be of interest to all persons who wish to
acquire a special knowledge in immigration and asylum law, for instance civil servants, advocates
or persons working for NGOs, and in particular researchers, PhD students and other students, who
frequently confront the complex legal dimension of immigration and asylum in their work or
studies. This programme is organised by the “Academic Network for Legal Studies on Immigration
and Asylum in Europe” founded in 1999 with the support of the Odysseus Programme of the
European Commission and co-ordinated by the Institute for European Studies of Brussels
University (ULB). The course provides the opportunity to live in a unique European environment,
with instructors coming from academic institutions in many different Member States as well as
from the EU institutions, and to take part in an intellectually stimulating experience as part of a
group of 30–40 participants specialising in the area of immigration and asylum with different
backgrounds from all over Europe. Professional networking within and outside this group will be
encouraged by the organisers.
For more information, please visit: http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/odysseus/
Call for PhD Students, Masters of Science and Executive Masters
Politecnico of Turin, Italy
Applications Ongoing
The Politecnico of Turin we have now 1.600 foreign students (about 6% of the total), but our
dream is to reach the 10% (al least!). Since Monday March 19 we opened the new section of our
web site (www.polito.it) for the on line applications of new foreign students for the academic year
2007/08. Please check it and send the information to your friends in Italy and around the world to
promote the Politecnico di Torino. I really hope to have more and more “excellent foreign
students” studying in our School. The call is for Bachelor, Master of Science, PhD and Executive
Masters students and we offer a good school, student residences, financial support, and courses in
English, a good environment, a “warm and beautiful city” and many friends coming from 89
different countries!
Institute of Advanced Studies, Vienna (Austria)
The Department of Political Science at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna is offering
a 3-year postgraduate course in European Integration starting October 2007. The programme aims
to provide advanced training in political science and qualitative and quantitative research methods.
A special emphasis is put on European integration studies. The core of the programme consists of
intensive seminars conducted by internationally renowned visiting professors and members of the
department. Students enrol at universities as doctoral candidates and are also expected to pursue
their dissertation. This is a full-time course and attendance at the IHS is required. We offer a cooperative environment, office space, an excellent library, and other facilities. The course is taught
in English and in German. Approximately 8 stipends can be awarded.
For further information, please visit: http://www.ihs.ac.at/
Masaryk University (Czech Republic)
Masaryk university, the second largest university in the Czech Republic, offers English-taught
programs Sociology and European Politics. The quality of the program is class-world and the
awarded Master degree is recognizable all over the world. Other advantages: there are small
studentsgroups in the courses (the aim is to preserve individual approach to every student)and the
tuition fee is very favourable. New students will be given a friendly welcome by other
international students and the city Brno that is known as a cultural centre and a “students city”.
Duration of both programs: 4 semesters
Tuition fee: 960 Euro per semester, possibility of getting a scholarship
Deadline: April–May (EU members) 2007
Information: Office for International Relations: Mgr. Veronika Gbov, [email protected],
[email protected] Web-sites: http://www.fss.muni.cz/Eng
178
10
Master Programme Politics in Europe — Interactions between Domestic and Supranational
Arenas
The University of Siena
Info: www.gips.unisi.it/gradschool
The courses offered will cover both a “Comparative politics” and a “European politics”
perspective. The first approach focuses on similarities and differences among national political
systems, while the second one on European institutions and decision-making processes. Activities
such as meetings with national and international officers and policy makers, and visits to EU
institutions, are also provided. A number of internships and stages at European and Italian institutions,
during and at the end of the teaching programme, will be available. A study visit to the European
and international institutions in Brussels is regularly organized at the end of the courses. The
programme is entirely offered in English.
Applications should normally be received by July 30th. The fee is set in euro 3.500.
Enquiries: Silvina Cabrera (tel. + 39 0577 235311; mail: [email protected])
Scotland Scholarship
Are you a permanent resident of China, India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand or
Singapore who would like to study for a Masters in Scotland?
The Scottish International Scholarship Programme is targeted at graduates in science,
technology and the creative industries, and aims to create lasting connections between Scotland
and industry leaders and entrepreneurs across the world.
It is supported by the Scottish Executive’s Fresh Talent initiative which aims to encourage
bright, talented and hard-working individuals to live, work and study in Scotland.
The programme is offering 22 scholarships for the academic year 2007/8 for courses at any
Scottish higher education institution.
The scholarship covers the tuition fees, return economy airfare and a living allowance.
The course must be a Masters programme of not more than 12 months based in a Scottish
institution during the academic year 2007/8. Priority will be given to courses in science and
technology and the creative industries.
For further information, please visit: http://www.scotlandscholarship.com/
Funding Opportunities for Masters Students
Keele University, SPIRE: School of International Relations, Politics and Philosophy
Applications are invited for a number of Bursaries for Masters students starting in September
2007, studying for one of our MA or MRes programmes: International Relations; Global Security;
Diplomatic Studies; European Politics and Culture; European Environmental Politics and
Regulation; Environmental Politics; Human Rights, Globalisation and Justice. Bursaries are worth
at least the value of half of the fees and are open to home or overseas students.
Students are expected to make a limited contribution (not more than 50 hours in the year) to
work in the School.
Applications should be made via the normal application process.
Please see the School’s website for details: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/spire. Enquiries can
be made to the MA Programme Director, Dr. Helen Parr ([email protected]), or to the MA
Programme Administrator, Mrs. Kathryn Ainsworth ([email protected]).
PhD Studentships in Politics at Manchester University
Politics is one of Europe’s top centres for research and teaching, bringing together one of the
largest groupings of politics staff in the UK and covering almost all areas of the discipline. In the
2001 Research Assessment Exercise, we secured a grade 5, thereby denoting international
excellence. We also scored top marks of 24, in the most recent external evaluations of teaching,
held in 2001.
The Graduate Centre can offer PhD supervision in a range of areas and potential candidates
should consult the following weblink for information about the application procedures
http://www.socialsciences.man.ac.uk/politics/postgraduate/apply.htm
11
179
If candidates wish to be considered for ESRC 1+3/+3 Quota and Open Competition Awards
and AHRC Awards, they need to complete and submit an internal politics application form. The
information on this form will provide the basis for selecting a shortlist of candidates who will be
considered for Quota Awards and those who will be put forward to the ESRC or AHRC Open
Competition.
For further information, please visit: http://www.socialsciences.man.ac.uk/politics/
postgraduate/funding.htm
Masters Course in International Conflict and Co-operation
Department of Politics, The University of Stirling (United Kingdom)
For deadlines, please contact the program director.
The Department of Politics in the University of Stirling has launched a new and exciting
Masters course in the field of International Relations.
The MSc in International Conflict and Cooperation is a taught post-graduate course focusing
on the changing dynamics of conflict and cooperation after the end of the Cold War and 9/11. It is
designed to meet the needs of policy practitioners, Chevening scholars as well as to provide
students with adequate training before starting a PhD degree. Substantial components of the course
include the themes of Conflict in the Balkans, Christendom vs. Islam, Conflicts in Independent
Africa, EU-Russian Relations, Cyprus and International Relations. The two core modules are
“International Conflict and Cooperation” and “International Organsiations”.
The MSc has close links with the Centre for European Neighbourhood Studies (CENS) based
in the Department of Politics. Attached to the Programme and the Centre is the reputable academic
periodical, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans where students may be contributing with
book reviews.
For further information, please visit: http://www.external.stir.ac.uk/postgrad/course_info/arts/
politics/conflict-coop.php
Alternatively, you can contact the program director, Dr Vassilis K Fouskas, via phone (+44 (0)
1786 467570) or via email ([email protected]).
Masters Course in European Identities
LSE European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science (London, United
Kingdom)
A new MSc degree in ‘European Identities’, started in September 2006, is provided by the
European Institute at the London School of Economics from 2006/7. The degree programme is
open to graduates across the humanities and social sciences.
The programme offers students the opportunity to investigate a wide range of issues around
the intersections of European society and identity. Students will be encouraged to engage with and
to develop theoretical ideas and perspectives that relate to the various and often conflicting sources
of European identity today.
Further information on the programme, including module choices and entry requirements,
please visit: http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/graduateProspectus2006/taughtProgrammes/MSc
EuropeanIdentities.htm (link to Graduate Prospectus) or http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/
europeanInstitute/study/InformationforProspectiveStudents/graduate_prog.htm (link to European
Institute prospective student pages).
For information on how to apply, please visit the LSE Graduate Admissions homepage:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/graduateAdmissions/
The Joint Academic Scholarship Online Network (JASON)
Completely searchable, JASON is a national database of postgraduate scholarships. It includes
a broad range of funding opportunities — from one-off payments for particular research projects,
to full scholarships covering living expenses and fees.
JASON is available at: http://www.jason.edu.au/
ASiE — Australians — Study in Europe!
This web site is dedicated to making it easier for Australians to embark on postgraduate study
in Europe. As well as providing a host of links to relevant web sites in Europe and Australia , ASiE
180
12
also undertakes research and consultation with the EU Commission, European governments and a
great number of universities and foundations. The aim is to produce and update as much as possible
all information concerning grants and scholarships available to Australian students seeking to
pursue doctoral studies in Europe.
For further information and the database, please visit: http://www.asie.unimelb.edu.au
The results of ASiE’s research on grants and scholarships are delivered into the Jason database
with which this site is connected.
Postgraduate and PhD Positions, Postdoctoral Fellowships and Scholarships
Visiting Scholar Office Space
IERES, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
IERES are especially interested in encouraging scholars with Western European research
agendas. In addition to the office comes telephone, computer and library privileges. The building
is new, air conditioned, and located four blocks from the White House and walking distance from
Washington’s elegant Metro.
For further information, please contact Greg Zalasky, at [email protected], or visit the IERES
website, at www.ieres.org
Post-graduate research studentship in EU law and governance.
School of Law, University of Sheffield, UK
For more information, please visit: http://jobs.ac.uk/jobfiles/ZE510.html
Europe Studies: Environment and Sustainable Development Doctoral Researchers
Institute for European Studies (IES) at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)
The Institute for European Studies (IES) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) intends to
strengthen its research cluster on environment and sustainable development. It therefore calls for
applications for two positions of full-time doctoral researchers. Final year students, young
researchers and other prospective PhD candidates are herewith invited to submit project proposals
in the area of Environment and Sustainable Development as it relates to European Studies.
Project proposals by qualified PhD candidates should advance research in line with the IES
research strategy that focuses on the EU in an international context. Research may focus on any
relevant discipline (political science, law, economics, etc.) or be inter-disciplinary in approach. In
order to ensure a disciplinary balance at the IES, we in particular wish to encourage applications
by law students. The IES will consider any proposal that fits its general research strategy.
The successful candidates will have a MA degree with good study results. They will be fluent
in English and have a thorough knowledge of European policy and/or law. They will be selected
on the basis of the quality of the project proposal and on the basis of their CVs.
The successful candidates will receive a research grant for one year (extendable to 4 years).
Prolongation of the contract is subject to the agreement of the doctoral committee. Remuneration
is at the level of a full time research assistant at a Flemish university (i.e. approx. euro 1.500,00
net per month) and includes contributions for social security / insurance. Secondary employment
is not allowed.
Candidates will need to fill in and send the forms that are available from the IES website
(www.ies.be) as well as a full CV, a list of publications, a detailed outline describing the research
project (max. 10 pages!) and a copy of their most recent diploma. The IES requires that at least
one (co)promoter of the project be from the VUB. The IES may assist successful candidates in
finding a suitable (co-)promoter at the VUB. Co-promotership from other Belgian or foreign
universities is encouraged. Successful candidates are expected to base themselves in Brussels and
work at the IES.
The deadline for applications: 31 May 2007 (for posts to be taken up as of 1 September/October).
A list of exemplary research subjects that may qualify, further information on the IES research
strategy and the relevant application forms are available at www.ies.be <http://www.ies.be>.
Applications need to be addressed to: Institute for European Studies; The Academic Director;
Vrije Universiteit Brussel; Pleinlaan 2; B-1050 Brussels (Belgium) or by email: [email protected]
13
181
MSc DEPARTMENTAL STUDENTSHIPS
The Department is able to offer:
Three Fee-Waivers (to cover the costs of full-time UK/EU or Overseas fees)
Three Departmental Bursaries (£2,000 each for full-time students)
The Department offers the following taught postgraduate programmes (both full-time and
part-time): MSc Public Policy; MSc European Public Policy; MSc International Public Policy;
MSc Political Research.
Application details and further information on any of our courses/bursaries are available from:
Fiona Macintyre, Postgraduate Administrator, Department of Government, University of
Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow, G1 1XQ email: [email protected] 0141 548
2215 http://www.strath.ac.uk/government/
Job Vacancies
Carleton University, Ottawa (Canada)
Short term Visitor, 30th July – 13th August 2007
Applications ongoing until position filled.
The Centre for European Studies at Carleton University (Ottawa) invites applications from
European scholars for a short-term research-teaching visit to Carleton University. The visit is
expected to be approximately 3 weeks in length, including the time period from July 30-August
13, 2007. The visitor will be expected to assist a Canadian course instructor in teaching a two week
graduate module on policy issues in trans-Atlantic (Canada-EU) relations. Applied policy experience
will be considered an asset. The visitor is also expected to give a public lecture at Carleton University.
An allowance for travel costs, living expenses and a stipend will be offered. Applicants should
be from EU member countries and should have expertise in European integration and the EU,
and/or trans-Atlantic relations (EU-Canada).
Applicants should send a curriculum vitae, letters from two scholarly referees (including email addresses), and a letter of application outlining your interest in the position. Consideration of
applications will commence on February 22, 2007 and will continue until the position is filled.
