Caietele Echinox, vol. 25, 2013 : Topographies du mal : Les Antiutopies 252 Ruxandra Cesereanu Political Police in Communist : the Totalitarian Dystopia

ABSTRACT ’s strategies and “language” The purpose of this study, in its first part, is a documentary summary concerning the Historian Marius Oprea has antholo- establishment of Communist Romania’s Po- gized and commented on several of the most litical Police (Securitate), by applying an a- important documents relating to the crea- nalysis of the structure, operation, strategies tion, the structure and the operation of com- and language used in the official documents munist Romania’s repressive body, in his by the repressive body. The second part of work Banalitatea răului. O istorie a Securi- this study focuses on a former communist tăţii în documente (1948-1989) [The Banali- torturer’s portrait, as illustrated in the rela- ty of Evil. Documentary History of the Secu- tively official confession he made. ritate (1948-1989)]. Marius Oprea speaks KEYWORDS primarily about the “Soviet-communist oc- Romania; Securitate; State Terrorism; cupation” which had a decisive role in the Informant; Confession; Sadism; Communist birth of the Securitate, Romania’s repressive Torturer; Atonement; Theatricality. institution being deemed an “instrument of state terrorism” (Oprea, 2002, p. 12) by RUXANDRA CESEREANU reason of the dictatorship of the proletariat Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania dogma. “The analysis of the political police [email protected] control mechanisms in the Romanian totali- tarian regime indicates that brutality ad- vanced to the rank of state politics, in the name of the «class struggle» and caused a long-term reflex, a ‘trivialization’ of evil, maintained with assistance from the a- pparatus of the political police” (Oprea, 2002, p. 14). The purpose resided in instill- ing and sustaining fear among the people, their intimidation and the branched, calcu- lated administration of terror. The Securitate made use of extreme physical brutality in

Political Police in Communist Romania: the Totalitarian Dystopia the first stage of its operation (1948-1964), strategic regional direc- 253 while later, in the second period (1964- torates; the initial num- 1989), it chose an insidious form of Pavlov- ber of active officers was two-three thou- ian persuasion, even though this time inter- sands, but it doubled and even tripled in the val, too, saw enough cases of physical ag- following years. For stimulation purposes, gression against the opponents of the com- the Securitate agents had huge wages (the munist regime. Whereas the first stage was managing staff had wages five times higher dominated by “lumpenproletarian” agents – than the common workers) and benefited mercenaries, some of them illiterate, acting from various types of product stamps. Over as frenzied tormentors (Oprea, 2002, p. 137) time, the number of directorates increased –, the second stage was dominated by the both structurally and regionally. In 1949, educated Securitate agent, the wannabe in- adjacent to the Securitate, the Securitate tellectual. But even in the first stage, during troops are created, which included several 1952-1953, communist leader Gheorghe tens of thousands of armed forces. Gheorghiu-Dej and the heads of the Securi- Historically, in the first phase of the tate promoted the idea of the training, spe- Ceauşescu era, in 1967 and 1968, the Secu- cialisation and improvement of the intel- ritate is partially disturbed by Nicolae Ceau- lectual skills of the repressive body’s per- şescu’s attack against the regime of Gheor- sonnel; this action had in view the decrease ghiu-Dej and of the minister of interior (op- in the numbers of the existing lumpens, who erating since 1952), Alexandru Drăghici; the found themselves pressed and advised to former played the role of the “father” who complete their studies; the courses would had to be killed symbolically and ideolo- last ten months and the subject matters were gically, the latter was the rival “sibling”. political sciences, foreign languages, in- The excuse is provided by the liquidation of struction, broadcasts, fight techniques etc. the communist (intellectual) leader Lucreţiu Until 1948, when the Securitate was created Pătrăşcanu, deemed an abuse of the Gheor- and discretionary powers were granted to it, ghiu-Dej regime: based on it, Ceauşescu at- there hadn’t been a void of terror, because a tempts to rebuild the internal image of a prior secret