The analysis I am talking about tells us what Romanian Communism was and what the dear wanted to achieve - in its green years (of cruel dictatorship), when it got disguised into a revolution, wearing the revolutionary cap over the helmet. I quote: "In Romania Communism was not only of Russian-Soviet origin, but it had national explanations as well. It transformed Romanian society, with its ups and downs. It prepared this society, against its own will, for a different kind of capitalism, the modern, civilized, democratic capitalism, with respect for human rights. The Revolution was after such a goal, but not after the rehabilitation of those whom Communism had turned into victims in an unjust manner."
That the coup against the palace wasn't aimed at rehabilitating the victims of Communism (my opinion is that, except for some thousands villains, both imported and Romanian, the entire people were victims) is true. But the fact that on us there was bestowed a 'modern, civilized, democratic capitalism, with respect for human rights' is false, a view worthy of the never closed labs belonging to the Communist propaganda.
According to the analyst, Romania is not where it should be (although we can see that Communism and its avant-garde, the coup in 1989, arranged the circumstances so carefully) because of three typically Romanian features: lack of solidarity, divagation and lack of synchronization. All these are more than present, but what is interesting is how the analyst approaches the fault.
It is interesting, but not surprising, since the analyst considers the difference between good and evil to be arbitrary. I quote: "Any moral approach to things in terms of the good and the evil, after all arbitrary, leads to lack of solidarity." Immorality and things taken to be beyond the good and the evil don't probably lead to such lack, do they? To include in any initiative or to take as absolute priority the moral approach is nave. But to always leave the moral approach apart, in any political and social initiative, is murder.
The analyst argues that an important category of people guilty of the three features listed above is the one made up of those dissidents 'unable to fit any type of order' (they continue to be 'dissidents' today and they think society is to be blamed because they are misfits). Here we can see that in 2006 we are where we were right after the University Square demonstrations.
Therefore it is not the plotters in the palace to be blamed for today's social disasters. It is Doina Cornea's inability to adapt to Romania, a company owned by the Social Democrat Party, to be blamed for it. The Parliament crammed with ex Securitate (Communist Secret Service in Romania) agents, informers and propaganda men is not at fault, but Radu Filipescu's dislike of financial oligarchies. The 'technocrats' produced by the UASCR and more institutions of the ex Securitate are blameless, but misfits like Dan Petrescu, Viorel Padina and Gheorghe Brasoveanu are at fault. Therefore we are not to blame the groups of political commuters (Social-Democrats in the morning, Democrats at midday, Christian-Democrats in the afternoon and in the evening again Democrats or Liberals with a call for the conservative line), but the decency of people like Ionel Cana, Vasile Paraschiv, Marian Celac or Gabriel Andreescu.
One who opposed the Communist dictatorship doesn't necessarily play a top role in the post-Communist society. But the arrogant confidence of former state and party servants that it is them in particular who can integrate Romania in Europe and in the rest of the world is grotesque, just like their opinion that the others are just guilty for the lack of solidarity, divagation and the lack of synchronization slowing down the integration process.