Lavinia STAN (ed.), Prezentul trecutului recent: lustraţie şi decomunizare în postcomunism
(Transitional Justice in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Reckoning with the Communist Past), Curtea Veche Publishing, Bucureşti, 2010, 535 pp.
Putting under a diligent analysis the multitude of memorial strategies and politics of memory in the region, the book endeavours to study the progress of 9 post-communist East-European countries (East Germany (pp. 40-80) – Gary Bruce, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (pp. 80-146) – Nadya Nedelsky, Poland (pp. 146-195), Hungary (pp. 195-241), Romania (pp. 241-287) – Lavinia Stan, Bulgaria (pp. 287- 333) – Momchil Metodiev, Albania (pp. 333-377) – Robert C. Austin and Jonathan Ellison, Slovenia (pp. 377-415) – Tamara Kotar), and of all the USSR successor-states (pp. 415-460 – L. Stan). Each of these case studies presents a well documented picture of the historical context, with specific focus on the evolution of the Secret Police. Likewise, authors take under a careful view past and present political hierarchies and, of course, the political negotiations resulting into the enactment and implementation of relevant legislation and methods, activity of governmental agencies in charge of holding the secret archives, and significant civil society initiatives.
In the final chapter Lavinia Stan puts forward a comparative examination of the manner in which these countries have succeeded or failed to adopt de-communization policies. Furthermore, this chapter offers a brief critical looking into previous theoretical models of authors such as Samuel Huntington, John P. Moran, Helga A. Welsh, Kieran Williams, Brigid Fowler, Aleks Szczerbiak, Nadya Nedelsky, and Monika Nalepa. Though this part is relatively succinct (pp. 486-495) and the author does not intend to put the accent on refuting former theories and arguments, but rather on justifying the construction of her own theoretical framework and the gaps it aims at filling in the specialized literature, this volume gains, through this too, the features of an indispensable reading in trying to understand de-communisation and post-communist transition. Likewise, what made this volume so well received in the international academic milieu was its putting forward an original analysis instrument, to be discussed in the following.
In terms of contribution to the specialized literature on de-communization in general and on transitional justice in particular, the book under review is remarkable from many points of view. First, it is worth noting that no other similar study has endeavoured to asses all the post-communist countries which did not experienced an extended war in the 1990s (excluding thus Yugoslavia, but including Slovenia). As Lavinia Stan writes, none of the authors previously undertaking the study of reckoning with the past processes has considered the so-called non-cases (p. 496), i.e. countries that have avoided or at least demonstrated low incentives to confronting their dictatorial past (e.g. Slovenia, where transition to democracy was made without taking too much interests in de-communization initiatives such as lustration laws, prosecution of former perpetrators or any sort of public institutionalised denunciation of the communist dictatorship as a criminal and illegal regime – pp. 377-378). What Lavinia Stan seems to be saying through this methodological choice is the fact that there are no non-cases. Having chosen not to deal with the past is in itself a way of dealing with the past. If struggling to understand the factors which have impacted this process, both the failure and the success stories encompass equally valuable information and proof.
Secondly, the present study examines a longer period of time, discussing the process of de-communization and the policies of memory undertaken by these countries starting with 1989 to 2007, the year of the Romanian and Bulgarian adherence to the EU, time mark which represents in the eyes of this volume’s contributors the end of the post-communist transition (p. 39). Of course, Stan emphasises, it is to expect and wish for further political and economic transformation in the region; however the full EU membership stands as a confirmation of the significant change produced in the region. Finally and most importantly, this volume does not centre solely on one dimension of the post-communist de-communization. Instead, three crucial methods of reckoning with the past were considered for each country, i.e. 1. lustration initiatives, 2. the access to secret files by regular citizens, and 3. the trial and prosecution of former perpetrators (p. 38).