police had been functional, al- reforming leader. In the second phase of beit not impeccable, a former Security re- Ceauşescu’s era, the Securitate was modern- formed and infiltrated by Soviet agents, Ro- ised, but suffered an important blow, at the manian communists and mercenaries. level of its administration, when Ion Mihai At the time of its creation, the structure Pacepa (assistant to the head of the External of the Securitate was rather impressive; it Intelligence Directorate in the Ministry of included ten clearly focused directorates, Interior) decided to remain in the Occident which monitored socio-politically the entire in 1978, disclosing the Securitate structure country, in the following manner: Intelli- and purposes as a repressive institution. On gence, Counter-sabotage, Counter-espio- this account, Ceauşescu reorganised it later nage in penitentiaries and Police, Counter- harshly, in a manner evocative of the 1950s, in the army, Criminal investiga- granting to it special, omnipotent condition. tions, Ministry protection, Technical Opera- In the last phase of the Ceauşescu period, tions, Staff, Party Politics, Administrative the Securitate staff numbers had gone up to Section; additional to these main directo- 15,000, who were making use of the im- rates there were secondary sections, specia- pressive number of 137,000 active inform- lised in interception, tailing, supervision. ants – which was an outstanding increase as The Securitate diagram included thirteen compared to the initial stage of the Ruxandra Cesereanu 254 Securitate, when the in- have contributed to the creation of such an stitution was operating apparatus” (Oprea, 2002, p. 256). via 3000 employees and 42,000 informants. The frenzy attached to the fight against The 1970s saw the beginning of the increase “the enemies of the people” is reiterated in in the numbers of intellectual collaborators counterpoint at the same conference in Feb- – the institution of the Political police was ruary 1950 by Gheorghe Pintilie (his real beginning to part with the rural collabo- name was Pantiuşa Bodnarenco, Soviet a- rators; in the same period, the Securitate gent), sinister look of a career-oriented a- discontinued recruitment by coercion and gent, assassin of Ştefan Foriş (former leader blackmail; instead, it chose to relate to the of the Party, Gheorghiu-Dej’s rival): “we patriotic feeling, in keeping with the Ceau- should brace, to be able to strike the enemy şist nationalism. Three types of links were as hard as possible, perhaps even three- used: classic informants, collaborators (sup- fold”[...] “We cannot say the fight is over, port people who did not inform, but helped while we said we stroke the enemy hard, we the Securitate) and the residents – hosts of may say that only now do we begin to strike the houses where the Securitate officers and him harder. Only now is the enemy enraged the informers met. [...]”; “The Party decided to strike with all Below follows an analysis, at the level might and with all might we shall strike” of mentality, of the strategies and purposes (Oprea, 2002, pp. 133, 160). Even merely of the Securitate, as directly or indirectly by looking within the Securitate, Pintilie revealed by the discourses of its leaders. discovers the enemy’s omnipresence; hence, First, I am going to note that all the docu- he proposes a kind of hara-kiri with a pos- ments relating to the activity of the Securi- sible remedial effect “We must shake our- tate are marked by the tendentious presence selves free of a series of weaknesses, we of several verbs directed against the “enemy must eliminate them pitilessly from our of the people”: these are “to crush”, “to re- body” (Oprea, 2002, p. 133). press”, “to wipe out”, “to unmask”, “to de- Another part of Gheorghe Pintilie’s stroy”, “to liquidate”, “to exterminate”, “to discourse centres on the necessity to apply shoot down”. Minister physical aggression against the “enemy of was stating in 1949 that “the Securitate is the people”; however, this should be done the body that strikes” (Oprea, 2002, p. 74), methodically, rather than in a sadistic, un- in an attempt to prevent the omissions and discerned way: the enemy must be stricken deficiencies of the institution he was lead- “with full hatred”, but orderly. For this rea- ing. “The strikes will be ruthless”, the same son, the agents themselves must be in- minister would restate in a conference held nocents who purify themselves first: “let us on February 28, 1950, “Because