Please send materials to Prof. Joan DeBardeleben, Director, Centre for European Studies, Carleton
University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6; fax (613)520-7501, or by
e-mail to joan [email protected]. This program is supported by a grant from the European
Commission.
Carleton University is committed to equality for women, aboriginal peoples, visible
minorities, and persons with disabilities. Persons from these groups are encouraged to apply.
Academic and Research Positions in the EU
For information and new entries, please visit: http://www.academicjobseu.com/
The European Researchers’ Mobility Portal
The European Commission’s “The European Researchers’ Mobility Portal” includes current
grants and fellowships, research job vacancies — in the EU, at national as well as international
level. It also provides practical information on the research activities of the EU (The European
Research Area, Framework Progams, etc.)
The portal is available at http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/index_en.cfm
ECPR Research Market
For information and new entries, please visit: http://www.ecprnet.org/researchmarket/search.asp
ANNOUNCEMENT — Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG)
Living Reviews in European Governance is an entirely web-based, peer-reviewed journal,
publishing reviews of research on core themes relating to European Governance. It is offered as a
free service to the scientific community.
The articles in LREG are solicited from specialists in their fields and are directed towards the
scientific community at or above the graduate student level. The articles provide up-to-date critical
182
14
reviews of the state of research in the fields they cover. They also offer annotated insights (and
where possible, active links) into the key literature and describe online resources available in these
fields. One of the most important features of LREG is that its articles are kept up to date by their
authors. This is the significance of the word “Living” in the journal’s title. Additionally, all articles
appearing in Living Reviews, and all references appearing in those articles, will be collated into
an online searchable reference database. Queries to the database will return active links to cited
materials available on the web.
For the first edition and further information: http://europeangovernance.livingreviews.org/
European studies and research organizations
European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR)
Website: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/
European Union Studies Association (EUSA)
Website: http://www.eustudies.org/
European Communities Studies association (ECSA)
Website: http://www.ecsanet.org/
The University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES)
Website: http://www.uaces.org/
Europe Research Centres in Australia
The Innovative Research Universities Network encompasses the following instituions: La
Trobe (VIC) Macquarie University (NSW) Newcastle (NSW), Flinders (SA), Murdoch (WA) and
Griffith in QLD.
Monash European and EU Centre (Monash University)
Website: http://www.monash.edu.au/europecentre/
Macquarie University:
Website: http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/showitem.asp?ItemID=472
Latrobe University:
Website: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/2006/mediarelease_2006-13.php
Centre for European Studies (The University of Adelaide)
Website: http://www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/humanities/euro
Centre for European Studies (The University of New South Wales)
Website: http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/ces/CES_Web.htm
Centre for Scandinavian Studies (Flinders University of South Australia)
Website: http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/scanlink/index.php
Contemporary Europe Research Centre / Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence (The University
of Melbourne)
Website: http://www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au/
The European Studies Centre (The University of Sydney)
Website: http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/eurostudies/about.shtml
The National Europe Research Centre (The Australian National University)
Website: http://www.anu.edu.au/NEC/
CERC Bulletin
The CERC email bulletin is a regular email newsletter (fortnightly during the academic year,
monthly in vacation period) that keeps subscribers up-to-date about events and happenings
relating to Europe at CERC and also around Australia and the world. The CERC bulletin lists
upcoming seminars and conferences in all aspects of European Studies. It also lists calls for
papers, publications, scholarships and job vacancies and any other news that may be of interest.
Subscription to the CERC Email Bulletin is free! Simply email the following address
[email protected] with “subscribe” in the subject line.
For further information, please visit: http://www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au/common/Emailbullinfo.htm
Directory of European Postgraduate Studies in Australia (DEPSA)
DEPSA is an initiative of the Contemporary Europe Research Centre at the University of
Melbourne. This Directory is one of CERC’s Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence projects. The
15
183
purpose of DEPSA is to allow students, academics, and others, to see what postgraduate research
relevant to Europe is being undertaken by students in Australia.
DEPSA form: http://www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au/JM/DEPSAform.pdf
For further information, please contact CERC ([email protected]) or visit the CERC
website: http://www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au/JM/DEPSA_hm.htm.
About the CERC Postgraduate Bulletin
What is it?
The CERC Postgraduate Bulletin is a new initiative, part of the Contemporary Europe Research
Centre”s (CERC) “Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence” activities. It is designed to
provide postgraduate students in Australia researching on European topics, broadly defined, with
information specifically relevant to them.
Who will be compiling the Postgraduate Bulletin?
The CERC Postgraduate Bulletin is compiled by the postgraduate community based at CERC
(The University of Melbourne).
How often will it be produced and distributed?
A new issue will be produced approximately once a month.
What kind of information will it contain?
The aim of the CERC Postgraduate Bulletin is to keep you up-to-date on relevant postgraduate
events and news.
The Postgraduate Bulletin will inform you of any opportunities (both academic and otherwise)
in your field for: postgraduate workshops and major conferences; calls for papers and articles;
news items on joint projects and research as well as employment and funding opportunities.
How to unsubscribe:
The CERC Postgraduate Bulletin is being distributed widely to peers and academics on the
current “CERC Bulletin” email list.
If you wish to be removed from the CERC mailing list, please send a reply e-mail to CERC at
[email protected] with the subject line “unsubscribe Eurograd”.
How to subscribe:
For those not already on the “CERC Bulletin” email list, you can subscribe by email to CERC
at [email protected] with “subscribe Eurograd” in the subject line.
Please note that the CERC Postgraduate E-Bulletin is a separate and additional source of
information to the CERC Bulletin and is posted to the one address list. More information about
CERC can be found on our website: www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au
Submitting items for the Postgraduate Bulletin
The CERC Postgraduate Bulletin welcomes submissions from academic departments, cultural
bodies and research institutes, and postgraduate students on items listed above. Please send your
brief submission in the body of the email, to: [email protected] with “submission
postgraduate” in the subject line – please do not send attachments.
Please use the following structure in your email submission:
TYPE OF ITEM: conference, call for papers, employment opportunities, grant etc.
NAME: title of conference/workshop/journal/ organisation/institution etc.
TIME: date of event or deadline for submission/application/registration.
BRIEF OUTLINE (up to 100 words): description of event/opportunity, including themes of
conference, eligibility of application, funding opportunities, reviewing process, etc.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTACT PERSON: for further information.
WEBSITE: if any applicable, for further information, links to registration forms etc.
Compiled by: Alistair D. B. Cook. Eurograd Editor, Contemporary Europe Research Centre,
University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Telephone +61 (0)3 8344 0997.
Email [email protected]
Philomena Murray (Assoc Prof)
Jean Monnet Chair ad personam
Director
184
Contemporary Europe Research Centre
Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence
T: + 61 3 8344 5151
F: + 61 3 8344 9507
E: [email protected]
W: www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au
Leslie Holmes (Prof)
Deputy Director
T: + 61 3 8344 7293
F: + 61 3 8344 9507
Alison Lewis (A/Prof.)
Deputy Director
T: + 61 3 8344 5103
F: + 61 3 8344 9507
16
The production of this bulletin is financially supported by the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence.
BOOK REVIEWS
Francesco Guida
Storia d’Europa nel XX secolo. Romania, Edizioni Unicopli, Milano, 2006
Di solito, gli storici occidentali quanto scelgono di trattare la storia dell’Europa Orientale prendono in
considerazione alcuni modelli del ovest e poi per dare la sensazione del espansione del discorso storico, fanno
dei riferimenti riguardo alla storia dalla Russia, assai importante per non essere se non analizzata, almeno
menzionata. L’Europa Centrale e Sud-Orientale sono viste come continuità della zona d’espansione russa,
oppure imitatrici poco felici e poco riusciti di alcuni modelli occidentali. Cosi si fa che sull’Europa Orientale
la preoccupazione della storiografia è poco significativa e di una debole consistenza. Ci sono stati pero,
fortunatamente, anche dei storici occidentali che esaminarono questi spazi considerati creatori di storia
europea e fonti per la propria produzione storiografica. Ricordiamo tra questi che ebbero particolare riguardo
sulla storia della Romania: ...Francesco Guida si distingue tra questi. Innanzitutto perché, conoscitore di
magiaro, bulgaro, romeno, russo è stato in grado di conoscere in originale tanti lavori dei storici dell’Europa
Orientale e tanti storici della regione. Inoltre ha scritto studi di riferimento riguardo i popoli della zona. Di
conseguenza, egli sì che è in grado di fare dei paragoni, può utilizzare con successo il metodo comparativo,
esenziale nel caso della storia europea, una storia delle diversità. Suo recente volume — Romania — riconferma
la capacita e la polivalenza dello storico Francesco Guida. Sua opera si basa sulla storiografia romena oppure
estera sulla Romania, pero, alla stesso tempo, o addirittura dinanzi a tutto sulle ricerche originali dell’autore.
Cosi si spiega che questo libro e’ un alternanza continua tra la narrazione e la riflessione storica. Francesco
Guida interroga il materiale storico a sua disposizione, sono delle incessanti interrogazioni. E le risposte che
ci da vengono inquadrate sia alla sua preparazione di storico occidentale, sia alla sua qualità di acuto
osservatore della storia dei romeni e dei popoli vicini ad essi. Nemmeno lui riesce sfuggire alla tentazione di
osservare più le contraddizioni della storia dei romeni che la sua continua evoluzione nel trovare un’identità
propria. Le contraddizioni esaminate da Guida sono tante e in tanti campi: “la democrazia in questa storia fu
sempre una democrazia guidata, mimata”; “la modernizzazione fu e rimase incompiuta, parziale”; “i partiti
politici non hanno chiarito fino in fondo la loro personalità (eccetto le estremi, sia di destra, sia di sinistra)”;
“le riforme non sono state finalizzate”; “le minorità ebbero un ruolo troppo significativo, lasciando in secondo
piano la manifestazione della maggioranza”; “i fattori esterni hanno avuto un peso eccessivo nella storia dei
romeni” ecc. Tutto ciò sono invero delle realtà nella storia dei romeni. Pero il loro peso non può prevalere nella
caratterizzazione d’insieme del corso della storia dei romeni. Per esempio, il periodo fra le due guerre, fu in
maniera più che evidente un periodo delle contraddizioni social-economici, politici e culturali, ma allo stesso
tempo ha dimostrato chiaramente che lo stato romeno, reso integro dopo il 1918, era una soluzione viabile. I
successi sono più evidenti che le contraddizioni. Francesco Guida porta dei punti di vista molto interessanti in
tanti argomenti presi in dibattito. Leggendo questo libro, ho ripreso la mia breve storia dei romeni,
arricchendola e dandogli delle nuove sfumature, inspirate dalle sostanziose opinioni emesse da Guida. A volte
credo che quando scrisse suo libro Francesco Guida ha pensato anche me. E per questo gli sono grato. Il modo
in cui scrive Guida è molto chiaro e attraente, è lo scrivere di un vero intellettuale. Non so quanto successo
ebbe il libro in Italia, ma in Romania la sua pubblicazione (imminente, anche se un po’ in ritardo) sarà un
sorpresa estremamente piacevole soprattutto per i giovani lettori.
Ion Bulei
Constantin Nica
Liberalismul din România — Teorie ºi practicã (vol. I and vol. II), Editura Institutului de ªtiinþe
Politice ºi Relaþii Internaþionale, Bucureºti, 2005, vol. I 338 pag., vol. II 349 pag.
Organized after the principle of making one clearly analyses on the point of view of the Romanian
liberalism, volumes I and volumes II of the study Romanian Liberalism — Theory and Practice, is
concentrated in establishing this construction theoretical and practical in the germs substance, meanings and
evolution of the Romanian political liberalism. Clearly apart from the canonical approaches, partial and
braking up the Romanian liberal phenomenon, the work of Constantin Nica is focusing in recreating the
186
BOOK REVIEWS
2
liberalism following a new perspective that of a historical and monographic description, based on practical
researches in the field of the liberal politics, truly active in promoting the Romanian modernism.
Linking to the liberal politics the fundamental moments of the Romanian social and political profile,
Constantin Nica is taking as a first idea of the study Romanian Liberalism — Theory and Practice, the fact that
the liberalism, from the Reigns devoted to the request of the social modernism and to establish an equal line
with the Occident — evolved and maturely consecrated the usage of the aristocracy searching the key to
modernize Romania, pleading for a dynamic rhythm, with the purpose to reflect the idea of cultural, political
and economical integration of the Romanian territory.
Following the same perspective as that from the first volume of Constantin Nica, the use of various social
and political works will represent the most frequent and fundamental example of the liberal action.
Taking and evaluating the substance and the meanings of the papers exposing fundamental theoretical ideas
over the modern society, reformatting political programs (revolutionary proclamations, petitions for right,
modern/European laws, Constitutions, projects constitutions, projects for social organizations, memories with
political-social essence, programs to modernize economy memories to the greatest countries, request political
skit, explanatory pamphlets, social and political press, literary works), are responding to the final decision,
taken by Constantin Nica, that of considering that “Romanian liberalism was born, evolved and was present in
social and political decisions in the XIXth century, around 1820 and towards 1890, starting from the analysis
of the degree of social development of the country of the terms of civilization and from the need to left behind
the old structure and social relations, to need to conserve and give a solid base to the relations with more
developed countries on the continent” ( Nica, Constantin, Romanian Liberalism — Theory and Practice, vol. I,
p. 261).
With the mention that such a construction will not make invisible the obvious powerful contrast between
new developments of a crucial significance in a special case those from the field of public administration
(introduced with the Organic Regulations) and the persistent oriental tradition, phenomenon existing towards
the period between the two important wars.
