Viorel ROMAN
Romania´s Transformation 1711-2003 2002-08-03
inapoi
ROMANIA´S TRANSFORMATION 1711-2003 I. In the Phanariot era (1711-1829) the concentration of power in the hands of the "Greek Mafia" at the Phanariot Court pursued the policy of extracting the surpluses of Romania's economic process and transferring them to Constantinople. The Prince purchased his throne for a large price. In addition, he had to prolong his tenure on an annual basis to The Sublime Porte. Since there was no clear boundary between the national budget and that of the prince, the latter abused his privileges and diverted monies to himself and to his master - The Sublime Porte. A further "milking" of the surplus occured by means of the monopolization of the country's foreign trade by the Turkish-Phanariot regime. Romania's social structure was deeply divided: at the top the Greek-Phanariot aristocracy; at the bottom the Romanian peasant struggling to survive on a subsistence basis. A similar situation was in the Austrian area of influence. The Romanian peasant, belonging to the Orthodox Church had no political rights; he was at best a tolerated outsider in the Catholic world, "usque ad beneplacitum regis". II. During the "Organic Law" period (1829-56) the Phanariot regime was replaced by the "parasite town" (cp. Stefan Zeletin). Jewish ones replaced the Greek merchant colonies. The Jews, as agents of the West, played an important part in transforming Romania's political system from an Oriental regime to one of a capitalist economy. They were the catalysts for the transition from barter to a monetarist economy. The liberalization of the markets led to a synchronization between Romanian prices and those of the world markets. As a result, the country's foreign trade shifted its direction. Romanian grain harvests rapidly expanded in response to the international demand. A Westernized and Francophile trend developed in Moldavia and Walachia. III. The generation of 1848 took advantage of the transition of Moldavia and Walachia toward a Western environment to formulate a national policy. This assumed independence - a goal that could not be attained without the support of the Western Powers. I.C. Bratianu writes in a Memorandum to Napoleon III - a forecast of Romania's policy up to World War II: "The creation of a Romanian state could be the greatest success France has ever achieved outside her own borders. The Romanian army would be France's oriental bulwark; the ports of the Black Sea and the Danube would be France's commercial entrepots; our timber reserves would make them France's shipyards. France’s economy would benefit from the resources of these rich regions. In the final analysis France would enjoy all the benefits conferred by a new colony without any of the disadvantages attached to such a conquest." IV. The union of Moldavia and Walachia (1859) and the Independence (1877) created the conditions for Romania's new orientation towards the West. This is particularly visible in Cuza’s program (1861) and in the 1875 trade agreement of King Carol I with Austria-Hungary. Cuza adopted liberalism in order to gain the support of the Western Powers against his neighbors. Carol I signed the trade agreement with Austria-Hungary in order to de facto announce his independence from The Sublime Porte. Despite an ever-increasing emphasis on economic nationalism and protectionism, the "Old Kingdom” never developed beyond the stage of a neo-colony whose raison d'étre was that of a supplier of raw materials - grain, timber, oil - to Western Europe. The political unification of the several different parts of Romania was accomplished as a consequence of World War I. The social and economic structure of this Balkan state was basically the following: the underclass, some 16 million peasants living in villages, while a select group of westernized Romanians, and communities of Hungarians, Jews and Germans - each of them with a population of about one million - representing the upper class. At the tip of this "parasite town" was a German king. Democracy was a mere farce and brought little comfort to the peasantry, whose life expectancy barely exceeded forty years of age. By 1938 social unrest had become so severe that King Carol II had to step in and in a swift move announced a "development dictatorship", and in some ways it can be said that this was to last until December 1989. V. In World War II there were three main alternatives of a development strategy for the Romanian economy: Nazi Germany regarded Romania as a raw material supplier and a region of German "Lebensraum". The Anglo-American block with its colonial experience recognized Romania's problem: illiteracy, lack of infrastructure, overpopulated villages, the parasite town etc. Their suggested remedy was industrialization along the Russian line - albeit without Communism. The USSR had its own ideological model to offer. It was a successful strategy and the only one feasible for Romania's situation. The Allies' victory and the partitioning of the world between Russians and Anglo-Saxons led Romania without further complications into the Soviet camp. The externally introduced and imposed break with the past was carried out ruthlessly, as a result of the Russian presence and the proletarian dictatorship; to some extent, however, it matched the social priorities and orthodox traditions of the country. VI. After the Communists’ seizure of power the Romanian Workers Party did no longer carried out the previous policy for the benefit of the Axis powers but for the Soviets. The nationalization of the main means of production, of foreign trade and the collectivization of agriculture was of course a resurrection of the old economic weapon of the Phanariots, this time directed not towards Constantinople, but towards Moscow, the "third Rome". When Stalin created a cordon