ARHIVĂ SOCIALĂ / STUDII / DOCUMENTE / MĂRTURII Colecţia Observatorul social este coordonată de prof.univ.dr. Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu This publication has been produced as part of PATTERNS Lectures, initiated by ERSTE Foundation and implemented by WUS Austria. www.patternslectures.org. Referenți științifici: Prof. univ. dr. Anton Carpinschi, Universitatea „Al.I. Cuza” Iași Conf. dr. habil. Sergiu Miscoiu, Universitatea „Babeș‐Bolyai” Cluj‐Napoca Redactor: Dana Lungu Tehnoredactor: Florentina Crucerescu Coperta: Manuela Oboroceanu ISBN: 978‐606‐714‐475‐8 © Editura Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2018 700109 – Iaşi, str. Pinului, nr. 1A, tel./fax: (0232) 314947 http:// www.editura.uaic.ro e‐mail: [email protected] Ovidiu Gherasim-Proca (editor) Borders, Barriers and Protest Culture 2018 Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României Borders, barriers and protest culture / ed.: Ovidiu Gherasim‐Proca. ‐ Iaşi: Editura Universităţii „Al. I. Cuza”, 2018 ISBN 978‐606‐714‐475‐8 I. Gherasim Proca, Ovidiu (ed.) 32 CONTENTS Introduction (Ovidiu Gherasim‐Proca) ...................................................... 7 Protest movements and mobilization Structures in Romania. Recent developments Anti‐corruption protests and political crisis. A contextual analysis Ovidiu Gherasim‐Proca ..................................................................... 19 Two discourses on legitimacy. Romanian winter in turmoil Diana Margarit ..................................................................................... 45 The experience of political and social antagonism at the borders of the European Union. Questions and answers The Premises of moving beyond post‐communism Interview with Emanuel Copilaș ...................................................... 65 The sources of power Interview with Vasile Ernu ................................................................ 81 The two elephants in the room Interview with Ovidiu Gherasim‐Proca ........................................ 105 The possibility to say „no” Interview with the group h.arta ....................................................... 125 The “refugee crisis” and the policies of the European Union Interview with Ruxandra Ivan ......................................................... 137 5 Hard(ish) Answers to Eas(il)y Asked Questions Tadej Kurepa, Nebojša Milikić, Ana Vilenica ............................. 147 “There were no leaderless protests in Moldova” Interview with Vitalie Sprînceană .................................................. 163 Notes on contributors ................................................................................. 173 6 INTRODUCTION On December 25, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union, held a televised speech announcing his resignation. The following day the Supreme Soviet would formally validate the fact that the Union ceased to exist. The former communist leader stated the abandonment of the ideological premises that provided the Soviet Union with the status of a global power during the Cold War, emphasizing the critical transformation through which the society passed at that time. He also affirmed categorically the embracing of liberal principles in order to ensure the well‐being of people: “As the economy is being steered toward the market format, it is important to remember that the intention behind this reform is the well‐being of man, and during this difficult period everything should be done to provide for social security, which particularly concerns old people and children. Weʹre now living in a new world. And end has been put to the cold war and to the arms race, as well as to the mad militarization of the country, which has crippled our economy, public attitudes and morals. The threat of nuclear war has been removed. Once again, I would like to stress that during this transitional period, I did everything that needed to be done to insure that there was reliable control of nuclear weapons. We opened up ourselves to the rest of the world, abandoned the practices of interfering in othersʹ internal affairs and using troops 7 Introduction outside this country, and we were reciprocated with trust, solidarity, and respect” (Reuters, 1991). Gorbachev assumed, on behalf of the entire community, the necessity of sacrifice, the presumption of the inferiority of the Soviet institutions in relation to the beneficial ideals of liberalism: “The change ran up against our intolerance, a low level of political culture and fear of change. That is why we have wasted so much time. The old system fell apart even before the new system began to work. Crisis of society as a result aggravated even further. Iʹm aware that there is popular resentment as a result of todayʹs grave situation. I note that authority at all levels, and myself are being subject to harsh criticisms. I would like to stress once again, though, that the cardinal change in so vast a country, given its heritage, could not have been carried out without difficulties, shock and pain”. However, the imagined wonderful “new world” that required so many sacrifices, which determined huge masses of citizens of the socialist state to mobilize in street demonstrations in 1991, would have involved recognizing and preserving the democratic progress generated by the openness (glasnost) policy: “I consider it vitally important to preserve the democratic achievements which have been attained in the last few years. We have paid with all our history and tragic experience for these democratic achievements, and they are not to be abandoned, whatever the circumstances, and whatever the pretexts. Otherwise, all our hopes for the best will be buried. I am telling you all this honestly and straightforwardly because this is my moral duty”. 8 Introduction Since then, despite the warning above, those hopes and the good intentions on which these were based disappeared without a trace. The transition has occurred, but not according to the terms of the socialist humanism that inspired the politics of openness and reform (glasnost and perestroika). 25 years after that crucial moment of 1991, the Cold War atmosphere made its presence felt again in the region. Preparing for war is once more considered an essential political priority, adversity and the politics of fear are ubiquitous. The social history of the citizens of the socialist states, the history of social rights that they regarded as universal, the hopes for the welfare liberalism in which they believed or their confidence in the peaceful progress of mankind are being forgotten as older generations disappear. And the ideological transformation that has taken place in the meantime has had far‐ reaching political and economic consequences. As Francisco Martinez remarked, the term post‐socialism was coined in the West in order “to study what followed the break‐up of the Soviet Union, namely the privatisation of the means of production and public goods, the discredit of critics of capitalism, the dismantlement of the Cold War geopolitical barriers and the reduction to zero‐value of the remnants from the past world. But even if the concept is first of all associated with East‐Central Europe, the experience has had several collateral effects on the world as a whole as, for instance, an increase of labour and economic inequality; a growing vulnerability for individuals (discrediting of collective thought); a rise in the transnational circulation of capital; a technological shift which accelerates everyday life; an escalation of production (correlated by one of 9 Introduction consumption ); the in capability to verbalise political alternatives ; and an extensive desynchronisation of temporalities” (2017, 8). As a result of the fierce competition to attract foreign capital, despite the expectations, neoliberal reforms introduced in Central and Eastern Europe have had a considerable durability and have advanced beyond their foreseeable limits. This trend strengthened the neoliberal paradigm and reinforced the feeling of no alternative, the references to the already ghostly socialist past being used by the “winners of the transition” typically in order to justify inequities, labour discipline, the glorification of the middle class and the dereliction of the social responsibilities of the state (Chelcea and Druja 2016, 525‐529). From the perspective of the Romanian transition, if we choose an analytical approach focused on how the memory of socialism was instrumentalised by politicians, post‐socialism can be defined as the era in which the ghostly appearance of communism is held alive just as a means to validate the perpetual continuity of neo‐liberal political and economic strategies, it is the era of “zombie socialism”. Gradually before 1989, at a rapid pace after, the capitalism with a human face, which preceded the 1979 oil crisis, became increasingly inhospitable transforming itself into its opposite. The neoliberal political order and free market fundamentalism are currently undermining the very social conditions of the existence of political liberalism. As sad as a coincidence as this is, as if to reinforce the conclusion of this quarter‐century, on December 19, 2016, Republican Donald Trump was elected by the Electoral College as President of the United States of America (Jacobs 2016). This happened in the shadow of a conspiracy theory. The election had 10 Introduction been won, the Democratic Party officials claimed, following Putin regimeʹs occult intervention in favour of its preferred candidate (Buncombe 2018). Simultaneously, conspiracy