Let’s not forget the fact that after the administration union of the Reigns in 1862, we can notice the
fragment between the liberals. The phenomenon is more obvious in the Romanian Country where “the reds”
led by C.A. Rosetti and Brateanu, organized in centre and committees, grouped in clubs and societies from
towns and boroughs use modern methods to promote the liberalism, directing to this purpose the journal “The
Romanian”. The result: crucial concentration of the liberal aristocracy into a liberal party.
Such a procedure is characterized by Constantin Nica though the call of the typical/specific marks that will
separate, apparently in conciliatory, the classic liberalism from the mature one establishing that the later one
wore the symbol of the most important cultural and political elite exponents and of the ideologists and
enterprisers, being young “bonjurnists” of 1848, the grown ups in the rich decade of the grate reform, the
“gray-haired” (1877–1878) of the ones who have reached the eternity.
Avoiding choosing for a study that would represent the recognition of the collocation liberal elite, the
study Romanian Liberalism — Theory and Practice approves that the point of the confrontation used the first
Romanian modernism (Matei Calinescu insisted on the idea of modernism/emancipation as a constructive
confrontation between the enterprising spirit that was theorized by Max Weber and traditionalism!) is upheld
by the idea of connecting it at the European model. This is marked by capitalism assumed as a continuous
rational step, always renewed by lucrativeness. The liberals accepted it though the angle of the reforming
project, while the conservatives were receiving it carefully worried because of the background’s annihilation
and because of the dissipation of national identity. It must be mentioned that the liberalism represented in that
period of time a summary of the reforming elites’ ideas in the period of Organic Regulations of the ideology
of reforming elite from 1848 and of the much more radical aspirations from the end of the 1850s and the
beginning of the 1860s.
Such a general look on the genesis, recognition, specific features and foreign cultural inflations, allows
Constantin Nica to focus on a positive finding: traditionalism coexisting with the modern mutations that
happened on the economical and political plan at which is added the occidental importation, separating for
good the Romanian space from this traditional architecture and naming him though clues like: liberalism in the
phrase of social theory regarding emancipation, liberalism from the Principalities — genesis and founders; the
’48 movements the foundation of modern society and liberalism seen as an original structure on one side and
on the other one, sub missed to the western influence.
Without assuming any historical “theoratisation” the first volume of the Romanian Liberalism — Theory
and Practice wants to harmonize the “didacticism” perspective with “theoretical application” belonging to
liberalism, succeeding in being more an introduction than a contribution to the establishment of the liberalism’s
merits in causing the unleash of the Romanian modern phenomena according to the European rhythm and
caught inside its Zeitgeist.
The second volume proposes/asks for the prolonging of the emancipation idea of political institutions in
Romania Principalities, based mainly on the liberalism’s view over democracy parliamentary-representative.
3
BOOK REVIEWS
187
In this purpose Constantin Nica tries to mix together the political-social works of the liberal elite of the XIX
century with the “century spirit”, the Romanian democracy parliamentary-representative drew out his ideological,
axiological and institutional mark from the political regimes from the Occident.
The theoretical structure of the Romanian Liberalism — Theory and Practice (second volume) is organized
around the experience of Romania’s political emancipation, as the engine unlashed between 1821–1848, devoted
in 1858–1866, confirmed though the peculiarities of genetic nature, found functionally and dynamically at the
level of liberal democratic system in Romanian Principalities and later in Romania between 1821–1822 until
the Parliamentary system’s crush in 1938 at 11 February.
The detailed study on liberalism and democracy parliamentary representative allows Constantin Nica to
state that the symbol for Romanian modern space with which the parliamentary democracy was to develop,
replacing the old political institutions reconsidering the position of the autocratic possessive and by giving new
politic roles to the lower classes and to the people.
By setting the concept of liberal elite, Constantin Nica, establishes that such a concept becomes justified
thought the phenomena of socialization of power, though the appearance of the “centers of political decision”.
Avoiding any possible derailment in the contention of the liberal elite, the main aim of the study of
Romania liberalism is to reveal the phenomenon of their programmatic implication in history. The structure of
the Romania up-to-dateness including the agonic and constructive conflict between the tradition and the new,
will be supported, politically speaking, by the confrontation between the traditional elites and the modern,
progressive elite, confrontation that will have as background the changes of the “go on”.
But we should not forget that we cannot talk about compromise/imitation, but rather about an organic
natural process, in which the Romanian elite will be compelled by the oppression (historical, political, economic
oppression).
If the 19th century has settled the practical concept of elite of the power — as liberal prodemocratic elite
— the liberal state will name the people as the possessor of the power. With the mention that that the essence
of the parliamentary democracy was to be found in authority and legitimacy, as main features of the will of the
people, setting a new image of the political order, the liberalism proposed “the best way of governing in the
19th century, causing a series immediate and future mutations and in the spirit of its lacks, it proved to be the
best way of all the ways of governing favorable for the creation of the political and national ideal of Romanian
people, is to say that of the a better administration of the emancipation” (Constatin Nica, Romanian Liberalism
— Theory and Practice, volume II, p. 16).
Consciously analyzed, the liberal Romanian democracy required the getting over of same natural phases,
mentioned in the second volume of the study Romanian Liberalism — Theory and Practice.
Beginning, thought the 19th century in Romania, the modern democracy has functioned as an aristocratic
democracy, and the right to be chosen and to occupy the main function/offices in state was designed to the
favored, the owners of wide agrarian lands, the merchants, and the owners of industrial trades.
Such a “censitory scheme” succeeded in changing the criterion of the access to the public life and
especially to power, with new political elites associated wealth with an attested aptness. In these historical and
political coordinates, the democracy represented by the Parliament functioned and developed up to the end of
the First War World, being conditioned by the request that the Romanian model offered in a contact in which
the “culture of freedom” wasn’t present yet and the function and the aim of the middle and intermediate classes
weren’t finished actions. In the first part of the 20th century, the political class, generally and the cultural elite,
especially will act in order to change the practices of the “aristocratic democracy” with generalized political
participation and the active implication of “intermediate categories” (Constatin Nica, Romanian Liberalism —
Theory and Practice, volume II, p. 314–315).
According to these ways studying the problem, the characteristics of the Romanian modernism would be
related to elements such as: the victory of the bourgeoisie, industrialization, rationalization and utilitarianism.
On these conditions we can talk about a dual conflict: modernism (understood as aesthetic of the daily life,
manifested though refinement, contemplative values, elitism) and/or up-to-dateness as pragmatic attitude,
rationalism, lucidity, financial approximation, solid sentiments but in connection with earth, caress of the
sublime, cynicism. So by up-to-dateness we understand the Romanian political space, as a dual relationship in
which the autonomy and the self creation of the individual, the projection realized in complete freedom are
more important.
Focusing on the ingredients of formation of the Romanian modernism Constantin Nica’s study Romanian
Liberalism — Theory and Practice wants to find out up to what extend we can talk about a direct “plunge” of
our transition towards “a new and original modernism” (settled yet according to Sorin Alexandrescu in the
collocation “original democracy”), proposing either the direct assimilation of the results of the Western
modernism, or a reference of the Romanian society, though a residual identification of this backgrounds.
188
BOOK REVIEWS
4
In what concerns our up-to-dateness, liberalism and modernism are also 2 norms that modernism creates
new fix rules (of cultural and political values!) in which more important is the trust in the institutional structure
and in the impersonal procedures and which functions according to the logic of the effectiveness of a collective
mechanism. So the revolving strategy of the big parties (liberal and conservator) was also a partisan way to
evaluate any political, social and economical attitude though the articulation of some admissible information
or though the elimination (by means of a hidden censorship) of the rival speeches.
Viorella Manolache
Tendinþe actuale în filosofia politicã, Editura Institutului de ªtiinþe Politice ºi Relaþii Internaþionale,
Bucharest, 2006, 300 p.
Analysing the major tendencies of the political philosophy of the last decades, the volume Tendinþe
actuale în filosofia politicã (Current Tendencies in Political Philosophy) proposes a reading that scientifically
spreads over the “geography” of the contemporary political philosophy with a twofold movement: of
panoraming and of analysing, by means of permanent connections and references to moments of political
philosophy — studies that beyond assuming a mere statute of “table of hierarchies” are critical, participative
insights, into the contemporary political repertoire.
Such a systematic approach insists upon regaining the paradigms of the contemporary political philosophy,
setting out distinct reference points in “equations”, until recently considered theoretically duplicitous,
liberalism vs. libertarianism, philosophic comunitarianism, conservatism, the New Right Wing, “ethic” socialism.
By placing the analysis in a contemporary philosophical and political area it points out a transparent
framework, marked by the critical expansion of the protester political theories and ideologies: feminism,
ecologism, populism and neopopulism. The constant references to acknowledged studies of the philosophy of
European Integration, to economic analysis of the political phenomenon and of the present-day philosophy
concerning the political-ethical ratio, open, pluralistic, pluridisciplinary crossings with simultaneous political
implications, designating a strategy for a correct investigation of the political philosophy and of its alternatives.
The volume Current Tendencies in Political Philosophy unravels the major themes of the contemporary
political and philosophical investigation and warns over the epiphenomenon of the contemporary political
philosophy, confining itself to draw attention on two “events” engaged in a “twofold entrance” analysis report:
the balancing of the well-known paradigms of political philosophy and refocusing of the reflexive dimension
of the new ones.
Denying themselves the status of “etiquette” for the diagnosis of a developing political reality, the studies
in this volume propose a new, dynamic way of reference to the political “signs”, through their “other
contextualization”, as a solid “system of transmission”, with verified plans and attentively theorized angles of
analysis.
An approach to synthesizing and systematizing, the volume Current Tendencies in Political Philosophy
builds up a heterogeneous mixture of styles and visions, recovering its homogeneity on the strict level of
discourse, each nodular subunit study, leaving the impression of an autonomous functioning, with its specific,
particularized rhythm of presentation, designation and analysis.
Gabriela Tãnãsescu notified in “foreword” that this study’s intention was not to conceptually exhaust the
themes of the present political philosophy, but to render its thematic nuclei, relevant not only for the theoretical
dimension of the contemporary political reflection, but also for the complex manner of influence on the
present-day political life.
In an approach that nourishes the avoidance of “inventorying” the specific marks of present-day political
philosophy — the studies are not blocked up in an utilitarian intention but they indicate and organize the
functionalities of political philosophy, as long as the glosses concerning this theme are still dominated by the
hypothesis of political functioning- as a closed system, thickened by structuring schemes.
Encouraged by John Rawls’ endeavour in “A Theory of Justice”, drawn upon by some rebirth experiences
of the liberal philosophy and of the last decades’ political philosophy, the studies gathered in the volume about
Current Tendencies in Political Philosophy encourage the understanding of the new political philosophy’s
construction, drafting its strong directions, promoting and affirming new theories.
Lorena Pãvãlan Stuparu’s study, The Philosophy of the European Integration as a Pluridisciplinary
Reflection. Conceptual and Discoursive Framework, opens the collective volume, (re)building the concept of
the European integration as a “metaphysical” discourse alternative, by valorising her multiple economic,
judicial, political sciences, anthropological and cultural approaches. Such an approach is doubled by the
interpretation of the integration project as a dynamic, normative and prospective, philosophic-political, identity
and citizenly imperative. Such an approach places us on the theoretical dimension of a Europe united by its
former construction, on one side, and by its present-day notes of political reflection, on the other.
5
BOOK REVIEWS
189
Marking the difference between the present relevant modes of an attempt to theorize the role of morality
in politics and in political decision, Adela Deliu’s study, Ethical Foundations in Contemporary Political
Thought, settles the signification of the connection between ethics and international political norms. This focus
induces at the level of formal international decision, a determinant balance upon world order and upon the
regulations of the balance between states, as well as the moral dilemmas associated with those international
initiatives where responsibility is assumed at a declarative level.
Ethics and Social Justice in the Political Philosophy of the Contemporary Social Democracy propounds
the perspective of the role of social justice when “a crisis comes to an end” and the perspective of the decline
of the “modernization” of socio-democracy after the failure of Marxism as well as of the Left Wing philosophy
and political criticism. Gheorghe Lencan Stoica offers a new perspective on the Left Wing’s conception about
the notion of social statute, doubled by its fundamental principles and values in the present-day context of the
“complex society”. Grounding his study on the Liberal and Libertarian Perspectives in the American Political
Thought, on the presentation of two “philosophical artificial means” intrinsic to a “pure contractual scenario”,
Bogdan M. Popescu states that the theorizing of some notions like “the initial position” or “the veil of
ignorance” are preceded by the explicit definition of the theory of justice from a deontological perspective.
The study suggests a (re)conceptualization of the rawlsian theory, re-evaluating distinctions turned into present
debates.
Gabriela Tãnãsescu’s approach in The Political Philosophy of Communitarianism. The LiberalismCommunitarianism Dispute, subordinates itself to the idea according to which, communitarianism is diagnosed
as a “therapeutic theory”, assuming the statute of the “alternative paradigm” of liberalism. In a theoretical
approach, the study relies on the detailed presentation of the second wave of anti-liberalism, and on the
genealogy and the redefinition of the communitarian meaning, placing this analytical approach under the sign
of analicity, constructionism, relationism and interpretativeness, as a theoretical anchoring of this paradigm on
the “map of liberalism”.
In Tatiana Disparte’s opinion, the promotion of liberalism — in a traditional-liberal manner, triggers the
sphere of differences — moral or social, the liberal tradition being unable to any longer represent the vital
“technical support” for a “a vision that tries to preserve and defend the values of the past”. The study dedicated
to the American Conservatorism foregrounds the reactivation of new forms of the American conservative
space: traditional, economic, libertarian conservatorism, neoconservatorism, the religious and fundamentalist
Right Wing.