sanitaire against the West, the Communists first expelled the westernized Romanians, then the Jews and later the German-Hungarian elite as well. Meanwhile the brutality of repressive developmental dictatorship continued without a break. The thrust towards modernization proceeded so successfully that Romania even began to aspire to an "alignment of the level of development"; within the Socialist block. The economic successes finally led to the proclamation of the "independence" (1964). This occurred at the same time as the industrialized members of the Soviet Block were trying to stifle Romania's economic growth. Romania and her economy were now regarded as a form of socialist colony or supplier of raw materials for the military and industrial requirements of the Berlin-Moscow axis. VII. The 1989 Christmas Revolution brought an end to this royal (and subsequently proletarian) dictatorship, the avowed aim of which had been to raise Romania up to the level of development of the rest of Europe. The arguments the dictatorship rested upon have been provided by Mihail Manoilescu's theory of peripheral capitalism. According to this theory the phenomenon of underdevelopment can only be explained in connection with the position assigned to third world countries on the world market. These countries have as a task to supply raw materials and also to act as outlets for goods manufactured in developed industrialized countries. However, Manoilescu contended, such a set-up is extremely disadvantageous to third world countries. To combat its adverse effects, both Carol II. and Ceausescu adopted a policy of detachment, with the goal of keeping the country as far as possible separate from the world market and developing its own resources. Ceausescu hoped that Romania would thereby become able to self satisfy its needs based on its own capacities, gradually building up its own investment and consumer goods industry and expanding its domestic market. The continuity and prospects of this policy of detachment and development were initially quite noteworthy. VIII. As late as the early 1980s, the World Bank ranked Romania among the "newly industrializing countries"; together with Portugal, Israel, South Africa, South Korea, Brazil, Singapore etc. Today Romania’s industrial production has dropped to half of its 1989 figure and the debt burden continues to grow. It is a mystery how is it possible to tell Romanians all the time that there is an economic recovery in progress, when the main goal of its leaders is to abandon the communist heritage; namely the accumulation of industrial capital that occurred during the dictatorship. The true miracle of the transformation or transition is rather the ability of the common Romanian to survive the endemic corruption since over 50% of Romania’s economic activity occurs in the black or gray economy segment. The underground economy, to that the authorities have only limited access, plays the role of an escape valve absorbing an important amount of the dissatisfaction and hostility nurtured by the have-nots, people who lost their jobs, their hopes for a better home, security, social welfare and medical care. IX. However, whether the new economic policy - which still places its hope in foreign aid - can truly usher in new prospects is open to doubt, in the light of previous experiences both in Romania itself and also in other developing countries. It would appear that Bucharest has forgotten Manoilescu's theories and/or has possibly even abandoned any strategy aimed at overcoming the peripheral status. The only policy adopted appears to be a form of crisis management in order to limit the consequences of the Christmas Revolution and its shock therapy, and thereby at least to avert the risk of suffering the same fate as Yugoslavia or USSR. Imperial orthodox Russia, as well as the smaller entities of Balkan Orthodoxy - Romania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria must reform their social structures and work force if they don’t want to vegetate at the periphery of civilization. But is it possible to engage in such a radical change – a transformation - in an orthodox society whose rules of behavior are pointing the other way? X. The latest sound of mimicked cooperation between Romania and the West started 1989 with an intense exchange of information at all levels. The existence of such a dialog created the illusion that a similar exchange will surely follow in the area of economic cooperation and integration. The proof that these rituals have not brought a concrete coordination is furnished by the collapse of the Romanian industrial production. The agriculture is on its way of becoming an inefficient subsistence source. The West is willing to extend Romania’s credits by one billion dollars per year in order to dismantle the old production structures without social explosions. At the same time, the leaders are being offered the chance to extricate their countries from centuries of isolation. The much trumpeted privatization, the stock market, the market economy, etc. seem to be more and more like Potemkin’s villages. All seem to be a cheap imitation that will not work at an income of two US $ per day. At this level of income, it is a nonsense to talk about democracy, a "decent" standard of living, unpolluted waters, heat in the winter, medical care, an efficient educational system and a clean administration, for short “the transition” to the Euro-Atlantic integration. Roman, V.: Rumänien im Spannungsfeld der Großmächte (1774-1991). 3 volume, Offenbach 1987-1991; Imperiul, evreii si românii. Timisoara 1994; Capitalism ortodox, 1999; Transilvania. Bucuresti 1998; De la Rîm la Roma. Bucuresti 1999: Bucovina si Basarabia. Bucuresti 2002 VIOREL ROMAN, ARA MEMBER, Akademischer Rat, Universität Bremen, Vor dem Steintor 18-22, D-28203 Bremen roman@uni-bremen.de