while we remove anything foreign to our organs, our have the law, as discussed earlier today, we organs hold high, specific tasks, we must will strike” (Oprea, 2002, pp. 120, 131). fight and eliminate anything rot” (Oprea, Three years later, investigated in his turn 2002, p. 146). Vigilance is deemed hygie- and blamed with not being vigilant of his nic, because it engages the agent in a proc- class hatred, Teohari Georgescu was de- ess of self-re-education: “My intent is not to clareing that he had led “an apparatus young see the Securitate investigated, but rather to at first, which has grown, becoming today a help the comrades, to remove everything powerful instrument in the Party’s hands, that is rot in us” (Oprea, 2002, p. 161). On full of hatred against the enemy, devoted to the one hand, Pintilie criticises the abuse of the Party. Short of class hatred, I couldn’t arrests and investigations (of innocent men); Political Police in Communist Romania: the Totalitarian Dystopia on the other hand, he indicates the necessity Romanian policymakers 255 of putting the “enemies” in detention, a ne- and theorists or that text cessity without which the Securitate would was sooner a translation of a similar docu- no longer have meaning: “The Party decide- ment of the Soviet NKVD? Could it have ed that we build labour camps, les’t say been a conceptual inheritance from the for- camps, labour colonies, labour detachments, mer Security, which the communists had the form is not yet established, it’s yet to be changed only in name, while other (suffi- gnawed at, so that we are fair politically cient) characteristics remained the same? At also and, perhaps in one or two weeks, we’ll any rate, throughout the years subsequent to have camps, as established now, labour col- the creation of the Securitate, the directives onies. And we need to put someone in there; relating to the network of informants and its you didn’t think they’d be empty!” (Oprea, operation will become increasingly more 2002, p. 148). accurate and toned. Those who had drawn The informant’s portrait is most em- these texts and the subsequent reports in- blematic and most graphic owing to its gro- sisted on being rigorous, “scientific”, a kind tesque and to the inner logic Pintilie seeks of “hermeneutists” of communist Roma- and finds; the informant is the Securitate nia’s secret and political Police. For these agent’s tool, a sharp tool (related, as we will texts were meant to resemble the “the see, to the razor or to the lathe), but a living tablets of testimony”. one, a man-tool: “each workman, each doc- Another key-moment in Gheorghe Pin- tor, any man has a tool and he takes care of tilie’s discourse is the praise paid to the Se- his tool; and which is our tool here, in the curitate, seen as superior thought, as ac- agency? We said we also have a tool. While complished intellect: “Our body, in its en- the barber has a razor and the turner a lathe, tirety, is pure brain, we don’t have any we have our informants, so that we know bone, anything. We are mind and this is how how to work, to see who we deal with. The we must think” (Oprea, 2002, p. 150). For- worker takes care of his tool; likewise, we mulated in this manner, the intrinsic praise take care of the informants – we, too, need of the agent suggests that the latter could be to care for our tool a lot more” (Oprea, some kind of superman (“we don’t have any 2002, p 134). Attentive to the procedures of bone”, emphasis mine). The end of the dem- touting and processing the informant, Pinti- onstration is meant to be revealing and self- lie can guess that the agent without an triumphant: “we are brain from head to toe” informant has no arms and no legs, which (Oprea, 2002, p. 151). would make him an invalid. This is why he In the same February-March 1950 con- emphasises the informant’s role of “tool”, ference, major Gheorghe Petrescu asserts respectively that of “living tool”: “the bar- the need to discipline, order and transform ber’s is a dead tool, so is the turner’s, but the detention system in something like Men- ours is a living tool, we need to pay more deleev’s table, disapproving of the chaos attention to them” (Oprea, 2002, p. 151). caused by disorganised arrests: “today we Incidentally, Banalitatea răului in- are still unable to order the detention in the cludes very interesting in the series of theo- country, we don’t know even now who was retical texts from the Archive of the Secu- arrested, who remained free, what their