Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

Can Democracy Work in Southeastern Europe?actual territory from the ancient times until present; (3) the unity of theRomanian people throughout its entire history; and, (4) Romanians’ continuousstruggle for independence. From that moment, history textbookswere to tell a “national” history in which Romanians were depicted asa heroic and tolerant people, forced to fight for centuries with all kinds ofenemies who hampered the fulfillment of their “national” ideal of livingin an united and independent state. To sum up, one of the major lessonsof the national history, as taught until December 1989, was that the Romanianunitary nation-state has been continuously contested and threatened,and that it was the patriotic duty for all responsible Romanians to defendit at all costs.The ethno-cultural idea of the nation and the idea of a national history,based on the four “pillars” mentioned above, reached the grassrootslevel through schooling, press, radio and television. In addition, the communistregime devised a national festival, Cîntarea României (Romania’sSong of Praise), which was initiated in 1976 and took place annually until1989, and a national sport competition, Daciada, the name of wich wasa clear reference to the Dacian origins of the Romanians, that were bothinstrumental in achieving the regime’s cultural goals. Indeed, the nationalfestival Cîntarea României, which gathered professional artists, as well asa wide range of amateurs from all over the country, was instrumental inenforcing upon the population a stronger sense of belonging to the Romanian“socialist” nation. 35In the early 1990s, Romanian society was marked by a strong tendencytowards violence rooted in the “movement of rage” which overthrewthe Ceauºescu regime in December 1989. In order to preservepower, the newly-established regime made use of ethnic nationalism andfavored the channeling of popular discontent towards the democraticopposition and the Hungarian minority. Paradoxically for a “revolutionary”regime, the authorities made use of the “rhetoric of reaction,” especiallyof the jeopardy argument, stating that the claims made by the Hungarianminority were a threat to Romania’s territorial integrity. 36In January 1990, Ion Iliescu, the leader of the National Salvation Front(NSF), declared that “many disquieting phenomena have been brought toour attention recently from certain Transylvanian counties in connectionwith separatist trends which cause tension between citizens of Romanianand Hungarian nationality.” 37 Once he decided to run for presidency inthe general elections on 20 May 1990, Iliescu was also prepared to use thenationalist argument and to convince the ethnic Romanian majority thatthe NSF was the only force capable to protect the “Nation” against thealleged territorial claims of Hungary over Transylvania and the “betrayal”of the Hungarian minority. Encouraged by such a discourse, Romanian283