Making use of the same analytical system of the “conjunctions” — contradictions spotted in the area of
the American and British conservatorism, Gabriela Tãnãsescu’s analysis dedicated to The New Right Wing and
the British Conservatorism, grants the British conservatorism “with a gain”, by using social arguments,
doubled by cultural, identity, family, moral risks, by the risks of affecting the British institutional heritage, of
undermining the “tory paternalism”, specifying that these unstable marks are the natural result of the
adaptation of communitarian traditions to the conditions of the inherent late modernity industrial society.
Anchored to a recurrent background of analysis, Henrieta Aniºoara ªerban’s study — Current Modes of
Challenging the Instituted Power. Feminism and Ecologism, places such an approach of analysis, in the weak
context of postmodernism, as a way of reactivating and phagocytizing the marginal speeches, launched at the
footlights of public opinion, as “forms to certify personal subjectivity”. Following the foulcaultian model, the
study places these “soft ideologies”, in opposition with the “strong terms” permanently related to the
conquering of the political power, to emancipation and complaint, in a philosophical-political framework,
dislocated by its own ways of analysing the mechanisms of power.
Rãzvan Pantelimon’s study places itself in the same manner of oppositional analysis, cantered on the
concepts and practices of populism and neopopulism. These concepts are anchored in a theoretical system that
constantly operates with terms like — the merits of the providential leader, anti-bureaucratic revolution,
charismatic leader — concretely establishing their contesting nature and the attempt to reject the system and
to circumscribe a crisis of the institutions — a sign of political decadence.
The volume Current Tendencies in Political Philosophy concludes with Cristian Ion Popa’s study, as an
economic perspective on the political phenomenon. Theoretically placing itself along the line of the concepts
launched by James M. Buchanan or Anthony Downs, Cristian Ion Popa (re)launches theories like “the theory
of public elections” and of their de-structuring role, “the common good”, “the people’s will-power” “political
enterprise”, “competition for political leadership”, “the axiom of interest”, etc.
Counterbalanced by the resurgent bifocal attitudes-a global vision vs. a particularising, local vision — the
studies reunited in the volume about the Current Tendencies in Political Philosophy, are organized as signals
of the philosophical-political projects, achieving a mediated reconciliation of the theory with its applied
function. Closely interdependent, the two “signs” of analysis appear in the theoretical deconstruction and
reconstruction of the new strategies of the contemporary political philosophy. This is not an exhausting
philosophical-political strategy but an adequate one in order to reopen debates and to clarify the rhythm of the
political philosophy in the present attempt to recover its conditions of legitimacy.
190
BOOK REVIEWS
6
Construction and deconstruction in American contemporary philosophy, Coord. Angela Botez,
Aniºoara ªerban, Marius Drãghici, The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest,
2006
Preoccupied with drawing the “hard lines” of contemporary American philosophy, the volume Construction
and deconstruction in American contemporary philosophy is tributary to the obvious intention to capture a
structured image of the seven dimensions of American contemporary philosophy as “landmarks” for its
possible positioning on the pragmatism-transcendentalism-consciousness philosophy-neopragmatism
postmodern route. Such a reinstatement of the qualities of American contemporary philosophy becomes the
demand of this volume, organised on the model of an objective and critical laboratory, dealing collaterally with
the marginal attention given to the “made in USA” philosophy, unfairly ignored in Romania.
The volume Construction and deconstruction in american contemporary philosophy mixes and thematises
the decisive effects of American contemporary philosophy, depicting landmarks such as: Trends and currents
in the American philosophy, Pragmatism and neopragmatism, The Philosophy of the mind, Logic and
Philosophy of science, Postmodernism and hermeneutics, Perspectives in moral and social-political
philosophy, Interdisciplinarity and communication
According to the warning launched by Angela Botez, such an initiative is relevant both for the
development of philosophic and scientific research, and for the socio-political evolution in Romania. The ideas
of American contemporary philosophy can stimulate a philosophy based on pragmatism and efficiency,
proposing a holist perspective that conceives of science, morality, religion and politics in close connection to
liberalism and pragmatism as typical trademarks of human progress be it on a global or individual scale.
According to the perspective brought forward by Angela Botez “for having an understanding of the
perspectives comprising the contemporary American philosophic conceptions, it is necessary to know the real
complexity of pragmatism and transcendentalism, following a holist route from Edwards to Dewey. The
contemporary American philosophic conception does not impose the end of philosophy, but imposed
pragmatism as public American philosophy”.
The studies collected in the volume Construction and deconstruction in American contemporary
philosophy hesitate, in a less than innocent manner, between theoretical and/or pragmatic commitments to a
highlighting of the essential dimensions of American contemporary philosophy, premeditatedly giving the
impression of a redistribution of the points of view launched by the Romanian authors, on the one hand, and
by the American authors (in Romanian translation), on the other hand.
The diagnosis and osmosis of the landmarks of American contemporary philosophy as operated by Mircea
Flonta, Alexandru Boboc, Liubomira Miroº, Gabriel Nagâþ, Dan Laurenþiu Biºa, Viorel Pâslaru, Adrian Niþã,
Bogdan Popescu, Eduard Barbu, Ilie Pârvu, Mircea Dumitru, Marius Drãghici, Henrieta Aniºoara ªerban,
Vasile Morar, Victor Popescu, Eric Gilder, Vasile Macoviciuc, Viorel Miulescu sau Viorel Zaicu, sustained by
the informal translation of American authors, illustrates not only the stage and the study of American
contemporary philosophy but also the “strategy” of a systematic articulation and balancing of perspectives and
dimensions in the American philosophical construction and deconstruction.
Such a furthering of the American philosophic perspective distancing itself from any gratuitous, boring
and mostly useless approach, since the volume is organised on the transtrav model (be it even a postmodern
phenomenon!) as a successful attempt to pin down analytical perspectives simultaneously, while still keeping
its real dimensions. The transplant of American contemporary philosophical ideas is, according to Angela
Botez’s warning, filtering and signalling pragmatism and neopragmatism, like a post-surgery action towards
the fundamental directions and the metamorphoses produced and proposed by James, Peirce, Dewey, Mead,
Rorty, Putnam, Sellars, Searle, Paul de Man, Calvin O.Schrag, J.Sallis etc., etc.
Initiated by texts signed by John Searle, E. McMullin, John Sallis, Barry Smith, Richard Rorty, Mircea
Florian or H.R. Castaneda, chapter 1 brings forward a double perspective, detailing the inner mechanisms of
the American philosophic route/direction, inspired both by the ancient Greek philosophic sources, and by the
modern and contemporary European philosophic ones, by articulating existence and experience, in a context
that invites discussions about phenomenology and liberal philosophy.
The second chapter explores the American pragmatism and its transformations sustained through
neopragmatism in the studies signed by Al. Boboc and Liuba Miloº. According to Gabriel Nagâþ, pragmatism
relied on Empiricism as a philosophic landmark that influenced the whole modern era, Dan L. Biºa adding as
an essential attribute of American pragmatism the notion of truth, while Viorel Pâslaru furthers the
neopragmatic theme, as a notion situated on/within the co-ordinates of emergence.
If chapter 3 focuses on aspects of the mind and consciousness (D. Rosenthal, Roy Sorensen, A. Niþã,
Bogdan Popescu, Eduard Barbu), chapter 4 chooses studies that shed light on such notions as Logic and the
Philosophy of science.
Chapter 5 is dedicated to postmodernism and hermeneutics, investigating the hermeneutics’ relationship
to the philosophy of science and the latter’s relationship to phenomenology as the effect of the crisis of
BOOK REVIEWS
7
191
rationality and of the subject. The landmarks of contemporary American postmodernism are analysed as
related to Fukuyama’s demand, according to which “the postmodern type loads with the pragmatism and
relativism specific to the analytic philosophy used for the latter half of the century, while the quasi-economic
type meets the new premises of anthropology and sociology”. Such an analysis brings to the foreground the
“problem of being” approached from the perspective of the articulating character of the ontological hermeneutic
gesture. According to H.A.ªerban’s study, the interest American postmodernism takes in polymorphism and
deconstruction explains, to a large extent, the inclusion of contemporary philosophy into the “continental
philosophy” typology.
While opting for an area of interest focusing on moral and socio-political philosophy, chapter 6 deals
mainly with scientific image and the debates around it, such an approach giving Victor Popescu the opportunity
to go into the details of American philosophy from a social-axiological standpoint.
Chapter 7 emphasizes the interdisciplinary character of American contemporary philosophy, choosing to
situate semiotics, the possible ontologies of subjectivity, of the end of history and of confrontation and
dialogue within the global society, in a philosophical system open to such interdisciplinary landmarks.
Delineating the seven qualities of construction and deconstruction in American philosophy the volume
Construction and deconstruction in american contemporary philosophy limits itself to an analytical diagnosis
of this continuum of American contemporary philosophy in its attempt to self-determination, the studies
bringing to the foreground not so much the “clarifications” of such an attempt but a diagnosis of its trend
towards postmodern deconstruction. The volume answers a so far unfulfilled challenge, that of looking, in a
serious and uninhibited analytical debunking manner, at the landmarks of contemporary American philosophy,
with its postmodern brand and particularities. The qualities of the new American philosophical paradigm are
thought to be influenced by the ability of the American philosophical construction to decisively separate itself
from the “exhausted philosophic models”, an attempt re-biographised and mapped out in the volume
Construction and deconstruction in american contemporary philosophy.
Face to face with each other, the studies/translations of the Construction and deconstruction in american
contemporary philosophy volume outline within open analytical circuits a different perspective on American
contemporary philosophy as a philosophical project full of retrieving conceptualisations and decisive
experiments of distancing itself from modernity. Mention should be made that novelty and experiment are
backed up by matching (and equally new) attempts of American contemporary philosophy to get free from the
verdict of an eternal gap between itself and the European philosophic models.
Viorella Manolache
Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu
Intelectualii în câmpul puterii. Morfologii ºi traiectorii sociale, Iaºi, Polirom, 2007, 353 p.1
The above mentioned book offers to readers the opportunity to confront themselves with what the author
himself specified as: “the x-ray photograph from a sociological perspective of the successive transformations
of the intellectuals as elite group in two societies of the ‘really existing socialism’, Eastern Germany and
Romania, in the second half of the 20th century: relations with the main competing groups (the exile), as well
as elaborated ideological codes for legitimating their power of representation” (the back cover).
The author is convinced that the social history is the one that could solve the crisis of the sociology and
history after 1989, which were reduced to “caricature representations of their own vocation: the first — reduced
to the survey technique, and the second — reduced to searching the truth in documents from archives” (p. 11).
That is why, based on his research of this issue, which covered a period of twenty years, Mihai Dinu
Gheorghiu offers in a socio-graphical manner (of describing the institutions and biographies in the context of
the theoretical analysis starting from concepts and hypotheses) a panoramic view of the problem of the staff
and elite belonging to the ‘really existing socialism’, focusing on the formation of the party intellectuals and
on the symbolic power and also on the writers’ political power. (This second aim of the book is connected to
the author’s early preoccupations for literary criticism and interest for “the history of the fight of intellectuals
for autonomy” (p. 11). These preoccupations lead him to research the sociology of intellectuals and culture).
As a result, in the bulky Introduction about staff and elites, Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu describes the way in
which the research began in Eastern Germany regarding the party schools as “schools of power” for the
established nomenclature and party intellectuals at the same time, namely achieving “the specific
——————
1 Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu, Intelectualii în câmpul puterii. Morfologii ºi traiectorii sociale (The
Intellectuals In The Field Of Power. Morphologies And Social Trajectories), Iaºi, Polirom, 2007, 353 p. (plus
the bibliography 379 p.) References to this book — in the text.
192
BOOK REVIEWS
8
equivalencies between the cultural capital and the political one” (p. 15). The author starts from the assumption
to analyse the concrete historical determination of theories and “fore-notions” of the domain, that is to say the
“re-historicising of different concepts and theories” (p. 16). This methodological specification is even more
important today when a tendency (of a neo-dogmatic Stalinism with a modified sign) to agree the selected data
with the concepts which are considered as fixed and indubitably true in a trans-historical sense, namely
reducing the concepts to the current mainstream clichés, still exists. In this sense, the introduction enumerates
different historical schools which have interpreted — most of the times in a politicised manner –the age
(“Totalitarianism” and “modernisation”, p. 20–22) and the phenomenon of party schools. One can note the
empirical studies following “sociological” variables (the inverted commas belong to the author, p. 23) on the
party staff, as well as the autobiographies and the bildungsroman of the staff, before and after 1989.
What is important is, through referring to the most reliable bibliographic sources on this issue, the
emphasis of the contradictions inside the analysed concepts: vanguards, elites, staff in relation with the class
— or with the “popular classes” (p. 26) —, the fiction of the symbolic connection between caste and class, the
domination and circulation manner of the elites, the status of the staff within the vanguard made up from party
members. It is necessary to notice that the status of party member was not only eroded in moments of political
crisis but also “trivialised as a result of the considerable extension of the party apparatus and of the
generalisation of the party teaching system which had included every population category; an even more
powerful trivialisation taking into consideration that the political de-differentiation process was more
important” (p. 28).
The author considered “the strategy of academic elevation of the party teaching system to be an academic
process, a strategy of primitive accumulation of cultural and symbolic capital, representing the equivalent of
the primitive socialist accumulation in economy” (p. 29). In 1. and 2. of Part I. The education of the party
intellectual, the description of this process take place on the basis of discussing the sociology of elites in the
countries of the ‘really existing socialism’ after 1989, as well as the stages and the significance of the change
occurred in 1989 regarding the altering of the elites and, of course, on the basis of the exposure of the
sociologic methods used, before anything else the comparative one, (in the Eastern Germany and Romania
party schools, but also in other countries of the former communist system, as noticed in the bibliography).