situ- ritate, regarding the way in which it oper- ation is, all these because the beginning was ated. For instance, the informants’ recruit- anarchic” (Oprea, 2002, p. 172). This is not ment is a conceptual text dating back to just another self-criticism of the Securitate’s 1948: could it be that the agency had heads; this is the actual fact that the Ruxandra Cesereanu 256 repressive body was op- trial, to arrest, to hold others in detention are erating deficiently at the extremely important things. Who entrusts level of rigorous self-control. Major general this power to us? The class to which we be- Alexandru Nicolski (real name Boris Grun- long, our Party gave it to us, the Govern- berg), artisan, among other, in the years of ment. To what end? So that this power the brutal Piteşti student re-education (by should be directed against the class enemy. physical, mental, moral torture): “We must Such a right entails considerable thought, do it better and faster” (Oprea, 2002, p. perceptiveness. You need to know how to 190), he states, i.e. the repression should be- skilfully handle such a right. It’s an edge, come impetuous and accelerated. “We must this right has us dancing on a razor edge” take offensive measures, we must not keep [...]. “But when we judge a situation proper- our hands in the pockets, we need to antici- ly, another quality is wanted from us, the pate, without mistake, where the enemy will firmness of unflinching execution. Sharp try to act. And we must work informatively, strikes against the enemy we have defined not keep our hands in our pockets” (Oprea, well, mercilessly, and we hit him so that he 2002, p. 191). Nicolski acknowledges also can never stand up again” (Oprea, 2002, p. other weaknesses of the department of state 202). The logic of this self-founding dis- security, for instance, bureaucracy, but con- course is to reach the origin and the birth of cludes with an assertion of the viability and the Securitate: “We did not come on our vivacity of the repressive body, in an una- own, we were sent by the Party, and when bashed formulation: “The rust of bureaucra- they sent us they checked us” (Oprea, 2002, cy has begun eating into us. Our apparatus p. 202). Because of this matrix, the Securi- cannot be eaten, but this is an aspect” (Op- tate agent must behave exemplarily, he must rea, 2002, p. 191). The Securitate cannot be not be immoral (womaniser, alcohol addict, “eaten” – this is one accurate formulation, corrupt – precisely because these vices were because the repressive body was and intend- frequent among the agents’ manners); in- ed to be a cannibalistic institution, swal- stead he must be meticulous, active, exem- lowing the others. plary. The “prude” colonel Guţan stresses On the same occasion, a theorist of the the way in which an agent must acquire Securitate also speaks; he is colonel Guţan, these qualities. Between theory and practice, who projects in the enemies of the people a however, the difference was categorical: the multiform and even anamorphote monster: Romanian Securitate agent was, most often, “This is our main, general objective, the ob- harsh, Grobian, unprincipled and a merce- jective we need to accomplish. The liquid- nary. “Practically, the Securitate officer’s dation of the enemy in all his shapes and profile, like the Soviet Chekist’s portrait, aspects” (Oprea, 2002, p. 198). As an orator described by Proletkult literature […] was who also wants to be inspired, Guţan pleads often altered by vices and worldly passions, for acumen and for impetuosity. The fol- by ambition, infatuation and contempt for lowing quotation is long, but illustrates the other staff, as they are promoted. Thus, flawlessly the agent’s yearning for discus- despite the hundreds of thousands of hours sion or even for cordial polemics, as if the spent in meetings and analysis, the Securi- governing body (structure) were a spiritual tate was shaped in its staff’s image, while institution: “I want to remind our comrades, among officers and orderlies too few were [that] to enter the Securitate, to wear blue those who had acted as political agents only shoulder straps, to be invested with powers on the unalterable belief in a just cause” to monitor, to investigate, to bring people to (Oprea, 2002, p. 199). Political Police in Communist Romania: the Totalitarian Dystopia In his first con- 257 Case study: a former communist torturer fessions, Franţ Ţandără admits that, in the prime of life, he fell in Doina Jela put together a very