EDITORIAL

The conclusion reached in an analysis of the social disharmony devastating the country sounds very unambiguous: "Neither the former victims nor the former hangmen, neither the unskilled nor the unborn can built Romania's European destiny. It is only a Romanian society reconciled with itself that must and can fulfil this task."

What the author of the analysis doesn't say is that in these 17 years Romania's destiny was disturbed by the very ex hangmen, by the many ambitious badgers in the second layer of the ideological terror and by the pains taken by lots of political migrators. As for the contribution of the unborn, I am refraining from comments.

We are reminded that there was a Revolution in Romania in 1989. This is false. Only those behind the coup against the palace and those who took advantage of the magic that pushed people out in the streets - to be sacrificed so that the coup against the palace would look like a revolution - are still claiming this nowadays. But let's admit, for the dispute's sake, that the analyst is right. Here is who made the revolution, why and how.

"At national level, the Romanian revolution, just like any revolution, could have only been coordinated by the Romanian Communist elite, because of the conclusion that the regime could no longer survive (therefore not in the competition against the capitalist rival) or undergo reform." The idea that any revolution, from the French to the one in Cuba, is the work of the regime's elite who must die is worthy of the Guinness Book, more exactly of the "Deathless Suicides" section. Whom are Romanians to thank for the respective 'revolution'? The answer is clear: "The collapse of the old regime and the solution to replace it with a fundamentally different one emerged therefore not from the victims of Totalitarian Communism, but from the 'children' of the hangmen who denied their outlook and also the murders committed by their political-ideological 'parents'. There were also the few 'repentant elderly men' or people showing that 'who is not a Communist before turning 30 is soulless and who is a Communist after turning 30 is a fool.' "

It is just that the coup plotted and carried out by the Communist elite, showed on TV as revolution, did not bring a fundamentally different regime. It only brought a regime able to pretend to be a rule of law - starting with the tyrannicide in Targoviste disguised as trial - and to keep as far as possible the time when the institutions belonging to the rule of law would become so indeed.

How it is possible that the revolt of a dictatorship's victims should play no part in a revolution is something that only the ex activists of the UASCR, the lecturers at the 'Stefan Gheorghiu' Institute and the thinkers at the CEPECA can understand. The analyst believes that 'the victims' revolt' and 'the protest's strength' determined the end of the dictatorship in no way. Here is the conclusion: "This is why to fight now against its collaborators unpurified by the revolution is to fight against ghosts, just as to fight against the leaders of the revolution is to deny its very program or the significance of its very message."

I can't grasp why it is so inappropriate to fight against those whose only target was to drive Ceausescu and his group away only to take over instead. I can neither understand why one should respect the message of that tragic bluff dating back to 1989, since this massage was as follows: "You victims come hit the streets and let yourselves shot by our terrorist revolutionaries. You are dead anyway and it is only us who know how, why and when to achieve a revolution. Come on, enter history!"

Articol disponibil la adresa http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=213157&data=2006-12-20