Democratic regime in Romania was restored at the end of 1989 following the revolutionary events against criminal communist actions.
The Constitution of Romania, adopted on November 21, 1991, established the development of the state on democratic principles, rejecting totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and statism.
Compared to previously examined states, democracy took root in Romania much later, by an average of almost 15 years later.
Traditionally, we begin with an overview of the current situation regarding the development of the democratic regime in Romania, referring to the annual reports of the “Freedom in the World” project. As of 2023, democratic freedoms in the country on a 100-point scale were rated at 83 points: 35/40 for political rights and 48/60 for civil liberties.
In terms of evaluating the polarization of the party system, we can state that multi-partyism has ensured regular power rotation in Romania through fair and competitive elections. Indeed, the principle of a transparent electoral process is ensured at a decent level in Romania: the president is elected by direct popular vote (for a maximum of two five-year terms), and there have been few instances of electoral will violations. Members of the bicameral parliament, consisting of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, are elected for four years through a closed-list proportional representation system (although other electoral systems were used previously). However, when analyzing the electoral process, attention should also be paid to the critically low level of electoral participation and, consequently, the political culture in society. In the last elections in 2020, turnout was less than 32% – the lowest figure in recent years.
According to legislative norms implemented in state administration, the people have broad access to direct participation in the political process. Since 2015, the number of signatures required to form a new party has been reduced, leading to the emergence of new political forces in parliament and local government bodies. Examples of some of the “youngest” parties include the social-liberal party REPER (“Renewing Romania’s European Project”), founded in 2022, and the democratic-Christian party “Force of the right,” which began its activities in 2021. It is also noteworthy that a number of ethnic groups have entered (and traditionally have entered in the past) the parliament. The “Freedom in the World” project has given the maximum score to the criterion “Is there a real opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?”. However, the change of political forces in Romania is mostly characterized by the so-called “pendulum principle,” where one of the two competing parties gains the most seats in the legislative body. These “opponents” have traditionally been the PSD (Social Democratic Party) and PNL (National Liberal Party), which have existed since the transition from an autocratic to a democratic political regime in the country. However, no party has been in power for two full terms in a row, as governments (including many minority governments) often receive parliamentary votes of no confidence. One of the latest such cases was the resignation of the government led by Prime Minister Florin Cîțu in 2021. The left-centrist PSD initiated the vote of no confidence in the government.
Despite what seems to be a high level of assessment of democratic freedoms in Romania (according to the latest data, even 2 points higher than Poland), there are still many factors that indicate the imperfection of democratic instruments and attempts by political actors to act more authoritatively in decision-making. For example, the score of 83 out of 100 has remained unchanged for Romania for 5 years. This result was achieved by the state in 2019, and the indicator for the previous year (2018) was 81 points.
So, what are the shortcomings of democracy in Romania?
First of all, there are repeated complaints from the media, civil activists, and politicians about clientelism in Romania. This phenomenon is a major problem in both local and national elections. Anti-corruption tools are also rated low (2 out of 4 points), with frequent cases of corrupt actions by authorities, bribery, and abuse of power. Among those convicted in 2018 were former head of Romania’s integrity agency and agribusiness magnate Ioan Niculae, media magnate Sorin Ovidiu Vîntu, former government ministers, former chief prosecutor for organized crime cases, former mayor, etc. Another drawback of the democratic regime is the frequent oppression of gender minorities in Romania. As we can see, anti-democratic manifestations are indeed significant. Perhaps this is how the past reminds us of all its “moods” of total control and domination. Now we will explain in detail what we mean.
The fact is that the mid-20th century will be remembered by one of the Central European countries for the rule of another dictator. This personality is well-known, probably to everyone interested in the problems of autocracy and terror under the communist regime – Nicolae Ceaușescu. He ruled Romania for a quarter of a century – from 1964 to 1989.
The regime introduced by Nicolae Ceaușescu had the following characteristics:
During his rule, total censorship was imposed on all informational materials, which was possible thanks to a specially created secret police body – the “Securitate”. Of course, there was no question of freedom of journalism as such. In addition, all citizens suffered from total control over dissent, as the “Securitate” opened and read the contents of letters, listened to telephone conversations, and bugged apartments. Interestingly, Nicolae Ceaușescu himself was personally affected by the propaganda mechanism. Every one of his public appearances was monitored by the protocol department of the “Securitate”, and all his stammerings and stutterings were edited out, with his image carefully crafted to appear convincing (a vivid example of the work of a political technologist).
A personality cult existed. In the 1970s, Nicolae Ceaușescu received titles such as “Great Leader,” “Genius of the Carpathians,” and “Full-flowing Danube of the Mind.” All of the dictator’s relatives were also perceived as sacred and held most state positions, enjoyed privileges, and his wife Elena was known as the “mother of the Romanians” and held several positions, including first deputy prime minister of the government, head of the National Council for Science and Technology, academician, and president of the Academy.
The “Great Leader” had a significant impact on the social component of the state and attempted to coordinate the demographic policy, which became one of his government’s priorities. Nicolae Ceaușescu himself said: “Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who leaves the laws of national continuity.” The purchase of contraceptives was prohibited, surveillance was carried out on all pregnant women, and mothers with more than 10 children were awarded the title of heroine. The process of divorce was complicated, and families without children paid large taxes.
As a result of mass demonstrations, Nicolae Ceaușescu was removed from office and, in his attempt to flee abroad, was executed. Although the authoritarian rule was overthrown, its echoes remained deeply rooted in the social structure and consciousness for a long time. Analyzing the “Freedom in the World” project’s database, we find the following fact: in the period 1990-1992, Romania received only the status of a “partially free” country. It was finally recognized as a free country with democratic freedoms only in 1996. Since then and until today, the country has held the status of “Free”.
Thus, based on our review within the series of posts “Europe was born from authoritarianism,” we can note that the exercise of authoritarian pressure on the political regime has lasting consequences for many years to come. Accordingly, even historical authoritarianism contributes to the deconstruction of the development and course of the democratic regime in a given country.