neces- love with communism, that it “entered” sary dictionary of the members of commu- him, enveloped and fascinated him. “The nist Romania’s repressive apparatus. Lexi- party was my parents, the party was every- conul negru. Unelte ale represiunii comu- thing to me, the party me raised me, edu- niste [Black Lexicon. Tools of Communist cated me, prepared me for the future” (Jela, Repression] lists succintly or amply the 1999, p. 8) – he states in a confession of his portraits of several thousands of guardians, symbolic and, at the same time, real adop- political officers, investigators, torturers, tion. Then, an official from the Party, Pavel prosecutors, detention physicians, party ac- Ştefan (local party activist, and later leader tivists involved in the repression, leaders of at central level, promoted up to the rank of the Securitate and of the Ministry of the minister), provokes him to kill his (anti- Interior, members of the communist system. communist) father. Against family disputes, Regardless of the inherent flaws of such an Franţ Ţandără commits the parricide, seen ambitious work (obviously, it was impos- as beneficent by the people of the Party. As sible to enter all the members of the Roma- a common-law prisoner, he becomes the po- nian repressive apparatus, even only on the litical prisoners’ unconcealed supervisor, account of the fact they were tens of thou- being the head of several torturers in one of sands during 1944-1989; then also because the labour colonies at the Danube-Black Sea it was impossible to disclose all of them; Canal. Then he is moved to a psychiatric third, because a large part of the information hospital, where he is trained as a torturer by was gathered from testimonies by the vic- a woman: she shows him the ways to inflict tims, whose memory was, at times, confuse torture on testicles by tapping them with the and subjective), the work is defining for the pencil. “The Teacher” foretells her “appren- Romanian Gulag, since it provides, as stated tice” that he will soon become an expert: by the author herself, “a type of protean indeed, Ţandără becomes an expert after puzzle, begun from all sides at once, tending three victims (from among the fighters in to become a cosmoid, a map, a globe of the mountains), on whom he learns every- horror and destruction, and at the same time thing there is to learn on inflicting pain on a national history of infamy” (Jela, 2001, p. genitalia, with the first of the victims dead 11). At least seven hundred of the people shortly after the torture session. After he illustrated in this thesaurus are of torturers, describes the ritual and its outcome, Franţ which cannot be ignored. Prior to the pub- Ţandără admits his dependence on the male- lication of this summary work, Doina Jela ficent activity: “many times I found myself wrote a spectacular book, namely the an- satisfied, in all sincerity, I had become an notated confession of a former communist automaton, a brainless, empty robot… Or torturer, Franţ Ţandără. Based on Drumul perhaps I was paranoid, schizophrenic, I Damascului. Spovedania unui fost torţionar don’t know what I was, I was working like [Damascus Road. A Torturer’s Confession], there was no tomorrow” (Jela, 1999, p. 17). I will carry out below a case study of this On the one hand, he acknowledges an communist torturer, who was anonymous, automation of his mercenary torturer ac- but extremely representative of the repres- tivity, on the other hand, he talks about a sive apparatus in Gheorghe Gheorghiu- form of schizoidia, aware of his transgres- Dej’s Romania. sions. Ruxandra Cesereanu 258 The recollection the real, worldly court of law, nobody wants goes on: once he had to judge him: “I wanted to be judged […] I become a torturer, Ţandără benefited from want to be judged, but where should I go? special privileges, he confiscated anything […] I should do some good, because I had he wanted from the other prisoners’ parcels, done enough evil […]. I want to be judged. I he chose women (from among the prison- cannot be my own judge” (Jela, 1999, p. ers) for his sexual pleasuring etc.; but he 37). wanted to be rehabilitated and become a Franţ Ţandără guesses, in his own way, party member. Nevertheless, at the core of the idea of catharsis, because his confession his being, the evil he was perpetrating was will be a Dostoyevskyan confession, adapt- crushing him: this is how he decides to kills ed to postcommunism: he yearns for re- an informant brigadier, so that his former