In Part I. ..., after presenting a history of the party schools, carried on from a sociological perspective (1.
The party teaching system from a historical perspective), the issue of the academic recognition of the party
educational system emphasises the fact that “the “academic” history of the party schools is thus a direct effect
of the de-Stalinization process: that of the condemning Stalin’s self-destructing violence, directed towards his
own party, but also the organisation of the neo-Stalinist intellectual processes, which were put an end to
reforms” (p. 20–121). But contemporary with the academic recognition of the party schools, were also the
ideological processes of the party intellectuals. These have marked “the disappearance of the militant
intellectual, to whose establishment the communist parties had contributed, subsequently leading to the
outlining of an alternative image, stated in the following decades, the image of the dissident intellectual”. (AB,
I would say that the cycle of the mainstream intellectual in the countries of the former “socialist” system
continues with the right-wing anti-communist intellectual, which also means the rejection, as obsolete, of the
humanist militant intellectual, in the name of “neutralism” whose origin can be discovered also in the
predominance of the analytic Anglo-Saxon philosophy in the field of (Romanian) philosophy after 1989 (but
basically also before 1989). “The condemnation of the heretics (for deviationism) sanctioned the incapacity of
the doctrine to renew itself from within, from its own resources” (p. 121). (AB: why the doctrine, and not the
Stalinist system? The doctrine concept here is correctly used only if we understand it as Stalinist doctrine. But
the formulation allows for conclusions regarding Marx’s doctrine as well.)
The book is not only captivating because it offers a rigorous analysis of the issues mentioned above
(including emphasising the importance of the behaviour – visible in the description of the various members of
the teaching body of party schools – but also because it analyses, due to the logic of exposure, extremely
important theoretical problems for the field of philosophy and social sciences (ideological processes of
philosophers in DGR, the debates related to Hegel and Nietzsche). From this point of view the inference
between the political processes and the Stalinist control over ideology is exemplary, and on the other hand, the
framework (the limits) of philosophy: “the main perverse effect of the political processes in the 1950’s and of
the institutionalised censorship was the consolidation of the dependency of any innovation in philosophy and
in social sciences towards the loans received from the Occident...” (p. 128). But it is also noticeable, as
compensation for the Stalinist closure of social theory, “a shy opening of the empirical social sciences, and
especially of sociology” (p. 131).
But the “return to a political economy of command” marked the decline of the sociological studies and
research... beginning with the mid 1970’s” (p. 142).
Chapters: 3. Structural changes: from the political teaching system to the private one and 4. The lives of
the school and the re-conversion after 1989, in Part I, offer a clear and revealing perspective — which was
needed — on the evolution of the didactic personnel from party schools, as well as on the evolution of the
BOOK REVIEWS
9
193
schools themselves. It is difficult to select a topic, in the space provided by a review, from all the mentioned
issues. Nevertheless I cannot omit from chapter 3. the issue of the structural changes in the inter-socialist
university framework, as well as the reversal of the migrating waves, all discussed from a sociological
approach. Thus, if the “studies in USSR (had become) one of the main ways of educating the new elite”
(p. 157), “with the growth of the autonomy of the national schools markets” (p. 158) the inter-socialist
university framework has become varied. It was marked by the economic and political position that the
countries — inside the “socialist” system — occupied, and also by the fact that “the recruitment criteria for
obtaining a state scholarship which made possible living abroad, implied connections with the bureaucratic
system, thus making political loyalty one of the main conditions for success, the effect being the strengthening
of the bureaucratic control over people’s careers...” (p. 160). If, starting with 1990, the place of destination of
the waves of students was the Occident,” an expansion of Western type pattern of political sciences and
management and administration sciences towards East also took place” (p. 166), as well as the autonomy of
universities and private universities.
Related to the re-conversion of the former political management personnel, it was quite successful in the
private economy, as well as, in limited number, at governmental level and as civil servants of certain international
organisations. But the economical regime of the former elites is differentiated: first of all because of the
country — for example in Germany the pensions obtained before the unification were larger in amount and
were kept this way through the respective clause of the reunification treaty — and secondly because of the
interference with other criteria. Anyway, together with “the precarious survivals” of the elder population it took
place a certain, week, integration of the few capable ones “the practice of the continuous self-promotion”
(p. 193) within the ranks of the new intellectual elites.
On the ground of the discouragement due to the new moral order, within the former elites differentiations
had taken place: some considered that critical takings of stand towards the past would be mere acts of
opportunism (p. 201), being incapable of a critical retrospective view (p. 188), while others have insisted on
the opposition between the critical intellectual — manifested even before 1989 — and the obedient party
intellectual (p. 204–205). Finally, here, by continuing the method of biographies and interviews, the author
emphasised the distance between the new elites connected to the party, which in Germany, represented a
certain continuation of the themes supported by the leading party and the dominant ideology before 1989, and
on the other hand the common militants.
After an Addendum referring to the excellence centres concerned with socio-humanist sciences and their
insertion in the emerging scientific communities in Eastern Europe — where the concepts of excellence, elite
institutions and the history and typology of the excellence centres in general and those in socio-humanist
sciences in particular are being analysed, and where the issues and contradictions, noticed even by the social
sciences researchers, are emphasised — the author ends this first part of the book with a concluding chapter
about the party schools and the social-political academies as total and bastard institutions. If these institutions
corresponded to some contradictory functions — of ensuring “an ascending mobility to certain fractions of the
popular classes” and that of ensuring the control and the consolidation of the political power in favour of the
single party (p. 237) — therefore to the characteristics of total institutions, but also bastard institutions, the
competition of the state universities but also the visible tendency, in the 1970’s, of the state schools education
system of the ‘really existing socialism’ to re-establish the differences between elites and the others, have
underlined the strengthening of the second function of party schools in the entire period: “the schools
represented instruments of political mobilisation, whilst the academic type of legitimisation strengthened the
political socialisation of the students” (p. 245). And after 1989, “a part of the new managerial elite of the
1990’s” (p. 246) originated precisely from these schools.
If the first Part of the book is important especially for the researchers in socio-human sciences, the second
Part, The symbolic and political power of writers, is interesting, not only for the above mentioned researchers
but also for the protagonists of the research described in this part of the work. Unfortunately we only have
enough room so as to mention a few of the analysed themes: literary and political ideologies, the international
institutions of the literary field, exile, dissidence and the “second culture”, the crisis of the institutions of
consecration in the Romanian literary field, the modification of the ideological codes in the Romanian
literature after 1989, the time of prophecies, the new structures, the politicisation of intellectuals, the
establishers of the new moral order.
We cannot refrain from referring to the issue of the new ideologies after 1989. The author underlined that
“the social differentiation fights which accompany the appearance of the new elites super-determines the neoliberal type of discourse as well as its “extremist” and “plotting” opposite in the new ideological field of
production” (p. 327). An example of consensus between the two extremes is represented by the ideological
brainwashing operations, i.e. by the creation of the new myths, like the myth around Nae Ionescu. Regarding
Nae Ionescu, the author resumes the conclusions of George Voicu2’s analysis: the complicity between the
——————
2 George Voicu, Mitul Nae Ionescu (The Nae Ionescu Myth), Bucharest, Ars Docendi, 2000.
194
BOOK REVIEWS
10
former censors of the “communist period” and the new supporters (p. 329); but he also notices the double
“extremist discourse, the ordinary fascist one as well as the elitist one, which sometimes claim to be apolitical
or even liberal and pro-occidental” (p. 330).
The great problem, from a sociological point of view, is the “accelerated social mobility, the numerous
situations of conversion and re-conversion, political, religious or professional (which) contrast the manifested
inertia of behaviour and of the ‘mentalities’ manifested through a variety of forms of resistance to the change”
(p. 334–335). This precise issue represented the aim of the book.
Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu’s research is not only concerned with deciphering the mechanisms of establishing
the political elites inside the ‘really existing socialism’ — and in this sense, the criticism of the literature after
1989 regarding this issue and the framework provided by the political regime — but also the re-conversion of
the former political elites after 1989.
I kept in mind the emphasising of the continuation of relationships — of trust and complicity — not only
of those of the former party schools, or of the various generations belonging to these schools, but also the ones
in the structures of state academic legitimisation in the university education system as well as in institutions
with political connections. I do not consider this continuation to be diabolical: simply, the new academic power
networks have the same characteristic of group, closed and refractory to the officially accepted criteria of
excellence. It is about the constitution of the same bureaucratic and elitist intellectual system — so not
necessary formed by real elites — specific to the historical systems up to now.
Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu’s book is not an essay, but a scientific paper, scrupulously carried out. In this
respect, it does not reveal “the secrets” of concrete ascension of concrete3 post-revolutionary intellectuals —
this ascension is explained as the decline of “the two dominant intellectual figures (in Stalinism) — the
prophetic and the politicizsd intellectual — in the benefit of a competing figure: that of the expert and media
exposed intellectual” (p. 344) — but it demonstrates, by the means of criticism of the theory and concrete
research, how the political elites were created and that, if intellectuals have been politicised and used as
instruments, after 1989 one can also notice an aggressive process of politicising and transforming the
intellectuals into instruments, by using new means, of course. Today there is also a mainstream, made up of
the former right-wing anticommunist dissidents, which has imposed “the institutions or the commissions
entrusted with conserving the social memory of the recent history” (p. 344) and “a new ideological literature
about the historical and political ‘process of communism’” (p. 348). Describing motifs of this literature —
manifested as “the distance towards the old institutions, repudiating the ‘communist’ political and intellectual
model (as) a proof of adhering to the new moral and political order” (p. 349), “the washing away of the
collective and individual past” (p. 350), the inconsistency in evaluating fascism and anti-Semitism —, the
books reveals the fact that the “neo-conservatory ideology has quickly set itself up behind the façade of liberal
politics” (p. 351).
This is a book about a structural aspect belonging to the recent past. The book equally underlines a
continuity of the polarisation in the field of power, as well as of the separation of the political intellectuals from
the values in which they cover themselves4 (before — the communist values of a better world, more just for
everyone, of social equality; today — the values of democracy, human rights and pluralism). But the
discontinuity, detected in the “breaking away with the past” processes, is also present: the manifested elitism
(unlike the hidden one), the occidental type (extremist — p. 330) neo-conservatory tendencies were grasped
in the dominant intellectual discourses; the re-conversion and the mobilisation of intellectuals by economic and
political pluralist mechanisms, the establishing of competing aggressive groups, (the Stalinist type) neo-conservatory
tendencies were detected in the discourse of the losers. Anyway, “the aesthetisation of the political discourse
as sign of ‘high culture’ opposes the rigor and the precision of the reasoning process” (p. 332).
The critical analysis of every type of dogmatism — the Stalinist one as well as that of the “brave new
world” — under the circumstances that the intellectual market is clearly dominated by the latter, is an act of
intellectual integrity and civic courage. Could one say that this analysis took place because too much evidence
of the limitation of closed thought has already been gathered? This evidence has an indisputable power of
suggestion. Nonetheless, we should notice the position, constantly unique and unrepeatable, of the creator: the
author of the book in question, Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu, was a dissident, who emigrated in France and then later
——————
3 As Adrian Gavrilescu masterfully does in Noii precupeþi. Intelectualii publici din România de dupã 1989
(The New Petty Traders. Public Intellectuals In Romania After 1989), Bucharest, Compania, 2006 (see the
significant titles: the Media-cracy and the vulgarisation through mass-media, “the Intello-crats” and the corrupt
ethics, Public intellectuals as political annalists, Public intellectuals who write books and manage publishing
houses, Public intellectuals who write for magazines and comment on screen, Public intellectuals enjoy
television as guest or as producers, Public intellectuals devise surveys and write editorials).
4 It is the old separation between the legitimising values of a system based on power relations, and on the
other hand, the power structures (the structural relations and the social relations.)
11
BOOK REVIEWS
195
became quite exterior to the phenomenon of the Romanian exile, preferring not to renounce to the deontology
of criticism (therefore including the assumptions considered by some as being taboo) and working in present
as researcher (Centre de Sociologie Européenne, Paris) and as professor at the Faculty of Psychology and
Educational Sciences in “A.I. Cuza” University in Iaºi.
As a last observation: the research regarding the “practical” aspect leaves open the necessity to progress
into, what I call, the critical social theory, i.e. in the understanding of the ‘really existing socialist’ system —
and not only in the understanding of the political regime, or surpassing the impression that the system and the
political regime would be equivalent — of its articulations and its values. After 1989, especially the social
theory is suffering: through the annulment of its usefulness by the new political intellectuals, the “winners”
who legitimised themselves precisely with this Manichean description — within institutions, political reports
and (subsidised) materials — of the former political regime (equivalent to the system) only in terms of crimes,
victims and torturers. It is an à rebours Stalinism and Mihai Dinu Gehorghiu’s book contributes to its
deciphering and overcoming.
Ana Bazac
Noam Chomsky
Failed States. The Abuse of power and the Assault on Democracy, Metropolitan Books, New
York, 2006, 311 p.
The book is structured to sustain the argument of the author portraying the United States as a failed state.
In this respect Failed States is a very interesting book for the realist international relations were criticism of
both the United Nations and the United States is necessary. On the other hand, the book may be perceived as
yet another conspiracy theory book, seraching editorial success while damaging the image of the greatest
power of the world as main fighter for installing and preserving democracy on the international scene.