As stated before in this review, the perspective adopted by the authors is a comparative politics one. The reader should know thus that it would have been impossible and counter-productive to go into all the details and specificities of each country. In the view of that, the contributors did not intend to enlist each and every initiative, event or individual connected or relevant to a certain degree to the de-communization process in that country. Instead, the volume puts emphasis on a number of suggestive examples. Consequently, the reader should not be puzzled, for instance, by Gary Bruce’s not discussing the impact of the de-nazification precedent for the East-German de-communization. Even though the symbolism is immense1, it does not explain, Bruce claims, the later evolution of the German institutionalized de-communization deeds, not even in what may concern related criminal trials2, even less with regard to lustration or access to files.
Instead, what Lavinia Stan thinks to be a much better fitted explanation for the evolution of the German de-communization process, as for the other case-studies, is the relative political power of the communist parties’ successors and their former opposition (p. 497). Considering that neither the type of transition, nor the nature of the dictatorial regime (the exit/voice explanation of Moran, originally developed by Hirschman – pp. 488-490) could elucidate by themselves the process of dealing with the past, Stan departs from previous explanatory models by suggesting a new one. Consequently, she argues that the dynamics of the de-communization process are dependent, in an exhaustive and most germane manner, on three factors: 1. the composition, orientation, and power of the opposition before and after 1989, 2. the dominant methods of repression and/or cooptation used by the former regime for ensuring social obedience, and 3. the pre-communist pluralistic experience of the country (p. 497). Furthermore, in drawing the final picture of each country’s progress, Stan inquired into the promptitude and rigorousness of lustration, access to files, and prosecution and trial actions.
Assuming that the reader is more familiar and concerned with the local case, I would be discussing next in more details the chapter referring to Romania. As Lavinia Stan maintains, this country is an interesting case study precisely because its latest evolution tends to point the finger at flawed or incomplete previous interpretations and explanations. Having lived one of the most severe communist regimes, firstly under a phase of “unbound Stalinism” and afterwards under one of “dynastic communism”3, would have indicated, following previous theories, better prospects for rapid and rigorous de-communisation measures (p. 283). However, Lavinia Stan appreciates the overall evolution of this country relating to de-communization and reckoning with its recent past as having been modest, managing to implement only 2 of the 3 measures of de-communization, i.e. prosecution and access to files, but not succeeding in passing a lustration law.
What started as a motivated and very firm (p. 489) effort to marginalize former communist leaders during the December Revolution and immediately after, under the shape of the emblematic Timişoara Proclamation (pp. 251-256), ended up by being a failed process of lustration enactment. Explained partly by the lack of political will and by the fact that it became an over politicized subject belonging to “the politics of the present”, lustration legislation was never passed in Romania. Twenty years after the Revolution, Stan explains, the subject of lustration is seen by many politicians as an useless and stale one (p. 255), however also as an easily exploitable rhetoric pattern in political competitions.
Furthermore, Lavinia Stan argues that the access to secret files could be seen as the area in which Romania has demonstrated the most coherence and incentive, compared to the other two aspects under study: lustration and the prosecution of perpetrators (p. 262). Nevertheless, the analysis of Stan puts into view certain serious errors of the CNSAS (The National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives) involving procedural faults and flawed decisions (pp. 242, 263-264). An interesting point is raised by Stan around the 2005 SRI’s (Romanian Intelligence Service) transferring secret files to the CNSAS. Taking into consideration the fact that this transfer came much later than expected, rightful doubts about the authenticity of those documents were voiced by some observers, while, of course, any evidence of such an altering is almost impossible to be found(p. 267). Yet, it is worth mentioning that after 2006 the CNSAS acquired access to most of the Securitate files, fact which marks a positive evolution after the adoption of Law no. 187/1999 regulating the access to one’s own file (p. 262).
In what may concern the third de-communization measure, i.e. prosecution of communist leaders, Romania is by far one of the most interesting cases in the region. Lavinia Stan brings into discussion a possible taxonomy of such trials, as she includes here an analysis of social and political symbolism, and of rule-of-law consistency concerning the most relevant cases in the post-communist history of Romania (pp. 267-283). Among these, of course, the reader could find the revolutionary-type trial and execution of the dictatorial couple (p. 273-275). As Stan argues, the trial of the Ceauşescus was dominated by immediate political interests and by a total lack of respect for law. In the view of that, Stan assesses this trial as having meant losing a crucial chance to have an honest confrontation with the past and inquiring into the nature and mechanisms of repression (p. 273). On the other hand, Stan notes, this trial’s significance is related also to failing to mark the democratic start by an affirmation of legality as a fundamental value of the new regime.