demption from sins and for forgiveness. I mentors think he is insane and then they must confess, Franţ Ţandără repeats obsess- abandon him. But the Party believes that sively, I am the key witness in a process of Ţandără can be retrieved, and thus he is communism; the victims are not the only sent, after psychiatric treatment, as useful ones who need to bear testimony, the execu- tool in the investigations of the Ministry of tioners should testify, too. There is obvious Interior. He is also used in other horrid ac- pride and there stubbornness in the way in tions of the Securitate, which, however, he which Ţandără insists on confessing. There does not want to reveal: “But will I be the is a nearly religious drive in the way in one to carry all of them, all the corpses, all which he wants to be heard. Cain wants to of the dead, was I responsible for all of speak to the crowd and describe how he did them?” (Jela, 1999, p. 22). In his belated wrong. But he does not want to speak only confession, he rebels against the heads of about him, he wants to disclose the entire the Securitate, acknowledging nevertheless system. In his opinion, communists relied that he was a compliant and practical instru- on an unprincipled transgressing and inter- ment: “there’s a lot on my conscience, a lot lope humanity; this is why they managed to on my conscience” (Jela, 1999, p. 23). Once rule the people, by fear. Franţ Ţandără was again in a labour colony, he is released and also a part of this world, in the first stage of sent for admission in a hospital in Bucha- Romanian communism, the unreserved, rest, in a psychiatry section. And, after four primitive and savage stage. Because he wants years of practicing torture, he manages to to disclose the entire system, Ţandără in- get out of the system. tends to ask other torturers to confess, too; Why does Franţ Ţandără give this con- but they refuse him, labelling him a psychi- fession? Because he feels and knows that he atric case. has to pay for what he did; because he ac- Following a brief report, Franţ Ţandără knowledges he is a witness from the other takes his time with his confession. As a side, from the executioners’ side, and thinks common-law inmate, enrolled in the com- that their confession is necessary; because munist regime in order to persecute the his son is gravely ill, and he, the father, the political prisoners, he admits he had lost his former torturer, equates this illness with a faith completely and that the Party had divine punishment. Because, for a drop of replaced God: “I believed in God no longer, salvation, he needs to talk about the evil he I believed in nothing. I only believed in the perpetrated; atonement would mean, per- party” (Jela, 1999, p. 76). As an apprentice haps, forgiveness of half of his sins. He in the system, he had understood that being needs a moral and symbolic court, since in a mercenary was hazardous, but he had Political Police in Communist Romania: the Totalitarian Dystopia accepted the path of communism. At the used throughout his pas- 259 Danube-Black Sea Canal, he receives, as a sages in the Ministry of brigadier, discretionary powers, on account Interior. Throughout the years he acted as a of which he abuses the political prisoners, torturer, Ţandără gets to know other con- he persecutes, he commits cruelties etc. He freres, whom he mentions. He says that each admits he was embittered, that the authori- torturer had a preferred method, that they ties were trying to stimulate in the common- were betting on inventiveness, that origin- law inmates, by all means possible, the class nality in torture was interesting and valua- hatred and that the political prisoners’ exter- ble. mination (the accurate term was “liquida- “This is what communism was: it tion”) was a directive. Țandără admits he needed sadistic people. It needed them and did things pertaining to the pathological: for it created them!” (Jela, 1999, p. 108). For example, accompanied by other brigadiers, his role as a sadistic torturer (“idiot”, “in- he defiled the political prisoners’ corpses, sane”, this is how he describes himself), stripping them to the skin and putting the Ţandără asks for hell: “I should burn in hell. dead in indecent positions. The former tor- I’d like it there. I’ve suffered so much” turer admits: “we were giant beasts” (Jela, (Jela, 1999, p. 109). He then admits that 1999, p. 89). At times, he talks also about hell, for a former cruel and pagan torturer the psychiatric hospitals where