The author’s daring stance is that intellectuals should acknowledge the growing democratic deficit
introduced by the United States into the world and “at home”. N. Chomsky states: “The concept of democracy
promotion at home may seem odd or even absurd. After all, the United States was the first modern (more or
less) democratic society, and has been a model for others ever since. And in many dimensions crucial for
authentic democracy — protection of freedom of speech, for example — it has become a leader among the
societies of the world. (...) The concern is not unfamiliar. The most prominent scholar who concentrates on
democratic theory and practice, Robert Dahl, has written on seriously undemocratic features of the US political
system, proposing modifications. Thomas Ferguson’s “investment theory” of politics is a searching critique of
deeper institutional factors that sharply restrict functioning democracy.” (p. 207) Then, at the same page, the
author underlines that besides the institutional factors that are creating the deficit of democracy there are also
other important factors damaging the democratic activity of the government, and first of all is the activity of
the US media. “The same is true of Robert McChesney’s investigations of the role of the media in undermining
democratic politics, to the extent that by the year 2000 presidential elections had become a “travesty”, he
concludes, with a reciprocal effect on deterioration of media quality and service to the public interest.”Another
extremely important factor is the concentration of private power, as the author explains: “Subversion of
democracy by concentrations of private power is, of course, familiar: mainstrearn commentators casually
observe that “business is in complete control of the machinery of government” (Robert Reich), echoing
Woodrow Wilson’s observation, days before he took office, that “the masters of the government of the United
States are combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States.” He quotes John Dewey, considered
America's leading twentieth-century social philosopher, with “politics is the shadow cast on society by big
business” and considers that the situation of the US and if the world will remain so as long as power resides
in “business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforce? by command of the
press, press agents and other means of publicit and propaganda.” (p. 208)
The central question of the book is: “How can meaningful democracy be brought?” His answer is that
reforms will not suffice, but there is compulsory fundamental social change. He incriminates “the new spirit
of the age” and the lack of ethics of the big corporations that are enjoying the rights of the people and numerous
business advantages without getting themselves involved in supporting charitable and educational causes.
Image, profit and market share are the key words of the moment and the hidden essence of politics, shaping a
political system that has too little ressemblance with the original one, created by the founding fathers. Yet, even
back then — Chomsky reminds us all — James Madison, was already making clear that power should be held
in the hands of “the wealth of the nation ... the more capable set of men (...) People "without property, or the
hope of acquiring it,” Madison reflected at the end of his life, “cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently
with its rights, to be safe depositories of power over them.” (p. 209)
196
BOOK REVIEWS
12
In conclusion, since the founding fathers framed the United States until today, the rights are not those of
property, which has no rights, but of property owners, who therefore should have extra rights beyond those of
citizens generally. There is a determination to protect minorities against majority that Chomsky underlines and
interprets in its serious consequences resulting in the democratic deficit. “While popular struggle over
centuries has gained many victories for freedom and democracy, progress does not follow a smooth upward
trajectory. There has been a regular cycle of progress under popular pressure, followed by regression as power
centers mobilize their considerable forces to reverse it, at least partially. Though over time the “cycle tends to
be upward, sometimes regression reaches so far that the population is almost completely marginalized in
pseudo-elections, most recently mirrored in the “travesty” of 2000 elections and the even more extreme
travesty of 2004. Instead of democracy, the United States are experiencing and exporting a “corporatized state
capitalist democracy”, a deficitary democracy, going from bad to worse given the current Bush administration
policies. The fierce critique of Bush administration led the author to create the phrase “demonic messianism”
in order to explain the propagandistic ingredient that sustains this sort of “democracy for the rich” — the
messianism. He says: “Demonic messianism is a natural device for leadership groups that are at the extreme
of the spectrum in their dedication to the short-term interests of narrow sectors of power and wealth, and to
global domination. It takes willful blindness not to see how these commitents guide current US policy. The
goals pursued and programs enacted are opposed by the public in case after case. That impels the need for mass
mobilization, employing the skills of the huge industries that have been created in a business-run society to
influence attitudes and beliefs.” (p. 213)
The author’s dedication for democracy is reflected both in his criticism and in the suggestions he proposes
as solutions for the deficit for democracy: (1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and
the World Court; (2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; (3) let the UN take lead of the international
crises; (4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; (5) keep
to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter; (6) give up the Security Council veto and have “a decent
respect for the opinion of the mankind” as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centers
disagree; (7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending. He underlines: “For
people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear to be the opinions of
the majority of the US population. (...) To be sure, we cannot be very confident about the state of public opinion
on such matters because of another feature of the democratic deficit: the topics scarcely enter into public
discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomized society, the public is therefore largely
deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions.” (p. 262)
Angela Botez
Filosofia mentalului. Izvoare. Teorii. Autori, Bucureºti, Editura Floare albastrã, 2006, 272 p.
Within the effort of assessing and reinterpreting the place and the role of the human ego in the political
sciences the philosophy of mind can provide useful theories. From this perspective, Angela Botez’s book is an
extremely valuable source.
The volume is structured in five parts: “Introduction to the philosophy of mind”, “The history of the the
philosophy of mind and conscience”, “Interviews with philosophers of mind” and “Romanian philosophers on
mind and conscience”. By the end of this volume the researcher can find a study about “Philosophers of mind
who have published in Romania”, a substantial bibliography, an abstact in English, and a section of illustrations.
The book examines the history of mind philosophy views, the integrative concepts that could be considered
central to mind philosophy — intentionality, supervenience and reliability — the new trends of mind philosophy,
for instance, the “anomalous monism” proposed by Donald Davidson, the reductionists and the non-reductionists
representatives of the field, and the three main direction of investigation in mind philosophy (the cognitive
science, the mind-body relationship and the mental representation).
The author not only investigates the history of mind philosophy views to offer a string of perspectives and
names, but also identifies the forerunners of the contemporary philosophy of mind given certain concepts and
methods they use (for instance, Occam with the language of the mind, Descartes with the mind-matter dualism,
Wundt with the psychomental processes and their paris, Wittgenstein with the game of language and of the
forms of life, Ramsey with the functionalist theory of belief) and underlines the elements of the philosophy of
mind at various Romanian philosophers (as C. Rãdulescu-Motru, L. Blaga, M. Florian, and S. Odobreja).
This volume offers a clear perspective over the main trends under debate within this field: eliminative
materialism and anomalistic monism, naturalism, physicalism and functionalism1; mentalism and emergentist
——————
1 The author explains that according to this trend the mind is part of the natural world as a function of the
corporeal.
13
BOOK REVIEWS
197
holism2, connectionism3, contextualism4, cognitivism5 and constructivism6. The author proposes other subjects
that should be taken into a further consideration within the discussions of the field: externalism, reliabilism,
internalism, neutralism, and the more complex theory of identity and unity concerning the constitution of the
mental and the physical.
Angela Botez selects the personalities explicitly representing this discipline, including: Stawson, Ryle, Searle,
Davidson, Sellars, Block, Fodor, Churchland, Dennet, Hacker, Honderich, Putnam, Nozick, Pollock, Papineau,
Rorty, Mellor, Wilkes, Parfit, Sperry, Harre, Mclntyre, Crane and others. Extremely useful for the students and
young scholars is also the mentioning of a number of leading reviews on the philosophy of mind and cognitive
science that are being published, such as: Mind, Mind and Machines, Philosophical Psychology, Philosophy
and Psychology.
Contextualism is also interesting for political philosophy, describing the interpretations from the
philosophy of language emphasising the context in which action, utterance, or expression occur, at the same
time sustaining that, for the most part, they can only be understood in relation to that context. Contextualist
views are quite common in political analysis. They hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as
“being true” or “being right”, “meaning P” or “knowing that P,” only have meaning relative to a specified
context. From an epistemological point of view, knowledge can always be accounted for in relevant alternative
manners, according to a certain context. In political ethics, “contextualist” views are most closely associated
with situational ethics, moral relativism, the criticism of postmodernism.
Angela Botez capitalizes on another concern of contemporary philosophy of mind, the problem of mental
representation, that it is considered also central to political philosophy and to the theory of democracy. She
explains: “Conscience and representative thinking are two of the essential themes of the philosophy of mind:
how can a mechanism (even a psychological and not a physical one) become conscious and how can one think
about and form representations of things outside it. The philosophers of mind therefore focus on the idea of
representation. It is directily related to the life of the spirit. Uttered and written words, images, signs, symbols,
gestures, mimicry are representations in everyday life, they signify things and events; the question is, how is
this done? On the one hand, they seem to have a natural origin, on the other hand they are themselves physical
structures — vibrations of the air, movements, material signs, etc. Although they seem natural, from the
philosophical viewpoint representations carry a mysterious load that combines the concepts of time, truth and
existence. Currently, a very strong position among the philosophers is held by antirepresentationism, illustrated
by Polanyi, Rorty, and the schools of social constructivism and of epistemological relativism.” (p. 255) This
schools have become lately a lot more relevant for disciplines that are distinct from the philosophy of mind,
as are the political sciences. Thus, philosophy of mind can be seen as a relatively new philosophical “threasure
chest” of concepts and trends for the mainstream political sciences.
Henrieta ªerban
Ana Bazac (editor)
Comunicarea politicã: repere teoretice ºi decizionale (The Political Communication: Theoretical
and Decision Guiding Marks), Bucureºti, Editura Vremea, 2006, 384 p.
Even though we are living in a new era, when fascism, Stalinism and other forms of personal, governmental
and clan dictatorship are in process of disappearing, the final point of the ideological evolution of the human
race and the universality of the Western type, liberal democracy as supreme manner of the human governing,
still remains an open question.
If it were not the case, the theory and practices of mass media, described in the present work, should be
considered as being the ultimate and absolute stage of the political communication.
The explosion of information offered by mass media, and especially by Internet, produces the integration
and socialisation of that Aristotle’s, but also contemporaneous zoon politikon.
This fact doesn’t exclude the role of the political communication in the transmission on several voices of
the information and political messages in the form of “puzzles of nets” in permanent change.
——————
2 The major claim here is that mental existence differs from the physical one and has both a psycho-linguistic
structure and an intentional behaviour.
3 The mental acts are the result of internal neuronal connections with parallel nodal structures.
4 The mental acts result from the influence of the environment on the subject.
5 All mental acts are of a cognitive nature.
6 Cognitive and social factors interact in the construction of mental acts.
198
BOOK REVIEWS
14
By pointing out, au fond, the crisis of the political system in its entirety, the studies aimed also to discern
between ideal types and the description of real processes. In this respect, the studies put, explicitly and
implicitly, many questions as: how much important is the form (or spectacle) of the political communication
than the content of the message? Is really the focus on the role of the public opinion as dominant opinion not
substituting the questioning of the formation of the opinion as dominated one? And should really the estimation
at the consequences of the non-alignment to this formation not to be had in view when one insists on the role
of the imitation and psychology of conformism to the public opinion? (p. 14) To say it by paraphrasing C.W.
Mills (The Power Elite, 1956), “the political communication is structured around the power relations” (p. 16).
The comprehension of the political communication as “part of the leadership process itself”, as interface
between leaders and the population, as “stratum” of the political relations, raises many problems: how the
“emission” of the decisions takes place, but also how the political class’ messages towards the audiences
happen? What kind of power have “the mediators” between the leaders and the population? How important are
the media of communication for the change of the political opinions? These interrogations were at the bottom
of the researches included in the volume, has Ana Bazac insisted in the Introduction (p. 17).
The aim of the research in the domain the book focuses on was therefore endorsing “the dialectics of the
process of political communication linked to the dialectics of the process of political leadership” (p. 18). The
conclusion, apparently general, to which the coordinator of volume arrived, is that “not the simply transmitterreceiver relationship explains the political communication, but the complex existing and entailing it in
upstream and the complex consequences in downstream, as well as its internal pattern: the political leadership
in different concrete-historical hypostases... The stake of political communication, and especially of the new
types of vertical communication is just the “impression of sincerity” of the transmitters and, consequently, what
is the objective of the political communication: “the credibility of the leaders” (p. 29).
Structured in three parts, the researches brought together in the book offered a multidisciplinary approach,
by including the premise of self-criticism and conscience of the inherent limits of the discussed standpoints.
The first part presents, from a philosophical perspective: the notions of information and communication,
and the debates about them in the professional literature; the cognitive approach of informatics and artificial
intelligence (AI) on the political communication; the setting-up of different philosophical polarities as objectives
of research: human being-world, individual-ambiance, human being-machine, nature-culture, cerebral
features-mental structure, the limit of the understanding of the infinite flux of information-the integration of
the AI systems in the informational society. Inside the same preliminary analysis, the history of the constitution
of the science of information was doted from the perspective of the library, to which Borges has dedicated his
entire life. With theirs studies — “Model and information” (G.G. Constandache), “The information science”
(Elena Târziman), „The information society in fact and the knowledge society in act” (Cãtãlin loniþã) — the
authors tried to decipher the origins and historical evolution of the political communication under the impact
of the development of information technologies and, implicitly, of social information sciences.
In the second part of the collection, the analysis of the history of philosophy and the one of the contemporary
history interweave. If Ana Bazac’s study emphasised the manner the philosophical communication is not
exterior to the political, philosophy itself being considered as a “mirror” but also a “model” of the practice of
politics, the case study realised by Adrian-Claudiu Stoica (“Propaganda acts of Romania in France in a dark
period (1940-1942)”) gave us an example of continuity of the process of political communication between
states, by emphasising the pattern of promotion of the international relations, as well as the official international
political communication.
This part includes also the research “Time factor in the political communication” (Ana Bazac). There are
analysed aspects as: irreversibility and the different evaluations of the time, the dependence of the political
communication, the role of the political communication in the manipulation of the public opinion, the attack
on the ‘young time’ of the young generation and the bureaucratisation of the political communication. For all
of these, the author mentioned, “the discussion of the time factor in the political communication involves,
beyond the grasping of some philosophical significations, the disclosure of some, usually covered, aspects of
the political communication” (p. 195-196).