Furthermore, restrictions imposed by the expiration of the statutes of limitations and other procedural problems, added to obvious difficulties regarding the documentation and gathering of proves concerning aggressions committed under the first stages of the communist rule (p. 273) resulted, Stan asserts, into a poor rate of bringing the ones responsible for the most terrible crimes of communism in front of justice (p. 282). Nonetheless, the author notes (pp. 482-483) that the number of trials organized in Romania is considerably bigger than in other countries in the region. Yet, it is to be stressed that very few of these trials ended up with a final sentence. Moreover, Stan emphases an important nuance relating to the process of reckoning with the past by legal means in Romania: the great majority of these trials judged exclusively crimes committed during the Revolution and only a very small number of these (4 - out of which 2 ended with a final sentence)4 abuses committed during the communist rule. Therefore, against the odds predicted by previous authors (notably Huntington), Lavinia Stan was able to show that (strictly in the issue of reckoning with the past by juridical means) Romania is not at all a success-story, but rather the first among other cases of not-a-success (p. 483).
By taking into consideration all the countries in the region and, very importantly, for an extended period of time, this volume succeeds in offering a well-documented picture of the different methods and choices made by post-communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe with regard to dealing with their recent past. The findings of the book refer first and foremost to an endeavour of positioning each of these countries and their efforts of de-communization and reckoning with the past on a line between to “forgive and forget” and to “prosecute and punish” (p. 461). In the view of that, the study classifies these countries into 4 big groups according to the promptitude and effectiveness demonstrated in this process (p. 485). Consequently, countries such as Germany, the Czech Republic, and the 3 Baltic countries are considered to have been the most rigorous in their de-communization efforts, adopting rapid lustration, wide access to secret files, and taking firm juridical actions against perpetrators. Hungary and Poland, countries in which the de-communization process came later and proved to be less radical, could be found in a second category, that of a moderate de-communization. Furthermore, Romania and Bulgaria are placed together in a third group, as these countries have not shown the same incentives to all 3 methods (in the case of Romania: no lustration, in the case of Bulgaria: no prosecutions and trials), managing to implement an overall weak de-communization. Finally, the fourth category includes Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, and all the ex-USSR states, countries which have proved to have no genuine interest in adopting memory policies or in breaking with their past.
At a conceptual level, the meaning that can be attached to this volume is, in my view, that of calling attention to the degrees encompassed in the term “success”. Especially when relating this notion to those of political justice, victimization and victim, and responsibility, the eye analysing it should always remain lucid. As noted by Vladimir Tismăneanu in the foreword (p. 9), the authors of this volume have not only emphasised that there are no universal recipes in breaking with a painful past, but also that the nuances included in the success or failure of each of these choices are most often as important as the method itself.
Cristina Golomoz, Political Science Department (3rd year student) & IICCMER (intern, Department “Exile and Minorities”)
1 See, among others, Ruti G. TEITEL, Transitional Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 11-69
2 Eventually, all these countries have chosen to adopt a “positivist” approach to the notion of Rule of Law, to the detriment of a “natural law” one. The prosecution of acts committed under the previous regime were conducted, thus, in accordance to the principle of nullum crimen sine lege and to the communists Criminal Codes.
See Raluca GROSESCU, Raluca URSACHI, Justiţia penală de tranziţie: de la Nürnberg la postcomunismul românesc, Polirom, Iaşi , 2009, pp. 201-202
3 Vladimir TISMĂNEANU, Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, 2003
4 See Raluca GROSESCU, Raluca URSACHI, Justiţia penală de tranziţie: de la Nürnberg la postcomunismul românesc, Polirom, Iaşi , 2009, p. 182