political (his own words) is in the heart. He laments, prisoners were admitted: they were submit- in counterpoint, over his destiny and, often ted to pharmaceutical methods and to elec- enough, his confession breaks its coherence tric shocks, until they really became insane. and becomes fragmented and stuttering: Ţandără does not circumvent self-in- “Cruelty, cruelty, mind-boggling […]. I did crimination; on the contrary, he exalts it: he not cut flesh from people, to feed the others, admits, as former torturer, that nobody but it was difficult. Unimaginable torture. forced him to torture, that there had been no Unspeakable” (Jela, 1999, p. 111). The for- pressures, that he had begun to enjoy torture mer torturer’s yearning is the “monastery (it is not in vain that Doina Jela speaks cell” he mentions every now and then, but about the “intoxication with cruelty”, a form his direct audience lets him understand that of doping with violence). The system would his confession and atonement were too easy have mercenary torturers available at any and that God wanted a harsher way, the way time, like in a football team, where there are of complete confession, of overwrought a- always reserves, explains Ţandără. The for- tonement. mer tormentor is not ashamed to admit Asked whether he was not tempted to everything (concretely), but he is ashamed run, ashamed, from people, given the guilt in front of God. This is why a process of of torture, Ţandără answers: “No. Why communism is necessary, he concludes: “A should I hide? Hide from people? I search process of communism, at least a moral one, for people. It’s from God you cannot hide, I should have taken place, for I’ve seen the think. That’s what I think…” (Jela, 1999, p. Romanians are lenient […]. Communism is 119). Obviously, his confession requires an sadistic and in no other country was it as extended audience, he wants it to be a poly- sadistic as in ours” (Jela, 1999, p. 98). The phonic, disseminated atonement. He rejects former executioner admits his role of instru- the stance of the good thief saved by Jesus, ment, of the bully attached to the investi- deeming it minimizing; however, he admits gator (making the already established tor- he wanted to become an evangelist, that he turer-investigator pair): this is how he is was a believer, but he was disappointed. Ruxandra Cesereanu 260 That he lost his faith and Franţ Ţandără’s bouts of asking for became a communist a- punishment are not at all scarce: “I wanted theist, and now, with the confession, he to be judged. I want it now. I’d rather have scrapes to regain his faith. Compared or it in front of a court. No matter. In all hon- teased with Apostle Paul, Franţ Ţandără is esty, I wouldn’t like to be the only one partially accommodated by this posture, judged. I’d feel bad. It’s not me who was even if he rejects the role. His confession the leader of this country. Was I its leader? peaks: “I thought that, this way, God will be The head of this filthy secret Police? […] closer to me. He will supervise me all the The work done was so conspirative that it’s time and help me do no more wrong, he impossible to trace them. Unless some col- would have more time for me, if he saw I’m laborator comes and confesses” (Jela, 1999, searching for him everywhere, restless, like p. 144). Further along, he states: “I am an ill a man mad about him, I’m running, I’m man. Mentally and physically ill. This I why searching for his light …” (Jela, 1999, p. I hate communism! Communism destroyed 122). everything. It had found a good tool in me. Recalling his employment as a torturer And how long was a tool going to work? A in psychiatric hospitals, Ţandără states that tool, in iron, metal, whatever, has a point of torture on political prisoners was carried out expiry. It wears out. They use it until it there since the 1952-1953 of the Gheorghiu- wears out. […] The man, his life had no Dej regime; it was not an innovation of the value. Nor did the purpose he served. As Ceauşescu regime. The former torturer says long as they used him, he was good. And that many of those admitted in psychiatric they used man against man. Like a tool. wards and discovered in 1990 (after the Now I’m ill” (Jela, 1999, p. 161). Romanian revolution of December 1989) The former confessing torturer’s theat- were actually former political prisoners who ricality is suffocating. The very fact that he had gone insane because of the tortures and was admitted as a simulating patient in the had been abandoned