In the third part of the work there are gathered up essential aspects of political science analysis as: the
roles of receivers and transmitters of the information and political messages; the character of the political
communication as structuring of politics; and its ideological character as well; the functions of the political
communication (expressive, denotative and connotative of the doctrine block); the comprehensive-reactive
function of the addressee; the pragmatic, structural and symbolic dimension of the political communication;
the complex and asymmetric character of the political communication relations; the specialisation in electoral
communication and political marketing; the political communication — spectacle in the detriment of the
‘essence’ of democracy; the expectations linked to the new media (blogs, chats, on lines reviews, on line
forums) through which it could take place, and indeed it do, the political communication for the raising of the
participation and alignment of the receivers to the political ‘model’; the effects of the (relative) copying of the
power relations by the PC games and some virtual spaces, generating new possibilities of stressing the social
15
BOOK REVIEWS
199
integration and the individual consent and satisfaction; the position of the communication of the international
events inwards the political communication as such; the communication of the international political scandals.
Relevant for the numerous problems enunciated are the studies: “A paradigm of the political communication”
(Rozmari Pogoceanu); „Elements of the process of political communication” (Daniela Cotoarã); „The political
communication in the representative democracy” (Georgiana Margareta Scurtu). According to the last author
mentioned here, “mass media have an essential role in the democratic education of citizens; it prescribes and
indicates the political rules, structures and mediates the understanding of the decision-making processes, and
coordinates the movements of the actors on the political scene” (p. 243). Other aspects were analysed from the
perspective of juridical sciences: the manner the public, and especially the electoral one, appears in the
Romanian and international laws which regulate the rights and duties in the frame of political communication
during the electoral process (“The electoral public – subject of the juridical relations linked to mass media
communication”, Maria Nãstase Georgescu).
From the social psychology perspective, the problematic is deepened by Beatrice-Adriana Balgiu, who
presented the principles of the use of transactional analysis — concept introduced by Eric Berne (see Games
People Play, 1964, in the Romanian translation Jocuri pentru adulþi, Bucureºti, Editura Amaltea, 2002) — in
the political communication. Starting from the Freudian topic (Self, Ego, Supra-Ego), the author compels
attention that Berne’s theory was completed by Mary and Robert Goulding, who introduced the gestalt
techniques and re-decisional therapy, according to the principle that “the individual restructures the mode of
thinking, feeling and action in function of correctly directed decisions” (p. 279).
The coordinator has obtained and translated two contributions from abroad, one, original, from Belgium,
and another from Japan. Their approach of political psychology enriches the understanding of the state and
growing of the political communication in the present world.
In their study “MUDs and power. Reducing the democratic imaginary?”, the Belgian Nico Carpentier ºi
Niky Patyn concluded that “ the use of these virtual space inside the nets of technologies which provide the
communicational medium and form on line communities on the ground of the game, does not exclude the
presence of the power and doesn’t annul the democratic solutions to the problems linked to the organisation
of creative processes, to the socialisation of the members, and to the solving of the political conflict (p. 356).
An interesting contribution, illustrating the thesis of the power of the cultural specific in the political
communication in Japan, is the first chapter of Ofer Feldman’s book Talking Politics in Japan Today (Brighton,
UK, Sussex Academic Press, 2004).
The place of each country in the world modern system, the level of economic development in relation to
modernity, the accelerated rhythm of the politics of “alphabetisation”, entailed the apparition of the regular
political communication through written media. Later, mass culture has passed from “Gutenberg galaxy” (based
on the print) to “Marconi galaxy” (based on radio, cinema, TV) and has today more and more its dwelling in
the “PC and Internet galaxy”.
The acceleration of the historical rhythm of development of the new media of communication and political
information in some Western countries toward the Romanian princedoms has implied the precarious socialeconomic structure of Romania, visible from the second half of the 19th century: Constantin DobrogeanuGherea named this structure as new state of serve relations (see Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, „Neoiobãgia.
Studiu sociologic al problemei noastre agrare”, 1910).
Consequently, Ana Bazac has considered it would be opportune to rememorize the social history of the
modernising Romania, the ground of the utopian projects and political reforms till the ones of modernisation
in the 20th century, on which just the political communication after 1989 took place (p. 19-50).
The development of the democratic political regime in the post 1989 Romania, even if it changed the usual
totalitarian type mentalities, generated a contradictory situation: the existential needs as food, dwelling,
workplaces, not being solved in a satisfactory manner for a certain majority of the population, the democratic
rights of expression seems to not be much appreciated. The distance between the liberties of expression and
those of real action remained as in Stalinism, or even rose.
The difference between the “legal country’ and the “real country” is so significant in Romania also
because the freedom of expression is rather indirect, through the media, or just a part of them (p. 36-37).
One could observe, as Ana Bazac has noted, the coexistence of two tendencies: a) one is that through
which the transmitters address to different target-publics, giving the impression that the messages would be
diversified, and at the same time tend to uniform the receivers, the public opinion, and b) the other in which
the spreading of information is opposite to the political propaganda and advertising.
The power of the spreading of the information technologies is so rapid that the rhythm of the apparition
of the critique towards the establishment will generate, including in Romania, the perfecting of the contents of
the transmitted political messages, as well as of the types of political communication.
Instead of conclusion, Ana Bazac stressed the social impact of the manners the exceptional phenomena are
presented in the official political communication and the responsibility of the rulers. Just because the exceptional
phenomena challenge the politicians and population to conceive new types of solidarity, global, stronger and
200
BOOK REVIEWS
16
more efficient…the manifestation of the political responsibility in all the communities…the political
communication offers frequently the dream of ‘return to normality’ in this world transition” (p. 367).
The book put face to face critical and conventional interpretations about the political communication. It
applies to both students aiming the acquisition of a profession linked to politics and its communication, and
those interested in the effects of the access of the information technologies (internet) for the reduction of the
informational discrepancy between the Western developed countries and the countries in course of
development all over the world.
The studies has concerned limited aspects but rezoning with the idea Hannah Arendt suggested in The
Origins of Totalitarianism, and which Ana Bazac has formulated as “the total domination — the totalitarianism,
as it was named at the end of the First World War — is not a simple question of political regime, but has in
view the transformation and submission of the entire social system towards the movement of conquest,
levelling, conviction in the best single way everywhere, without relentless. The political communication is a
medium of this domination, it re-writes history, and doesn’t give form to the present and future” (p. 51).
The pleasure of the lecture of this book is given also by the footnotes which, sometimes, double the intrinsic
content of the themes. In the context of the integration of Romania in the European Union, the publication of
this volume of studies constitutes an objective informational necessity, but also an intellectual banquet.
Monica Marinescu
THE REVIEW OF REVIEWS
REVUE ROUMAINE DE PHILOSOPHIE, tomul 50, nr. 1–2/2006, is edited often in English, French
and German. The current issue consists of three parts, “Lucian Blaga’s Philosophy (1895–1961)”, “The Philosophy
of Early Modernity” and “Phenomenological Approaches”. Within the first part, R.T. Allen related to in-depth
aspectsconcerning the possibility of a philosophy of culture, viewed in relationship to the historical studies. He
investigates comparatively this matter at R.G. Collingwood and L. Blaga. Angela Botez juxtaposes three postmodern
perspectives on metaphysics, as they appear in the philosophy of Heidegger, Derrida and Blaga. The guiding
idea of the study is developed starting from the fact that the philosophical exercise is defined by the ability of
creating metaphysics. This idea is already clarified at Blaga, as the author emphasizes: the metaphysical ideas
are considered visions in themselves, and the plurality of the metaphysics, forms of the literary creation, of the
fiction and of myth. (p. 18) H. ªerban and E. Gilder attempt to describe the scope of an “ironism” avant-lalettre within the philosophical works of Blaga, using a comparative investigation Blaga-Rorty. V. Macoviciuc
underlines the problematics of clarifying the aspects of the style in philosophy and culture, a predominant
among the philosophical preoccupations of Blaga. In the study there is an analysis of the fact that the style has
modeling functions and all are to be considered in relationship with mystery. A. Niþã investigates the matter of
individuation at L. Blaga. Blaga brings a particular solution, that is analyzed here within the frame of the other
theories of individuation. V. Cernica places the accent on the discourse about man within Blaga’s philosophy,
in the context of the different hermeneutical positions represented by the “contriving” and the “dissimulating”
postures. G.G. Constandache approaches the poetical aphorisms of Blaga through traditional poetics, as well
as through the specific philosophy. The aesthetics is correlated with linguistics, always with attention to the
philosophical dimension. Among the works dedicated to early philosophical modernity R. Ariew approaches a
philosophical oxymoron, the “Carthesian empiricism”. Certain Carthesiens, such were Desgabets and Regis,
are now capitalized in order to sustain the possibility and the extent to which carthesianism and atomism could
be “mixed” together with, ipothetico-deductivism, falibilism, probabilism and empiricism. D. Jalobeanu discusses
the ideas that Newton developed concerning the absolut space and the creation of the matter. Ioana Manea
writes about the ideas of Mothe Le Vayer and the correct average between the rationalization of reason and the
Pyrrhonian doubt, commenting along several pages that are of special interest for political philosophy as well,
the problematics of the authority of the rationalized doubt. There are also relevant pages for political philosophy
signed by G. John Abbarno on the topics of the integration of values via a value matrix. “The more we
investigate what we know and what reality is, the more we become detached, and the less we base ourselves
on the personal prejudices, entertained in what concerns the”. (p. 137) The author argues that the pattern theory
of value could contribute to the “dimensioning” of value, improving certain choices that, at their turn, are going
to improve the human character, discouraging degrading values.
REVISTA DE FILOSOFIE, tomul LIII, nr. 1-2/2006 stands out because of the collection of articles
named “The Matrix of Spanish Language Philosophy” (authors: Gheorghe Vlãduþescu, José Patricio Brickle
Cuevas, Maria Fernanda Herrera Acuna, Angela Botez, Teodor Vidam, Nicolae I. Mariº, Emilia Irina Strat,
G.G. Constandache and Daniel Mazilu), “Lucian Blaga — 110 Years Anniversary” (authored by Teodor Dima,
Alexandru Boboc, Henrieta A. ªerban, Eric Gilder, Vasile Macoviciuc, Viorel Cernica, Ioan N. Roºca, Adrian
Niþã, Andreea ªchiopu-Pally), “The History of Universal Philosophy” (collection of articles signed by Sabin
Totu, Laurenþiu Ostafe, ªerban N. Nicolau, ªtefan-Dominic Georgescu, Claudiu Baciu) and “Jean-Paul Sartre”.
Within this last collection there are several aspects especially interesting for political philosophy. Gheorghe
Vlãduþescu addresses the provocative question “What can one still read from Sartre?” and he is answering it
by a range of suggestions, reccomending him as a representative author for French culture — as a poet, a scientist,
a theologue, yet, always a a philosopher — maybe to a lesser extent than Paul Valéry, but to a wider extent than
Camus. Alexandru Boboc underlines the fact that the last investigations of Sartre remain extremely important
for the dynamics of contemporary philosophical orientations, and for the new manner in which are interacting
the philosophical styles, under the double impact of science and social assistance. Marin Aiftincã approaches
the theme of freedom at Sartre from an axiological point of view. The value has in Sartre’s thought the idealist
character it has at Platon. As a consequence, the human reality belongs to the reality of the value that has put
its mark on the world. “The phenomenology of the emotional conscience at Jean-Paul Sartre”, an article signed
by Petre Mareº, argues that, according to Sartre, the phenomenologist gives more meaning to human deeds, a
meaning that has to be analyzed in itself, so it shall “lead us within the very heart of the human reality, but
rather to its nonexitence and its liberty”. (p. 289) Adriana Neacºu shows that for Sartre the body proves to be
202
2
nothing else than the consciousness in its specific modality of insertion into the world. This insertion represents
an original justification for the unity between our consciousness and our body that are mutually presupposing
each other. Magda Stroe approaches an unfinbished Satrian work, L’Idiot de la famille, in order to examine the
Sartrian analysis between the real and the imaginary, starting from the life and work of Flaubert.
REVISTA DE FILOSOFIE, tomul LIII, nr. 3–4/2006 offers inedite articles on topics that are already
traditional within the universal philosophy. Roberto Poli investigates the theory of judgement at Franz
Brentano and Anton Marty. Alexandru Boboc discusses “The Concept of Intentionality in the Phenomenology
of Husserl”. More interesting for the political philosopher is the article signed by Petru Vaida, “Form and
history. The Concept of Form at the Young Lukács”. Cristian Ciocan is the author of the article entitled “Notes
on the problematics of death at Heidegger and Scheler”, and Dragoº Popescu “On the Categorial Structure of
the Logic and Metaphisycs from Jena of Hegel”. From the collection of articles gathered under the title “The
Logic and the Philosophy of Science” there are a couple of articles that are interesting as well for political
philosophy and for political sciences: “A Theory of Meaning — Donald Davidson’s Semantics” by Bogdan
Teodor Udrea and “Karl R. Popper on Explanation, Prediction and Verification within Social Sciences”. With
a similar interest for political philosophy, the reader may check the study from rubric “The History of
Romanian Philosophy” entitled “Emil Cioran and the Communism. Between the ‘Enforced Illusion’ and the
‘Embodied Illusion’ ”, by Marius Dobre.
