May 16, 2005
Granny
So, Ion Iliescu.
Former friend of the Ceausescu family, later turned democrat, or "democrat", depending on who you believe. Later leader of the National Salvation Front, the curious organization that took over Romania's government after the Ceausescus went up agains the wall. He's dominated Romanian politics for the last fifteen years. President of Romania twice, 1992-6 and 2000-2004. Probably the single most loved, hated, controversial figure in Romanian politics. Sometimes known as the "kindly grandfather" of modern Romania, or, more simply, "Granny".
Iliescu finished his second term as President back in December. But was not about to retire. Goodness, no! He took a position as President of the Senate, and was all set to take over the Partidul Social Democrat, or PSD. (Non-Romanian readers may recall that PSD was the party of government for the last four years, 2000-2004. But then just barely failed of re-election last December, so that it's now the opposition.)
So Iliescu was ready to move without a beat from being President to being leader of the opposition, and still one of the most important figures in Romanian politics.
But...
...his party didn't see it quite that way.
I'm going to grossly oversimplify a story of truly Byzantine complexity, and say: there is a generational split in the PSD. The old guard, around Iliescu, wanted to stay in charge of the party. They see themselves as the natural party of government in Romania. They expect the current government, a somewhat fragile coalition, will collapse in the next year or two, allowing them to return in triumph.
However, the younger generation -- I say again, this is a simplification -- is worried; they fear that the electoral defeat showed Romania moving away from the PSD, and that the party needs to catch up. And putting Granny back in charge is not the way to do this.
So, a few weeks back, the Young Turks got together and rejected Iliescu. -- Now I'm really simplifying things. The anti-Iliescu faction is itself a coalition, opportunistic and probably fragile. But distaste and fear united them, and when the dust settled Iliescu had been firmly rejected. Former Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana -- a much younger, more attractive figure -- was placed in nominal charge. And for a little while, there was much rejoicing.
(This all happened at the PSD all-party conference. One amusing moment came when Iliescu, perhaps somewhat off balance, accidentally addressed the party faithful as "comrades". Apparently the entire audience gasped as one, with various mixtures of horror and delight.)
So Iliescu was reduced to being a simple party member. And that was the end of it, right?
Ha ha. No. Iliescu sulked in his tent for a little while, but has now come roaring back. He has accused the PSD leadership of nepotism, arrogant behaviour, abandonment of true Social Democratic principles, and "allowing the party to be labelled as corrupt and one belonging to parvenus and the rich".
Most alarming of all, he has threatened to withdraw from the party. This would be a serious disaster for PSD, because Iliescu is still quite popular, especially with poor and rural voters. If he leaves... well, it won't be the end of PSD, but he could easily take a million votes with him. And President Basescu would be strongly tempted to call new Parliamentary elections while the PSD opposition was disorganized and split.
On the other hand, keeping Iliescu in the party will have a price tag, which may well be too high. One proposal, for instance, has been to create a special unique position purely for Iliescu. But he probably won't accept this unless it comes with real power. And giving real power back to Iliescu is a terrifying prospect for PSD's new leadership.
So, there'll be a complex game of brinksmanship playing out in Romania's opposition over the next little while.
(And my liberal friends here in Bucharest? "More popcorn, please. Hmm, perhaps I'd also like a beer.")
Posted by douglas at May 16, 2005 05:39 PMIliescu is not the senate president. This position belongs to Vacaroiu. It was a lot of fuss about this, the election of Vacariou with the help of Vadim Tudor and Voiculescu as the leader of the senate, (how did you missed such a detail, you don't read too much romanian press). Iliescu is a mere president of the PSD senate group, its only official position in the PSD.
I don't hear too often that he was a Ceausescu family friend. And I doubt this, see the dialogue book with Vladimir Tismaneanu for instance, they were coming from quite different generations and backgrounds. Nevertheless he was a Moscow educated, high ranking communist, chief of youth organization and then chief of propaganda and held other high positions in the party and government.
If I would be Iliescu now I would watch with high interest how the Pinochet case evolves.
Posted by: Marian at May 16, 2005 06:24 PM1990, not 92.
Posted by: David Weman at May 17, 2005 12:16 AMActually he was president 4 (four) times: 22 Dec 1989 - 20 May 1990, 20 May 1990 - 1992, then the consitutional mandates 1992-1996 and 2000-2004.