there for decades, psychiatric hospitals where he would torture while their former classification had been suggests that, perhaps, at the certain time, forgotten! Ţandără became mentally ill, a torturer high Franţ Ţandără speaks about a particular with his fervent work. That he became cruelty he applied to his victims: defecating mentally ill precisely because he was a tor- in cans, so that the prisoners would be dis- turer. Ţandără is a former executioner who gusted and no longer eat. He had conceived has dreams of his victims (like the majority this torture on his own and was amused by of the torturers, even if they admit it only it: “I was vigilant and inventive” (Jela, rarely); the victims are only undefined faces 1999, p. 134). He admits, however, that he or voices letting him know he will be for- was intoxicated with evil and he was on the given if he has faith. But what are faith in verge of insanity: he was used as a torturer- God and its retrieval to a former torturer? slave, in concentrated episodes, as if his The obsession with atonement? The fervour supervisors were “in love” with him, or, of being judged by the former victims? more exactly, with the manner in which he Tempered hell? The desire to recover from conducted his job of applied, prolific tor- the madness of the times that had him turer. He was producing the largest number obedient? Asked whether he could forgive of victims. He was a recognized expert: he Ţandără, Fronea Bădulescu (former political states unabashed that he had tortured and prisoner) answers that he would; asked killed one hundred people! whether he feels compassion for the former Political Police in Communist Romania: the Totalitarian Dystopia torturer, Fronea Bădulescu says that be- Deletant, Dennis, 261 tween victims and torturers the limits must Communist Terror in Ro- always be kept morally, humanely, reli- mania. Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State. giously. Forgiveness is one thing (it is a 1948-1965, London, C. Hurst & Co. (Pub- Christian thing to do), compassion is anoth- lishers) Ltd., 1999. er one. Frunză, Victor, Istoria stalinismului în A former torturer and his “metanoia”, România [The History of in Ro- is this how things should be understood? mania], , Editura Humanitas, How much of this torturer’s confession is a 1990. role taken, performed assuredly and how Jela, Doina, Drumul Damascului. Spove- much of it is reality? How much is mask dania unui fost torţionar [Damascus Road. and how much is guise afflicted by atone- A Former’s Torturer’s Confession], Bucha- ment? Saul turned tino Paul, persecutor rest, Editura Humanitas, 1999. turned into persecuted? Franţ Ţandără is a Jela, Doina, Lexiconul negru. Unelte ale torn conscience, a necessary confessant, a represiunii comuniste [The Black Lexicon. former executioner who repents, feeling Tools of Communist Repression], Bucharest, guilty on behalf of all the communist execu- Editura Humanitas, 2001. tioners. But he is not a crusader, nor is he a Oprea, Marius, Banalitatea răului. O is- hero, martyr, saint, apostle. Having failed torie a Securităţii în documente (1949- and disappointed as evangelist in God’s 1989) [The Banality of Evil. Documentary service, he wants to be an evangelist of History of the Securitate (1949-1989)], in- atonement and remorse. Nevertheless, he is troductory study by Dennis Deletant, Iaşi, nothing more than a former torturer who Editura Polirom, 2002. confesses. Principiul bumerangului. Documente ale procesului Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu [The Boomerang Principle. Documents in the Lu- Bibliography creţiu Pătrăşcanu Process], coordinating e- ditor Mihai Giugariu, Bucharest, Editura Courtois, Stéphane; Werth, Nicolas; Vremea, 1996. Panné, Jean-Louis; Packowski, Andrzej; Tismăneanu, Vladimir, Arheologia tero- Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis, Le rii [The Archeology of Terror], Bucharest, Livre noir du communisme. Crimes, terreur, Editura Eminescu, 1992. répression, avec la collaboratin de Rémi Tismăneanu, Vladimir, Fantoma lui Kauffer, Pierre Rigoulot, Pascal Fontaine, Gheorghiu-Dej [Gheorghiu-Dej’s Ghost], Yves Santamaria et Sylvain Boulouque, preface by Mircea Mihăieş, translations by Paris, Robert Laffont, 1997. Mircea Mihăieş, Alina Ghimpu, Ioana Plo- Deletant, Dennis, Romania under Com- eşteanu, Diana Roţcu, Laura Sion, Bucha- munist Rule, into Romanian by Delia Răz- rest, Editura Univers, 1995. dolescu, Bucharest, Fundaţia Academia Ci- vică, 1997.