BRITISH ACADEMY REVIEW, nr. 8/2005 (issue 2006) is the journal of the British Academy for
humanities and social sciences. Many of the interesting articles published are interesting for a political
scientist, too. As a first example, Linda McDowell, is investigating in “ ‘Betweeness’: The Lives of Latvian
Women Migrants” the experiences of the Latvian women who have arrived in Great Britain given the
economic migration process, after the Second World War, according to certain patterns for the import of labour
agreed upon from the official standpoint. Neill Lochery, in “Israel’s Soviet Immigrants” researches the impact
of the Russian Immigrants on the Israelian contemporary politics in this domain. Sin Yi Cheung and Anthony
Heath signed the study entitled “Ethnic Minority Disadvantage in the Labour Market in Cross-National
Perspectives”, approaching the issue of the relationship between either the elevated rates of unemployment or
the small salaries of the ethnical minoroties and their lower investments in the human capital, with attention
given to the discrimation manifested even before the members of minority groups get to the labour market,
through the educational process and through a process of economic migration that is very selective. Peter Hill,
in “Kabuki-ch? Gangsters: Ethnic Succession in Japanese Organised Crime?”, investigates the complex relation
between the criminal indigenous groups and the criminal immgrant groups from nowadays Japan. Starting
from the statistics, he analyzes also a few more delicate aspects, related to the political culture and to the
political symbols specific to the Far East. Finally, Sarah Trypena proposes the topic “Abraham Lincoln: The
Great Emancipator?”. The author underlines as well the elements of the emancipatory plan thatwere specific
to Abraham Lincoln, as the elements that were characteristic for the historical, social and political
context, that have had a “propulsion” effect for the emancipatory wave leading to a redefinition of the
American nationality.
JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, vol. 67, nr. 3, iulie 2006 is an interdisciplinary journal
edited by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Even from its beginnings in 1940, the journal served as a
medium for promoting the research within the field of intellectual history. This research endeavour was always
dedicated to encouraging the diversity in what is concerning the approach of varied problematics from a
regional,chronological and methodological point of view. At the same time, the journal is interested in
interdisciplinarity, bringing together literature, the art, the natural and social sciences, religion and political
thought. In what concerns this issue I stopped at the study entitled “Mind and Language in Philosophy”, by
David G. Robertson and “A Woman’s Influence? John Locke and Damaris Marsham on Moral Accountability”,
by Jacqueline Broad. The author evaluates the possibility that the intense discussions of John Locke with Lady
Marsham might influenced to a great extent the famous work of J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. She sustains her investigation with many quotes from Locke’s memories, such as the
following: she “is so much occupied with study and reflection on theological and philosophical matters that
you could find few men with whom you might associate with greater profit and pleasure. Her judgement is
singualrly keen...” (p. 494) One may distinguish also the book review for the forth volume of the Encyclopedia
of Enlightenment underlining the dynamics Enlightenment — Counter-Enlightenment and of the importance
of the works of Cassirer, Hazard, Venturi and Peter Gay, as key figures for delineating the concept of “Radical
Enlightenment” in its full importance.
3
203
THE JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE, vol. 39, nr. 4, 2006 is published bimonthly for the Popular
Culture Association by Blackwell publishing. From the contents we emphasize the part entitled “Who Watches
the Watchmen?”, with the articles “Ideology and Real World Superheros” by Janine A. Hughes, Carlos
Castaneda and “His followers: Finding Life’s Meanings in Your Local Bookstore” by David L. Krantz and
“Freudian Psychology and Beth Henley’s Popular Culture Satire: Signature”, by Gene A. Plunka. The
conclusion that J. A Hughes draws is that “we are all subjected to that same power — that of ideology.”
(p. 556) D. L. Krantz shows that “In the world of self-help books, the reader can create a negociable eclectic
mix of appelaing possibilities. Any counsel as to life’s meaning is consequently appraised as to how well it
meets the consumers’ prefereces as they, in turn, fit with cultural values. While consumers may be satisfied and
continue to buy these books there remains the issue as to what extent self-help approaches to life’s meaning
provide a sound, useful product.” (p. 596–7) Gene A. Plunka construes the world of satirical magazines
arriving at the conclusion that “In effect, Signature demonstrates how modern society which diminishes our
libidinal desires for human happiness, produces misery.” (p. 658)
Henrieta ªerban
THE AUTHORS
Josef Karl is currently working as an academic analyst of Southeast Europe and Sub-Sahara
Africa in Munich, Germany. He has been working so far in different academic, political and
international positions in Germany, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Romania, the Republic of
Macedonia and in Zambia, also as Robert Bosch Lecturer of German History and Culture and
Economics at the Academy of Economic Studies D A Tsenov, Svištov, Bulgaria.
He has published several articles and academic contributions, in particular on the field of
South-Eastern European History and Politics of the post-communist era and participated at
numerous academic conferences and workshops in Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Germany, the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom. He
acted as the conference convenor of the intercultural and interdisciplinary lecture series “European
Dialogues Svištov/Bulgaria” comprising eight lectures, hosting nine academics from seven
European countries and publishing the interdisciplinary and multilingual compilation “Paving the
Way to Europe”.
He was reading Economic and Social History (MSc), History, Politics (Focus: Western
Europe) and Italian Philology (MA), Economics (Diploma) and Politics (Focus: Eastern Europe)
(BA) at Oxford and Regensburg University.
Cristi Pantelimon is a researcher within the Institute of Political Sciences and International
Relations (Romanian Academy) in Bucharest. He has a PhD in Sociology from Bucharest
University. He had a PhD scholarship at Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
(noiembrie 1999 – aprilie 2000).
He is currently editor of Noua Revistã Românã, Euxin. Revista de sociologie, geopoliticã ºi
geoistorie, România XXI, Revista de ªtiinþe Politice ºi Relaþii Internaþionale, Polemica. He edited
the volume Prin cenuºa naþiunii (Through the Ashes of the Nation), Editura Etnologicã,
Bucharest, 2006. Authored book: Sociologie politicã (Political Sociology), Bucharest, Editura
Fundaþiei România de Mâine, 2005. He translated De la division du travail social, by Emile
Durkheim, Editura Albatros, Bucharest, 2001. His research interests are: political sociology, the
history of sociology, nation and nationalism.
Cãlin Cotoi is a lecturer at the Sociology and Social Security Faculty, Bucharest University.
He has a PhD in Anthropology from Bucharest University. He is currently secretary general of
Sociologia Româneascã, member of European Association of Social Anthropologists, Association
for the Study of Nationalities and International Association for Southeast European Anthropology.
Authored book: Primordialism cultural ºi geopoliticã româneascã (Cultural primordial and
Romanian geopolitics), Editura Mica Valahie, Bucureºti, 2007, several articles in Martor, The
Museum of the Romanian Peasant Anthropology Review, Revista Românã de Sociologie,
Sociologie Româneascã, Studii de Securitate.
His research interests are: sociology, anthropology, primordial cultural aspects of the
Romanian geopolitics, materialized in some articoles published in several books such as „New
Technologies in National Minorities Invention”, in Globalization, European Integration and
Social Development, Psihomedia Publishing House, 2003; “Csangos, the Inventing of a National
Minority. Ethnic and Religious Identity”, in Geopolitica Integrãrii Europene, Editura Universitãþii
din Bucureºti, 2003; Nicolae C. Paulescu in The Enciclopedy of Repressed Values, Pro Humanitate
Publishing House, 2000.
205
THE AUTHORS
2
Ana Bazac Ph. D., Professor of Social Philosophy and Political Science at “Politehnica”
University of Bucharest. Research and teaching interests:social philosophy, politics linked to
economy, mediations in the frame of the social relationships, interests behind mentalities and their
disclosure; international relations and the new technologies; ethics; political communication.
She has published chapters in edited books, studies and numerous academic papers in different
Romanian and international journals. Edited book: Comunicarea politicã: repere teoretice ºi
decizionale (The Political Communication: Theoretical and Decision Guiding Marks), Bucureºti,
Editura Vremea, 2006, 384 p.
Henireta Aniºoara ªerban is a researcher within the Institute of Political Sciences and
International Relations (Romanian Academy) in Bucharest. She is specialized in political
communication, with a PhD in Philosophy from the Romanian Academy. She had grants at Naples
and Maastricht, and she presented several topics related to communication and ideology at the
Catholic University of Brussels and at Louborough University, UK. Authored book: Limbajul
politic în democraþie (Political Language in Democracy), Bucharest, Editura Institutului de ªtiinþe
Politice ºi Relaþii Internaþionale al Academiei Române, 2006. Edited volume, with Angela Botez
and Marius Drãghici, Construcþie ºi deconstrucþie în filosofia americanã contemporanã
(Construction and Deconstruction in the American Contemporary Philosophy), Bucharest, Editura
Academiei, 2006. Several articles in Appraisal, Higher Education in Europe, Revue roumaine de
philosophie, Romanian Review of Political Sciences and International Relations.
Gabriela Tãnãsescu is a researcher within the Institute of Political Sciences and International
Relations (Romanian Academy) in Bucharest. She is specialized in political philosophy. Since
1997 she is an editor of Revista de Teorie Socialã and Revue Roumaine de Théorie Sociale. At present
she is editor of Revista de ªtiinþe Politice ºi Relaþii Internaþionale. She is a PhD student in
Philosophy at the Bucharest University with a thesis entitled „Freedom and Reason at Spinoza”
(final phase). Co-authored book: Individ, libertate, mituri politice (Idividual, Freedom and Political
Myths), Bucharest, Editura Institutului de Teorie Socialã, 1997. Edited book: Tendinþe actuale în
filosofia politicã (Current Tendencies in Political Philosophy), Bucharest, Editura Institutului de
ªtiinþe Politice ºi Relaþii Internaþionale, 2006. Editor of the translated book Giovanni Sartori
Ingineria constituþionalã comparatã, Editura Mediterana 2002, revised edition, 2006.
William J. Connell is a Professor of History, and directs the Charles and Joan Alberto Italian
Studies Institute. He received his B.A. summa cum laude from Yale University, and his Ph.D. in
Italian History from the University of California at Berkeley. He has been a Fulbright Scholar to
Italy, a Giannini Italian-American Scholar, a Fellow at the Harvard University Center for Italian
Renaissance Studies in Florence, and a Member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
He is Secretary of the Journal of the History of Ideas, and a member of the editorial advisory board
of Renaissance Quarterly, member of the American Historical Association, the American Catholic
Historical Association, the American Italian Historical Association, and the American Association
for Italian Studies, and the Medieval Academy of America. From 2002 to 2005 he served as a
commissioner on the New Jersey Italian American Heritage Commission and as Co-Chair of the
New Jersey Institute for Italian and Italian American Heritage Studies. He has published numerous
books and articles on Italian history, including a new translation of Machiavelli’s Prince. Specialist
in late medieval and early modern European history, he is the author of several books and articles
on the subjects: Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (edited by William Connell
and Andrea Zorzi, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000), La Citta dei Crucci (Florence:
Nuova Toscana Editrice. 2000), Lo Stato Territoriale Fiorentino (Secoli XIV–XV) — Collection of
essays. Seminar on the Florentine State in the XIV and XV century, hold in June 1996,
Renaissance Essays II (Boydell & Brewer 1993), Society and Individual in Renaissance Florence
(University of California Press, 2002).
Yves Plasseraud graduated from l’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris et du Centre d’Etudes
Internationales de la Propriété Intellectuelle (CEIPI). He owns a PhD in the law of industrial
property. Among his fields of specialization are: markets, designs and models, authorship rights.
3
THE AUTHORS
206
He is member: Compagnie Nationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle (CNCPI), Association
des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle (ACPI), Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété
Industrielle (FICPI), Association Française des Praticiens du Droit des Marques et Modèles
(APRAM), Association Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle (AIPPI) and
International Trademark Association (INTA). He is an international juridical consultant, Chairman
of the group for the rights of the minorities (GDM), and Professor at the Faculty of History of the
University of Vilnius (Lituania). Author of numerous articles and books on minorities issues, the
questions of identity and the the problem of racism and prejudice in France and abroad. His most
recent books are: Lituanie juive 1918–1940: Message d’un monde englouti, Henri Minczeles, Yves
Plasseraud et all, 2006; Atlas des minorités en Europe: De l’Atlantique à l’Oural, diversité
culturelle, Yves Plasseraud et all, Cécile Marin, Yves Ternon, 2005; Les Etats Baltiques: Les
Sociétés Gigognes, la dialectique minorités-majorités, 2004.
Lucian Jora is a researcher within the Institute of Political Sciences and International
Relations (Romanian Academy) in Bucharest. Postgraduate studies at the University of Catania,
Copenhagen University and Jagelonian University. At the moment is preparing a PhD at Babes
Bolyai University in European Studies with a research on Cultural Diplomacy through the
representation of History. Mr. Jora authored several articles with a focus on International
Relations, European Studies and Cultural Diplomacy.
Viorella Manolache graduated Science Political Faculty, Law Faculty, has a master in
Journalism and Public Relations, and Post-Graduated with a research theme concerned with
Romanian Political Elitism. She has published several books: Postmodernitatea româneascã între
experienþa ontologicã ºi necesitate politicã (Romanian Postmodernity — Between Ontological
Experience and Political Necessity), Editura Universitãþii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2004, 167 pages;
Cecitatea politicã ca sindrom ereditar (Political Blindness as a Heredity Syndrome), Editura
Universitãþii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2005, 160 pages; Ipostaze ale fetiºismului în presa culturalã
româneascã (Fetishism. Hypostasis of the Romanian Cultural Press), Editura Universitãþii
“Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2006, 100 pages; Elite. Conceptualizãri moderne (Elitism. Modern
Conceptualization), “Lucian Blaga” Editura Universitãþii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2006, 120 pages.
At present she works as an assistant researcher at the Romanian Academy, Institute of the Political
Science and International Relations, the Department of Political Philosophy.

Romanian Review of Political Sciences and International Relations

Transcription

Similar documents

annual report 2006|2007 - Rosa-Luxemburg

Schwäbisches Tanzfest in Petrifeld

5. Oktober 2012 - Hermannstädter Zeitung

programm 2016 - Westwind Festival

Mein Kampf - Harrold.Org

integration - Institut für Europäische Politik IEP