Posted by: Marian at May 17, 2005 01:26 AMThanks for the original post. I find it interesting to hear Douglas' views on Romania even if some dates, official titles,etc. are not 100% accurate, as the other comments point out.
How many English-language blogs can you find dealing with Romania today? Not so many, I have found 2 so far. If we all judge the value of blogs just by how accurate they are, then we might as well be reading the official Romanian press. There you can find accurate data about politicians. Here you can find perceptions, opinions and ideas.
No wonder the whole world ignores Romania for the most part, if we're going to constrict every form of expression to rigorous standards of accuracy instead of seeking more human-centered ways of communicating.
Posted by: Eduard at May 17, 2005 10:57 AMThank you, Eduard.
Posted by: claudia at May 17, 2005 02:13 PMThere are some more blogs, for instance Albino Neutrino (this is really funny) or Ro-mania.
Concerning the rigorous standards of accuracy, a decent level of accuracy can be achieved with little effort. The devil often is hidden in details. News full of stereotypes and very reductionist views about Romania (including its political life) are aplenty. And not just in tabloids, you come across them even in "The Economist" (the pre-election coverage is an example).
Posted by: Marian at May 17, 2005 11:00 PMMarian - here's a question for you: if you can't bear to read us, why do you read us? Just being curious here.
And yes, there are more expat Romania blogs, and quite a few Romanian Romania ones. Some can be found it our blog roll.
Posted by: claudia at May 18, 2005 01:25 PMClaudia, don't bother with Marian! He is the...FLY of your blog! He's just buzzing around...Let him to be happy!...
Posted by: gelu at May 18, 2005 06:04 PMNaw... I'm really just curious.
We don't mind being corrected. We make mistakes, yes. However, if someone doesn't do anything but... one wonders.
Posted by: claudia at May 18, 2005 07:21 PMActually it is the opposite, I like reading your blog. I find it interesting and I follow with curiosity the notes posted here about this part of the world.
It is like a double experiment, some researchers in a field trip are observing their subjects, but the subjects are observing their observers too. This is possible due to the benevolence of the observers that are making public their notes. We do not know what are the observers' test hypotheses, but from the subjects point of view the whole thing is: Do they see it? Do they get it? There are true those things that we believe (we were told so) characterize us? Or the test is inconclusive, just normal people, more or less undistinguishable from the witness sample. The experiment has its difficulties, but these are only making it even more interesting. The observers often come with too little background search done, other times they are trapped in a unrepresentative bubble in the north sector of the capital city or they encounter too many outliers (subjects unrepresentative for the studied population), also the subject population is not in its best shape still recovering after a long affliction. The experiment has also one fundamental rule, the observer and the subject should not actively interfere with each other, for example it is forbidden one part to teach lessons the other part. Unfortunately this rule has already been breached.
Posted by: Marian at May 18, 2005 09:04 PMWe're lab rats?
Doug and I laughed about that all through our breakfast pancakes.
Wow. Good one.
Posted by: claudia at May 19, 2005 08:06 AM"Former friend of the Ceausescu family"
I really really doubt that...
That's why: About 2 or 3 months ago, Jurnalul National, published several interviews with the soldiers who guarded the Ceausescus in the last day when they were arrested. It lasted very short, the trial was quick and followed by the execution... you all remember.
So, one soldier remebered the big surprise Ceausescu had and his comment after he heard that Iliescu was at the television and was seen like the new leader. He said like this: "who's leading now? ILIESCU? But I knew I told them to finish him!" ... Of course, it is interpreted like a isolation from the politics of Iliescu by the party, securitate and the communist state apparatus... but, knowing the bestiality of "Securitate" many sit and wonder... wasn't he speaking of a darker decision?
Remember, at that time freedom of speech in Romania was something strictly forbidden, the constant fear not to be heard by securitate was indeed huge! Ceausescu wanted no political enemies. Indeed, he was a complete maniac.
So, a friend of him who took the power back then? No, no, wrong theory.
Ceausescu had very very little friends... how can someone offer his friendship to a man that he feared most?
Just think a little, take it logically, then remember what that soldier heared from Ceausescu's mouth...