C(h)ristian’s Blog

Brace Yourselves for the Storm: the 2012 Parliamentary Elections in Romania under the Sign of Radical Right Populism

There is little doubt that the mainstream political scene in Romania is presently undergoing some dramatic convulsions. The current affairs have come to be compared by foreign and native political analysts alike, matter-of-factly, with the equally tumultuous period that Romanian witnessed during the early 1990s. Indeed, besides the ideological polarization specific to the eve of such important political confrontation as the Parliamentary elections (scheduled for December 9th 2012), the tone and manner of political discourse in Romania has witnessed a return to a level that many have hoped it was a thing of the past. In this context, these elections appear to be taking place under the sign of radical right populist discourse, which seems to come also from established political entities with a different ideological profile, not only the now consecrated radical right populist parties – and in here I refer to the Greater Romania Party (PRM/ Partidul România Mare) – and some newcomers – the previously discussed Popular Party–Dan Diaconescu (PP–DD/ Partidul Popular–Dan Diaconescu).

In this context, several political events are illustrative of the said political climate. These are, in approximately chronological order: first, Dan Diaconescu’s surprising participation in the (by now failed) privatization process that the largest petrochemical companies in Romania (namely Oltchim) and in Central and Eastern Europe had undergone this September. No matter how perplexing this might sound, but Dan Diaconescu (PP–DD) has participated in the Oltchim privatization as a private person and declared he is motivated by his desire to return such a national asset back to its rightful owners: ‘the Romanian people‘. Even more perplexing, Diaconescu has later been declared the winner of the privatization bid and were to assume control over the Oltchim shortly thereof. Diaconescu played his role of being the ‘Saviour on a white horse’ (as labelled in newspapers; in Romanian, aici) very well. Despite accusations that he did not have the financial resources to perfect the privatization (accusations that are yet to be proven in court), he eventually presented no less than 1,8 million EUR in cash (several sacks allegedly filled with money had been transported in front of the Ministry of Economy in Bucharest, which was widely discussed in media; in Romanian, aici) to pay for the privatization. In this context, in decidedly populist manner, Diaconescu claimed that the sacks of money he brought to the Ministry of Economy were in fact destined ‘to pay the salaries of Oltchim workers’ (which have not received their salaried rights for several months). The governing coalition landed in a very ungrateful situation: mismanaging a significant privatization process, and coming out humiliated in such a populist manner by Diaconescu. The event signalled that the Romanian Social Democrats (PSD/ Partidul Social Democrat) are going to encounter a serious competitor in the PP–DD in their appeal for the support of Romanian working class. The few traditionally social-democratic policies implemented since the cabinet Ponta assumed office earlier this year are apparently going to be counteracted by a reputable adversary, which is versed in using the populist rhetoric.

Second, the more recent announcement that George (Gigi) Becali – former leader of a minuscule radical right populist party, the New Generation Party–Christian Democrat (PNG–CD/ Partidul Noua Generaţie–Creştin Democrat), and elected EMP on the PRM list – will be joining the ranks of the National Liberal Party (PNL/ Partidul Naţional Liberal). Becali was later confirmed as the PNL candidate for a deputy seat on the common list of the Social Liberal Union (USL/ Uniunea Social Liberală). The USL consisting of, as previously mentioned, the PM Victor Ponta’s  and their allies the Center Right Alliance, which reunites the  PNL and the Conservative Party (PC/ Partidul Conservator). The fact that Becali has joined the PNL and has immediately received an eligible place on behalf of the party on the USL list for the Lower Chamber (Camera Deputaților) has determined several commentators to wonder if this was the wisest political move the PNL could have done at present, just weeks from the Oltchim privatization in which it was heavily involved. Even more so, there are serious question marks on how compatible is the PNL’s self–declared subscription to liberalism with Becali’s blatantly xenophobic, homophobic and sexist misogynistic remarks (in Romanian, aici). Some others have seen in this just another case of a nouveau riche purchasing himself an eligible parliamentary seat on the lists of a respectable party, and wondered if the PNL would actually survive past this electoral cycle (in Romanian, aici).

Right of centre on the political spectrum, the conservative Democratic Liberal Party (PDL/ Partidul Democrat-Liberal) announced to have crafted a political alliance together with the Civic Force (FC/ Forța Civică), the pocket–party of former-PM Ungureanu, and a faction of the Christian-Democratic National Peasants’ Party (PNT–CD/ Partidul Naţional Ţărănesc–Creştin Democrat). The alliance is titled the Right (or Just) Romania Alliance (ARD/ Alianța România Dreaptă) (in Romanian, aici). Among the main figures of the new alliance, Adrian Papahagi, the Vice-president of the Christian–Democrat Foundation has succeed to draw the public outrage through a xenophobic, homophobic and sexist remark, which he posted on his Facebook profile. Expressing displeasure with the acting PM Ponta and his rather chaotic months of premiership (the plagiarism scandal, which is still pending a definitive decision, the forceful change of chiefs of institutions, and the failed attempt to depose the acting President Traian Basescu, to name just a few) Papahagi argued that: “After all, if we have reached that stage to have prime minister who is a plagiarist, and a putschist and Guevarist, why shouldn’t we soon have as President a Roma lesbian atheist.” It is highly troublesome how plagiarism, intrigue–making and ideological radicalism could easily lead, what according to Papahagi was the image of absolute Alterity – yet another Evil Other – manifest in Romanian politics: a Roma (thus not Romanian, but the most discriminated ethnic minority in Romania, thereby indicating the total reversal of the ‘normal’ hierarchy of values); lesbian (thus, not only less than man – read woman –  but also sexually deviant from the heteropatriachal norm); atheist (thus, not Romanian Christian Orthodox, deviating from the allegedly one and only true way of being Romanian, and a Romanian President at it). His statement was quickly sanctioned (both original quote and the reaction to it, in Romanian, aici).  Papahagi reacted swiftly by labelling his critics as “commissars”. The word reminds both of the feared Russian “commissars” of USSR, but also closer to our present days, of the epithet usually employed by the radical right populist leader Tudor (PRM) to describe one of his female adversaries (Zoe Petre) – perhaps unsurprisingly one of Papahagi’s critics is a woman (Alina Mungiu–Pippidi) (in Romanian, aici).

Finally, the PRM leader’s return to his previous anti-Semitic discourse, manifest this time through a reiterated denial of the Holocaust in Romania, and thereby lending support to a PSD member, incumbent Minister of Relations with the Parliament in the Ponta cabinet. Indeed, the PRM leader, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, did not fail to disappoint and delivered another anti-Semitic rant. Commenting on the issue of Holocaust in Romania, and the active participation of Romanian forces in the mass killing of Jews on Romanian soil, Tudor argued that no Romanians have ever been involved into the killings, rather they have been victims of the Holocaust themselves, together with the Jews and Romani (in Romanian, aici). Tudor defended in this context Dan Șova (PSD), now incumbent Minister of Relations with the Parliament in the Ponta cabinet. In March this year, Șova, then newly appointed PSD spokesperson, argued that “no Jew suffered on Romanian territory, thanks to marshal Antonescu”, causing widespread outrage – despite expressing regret that his statement has been misunderstood, Șova has refused to apologize (in English, here).

This leaves way to a lot of questions with regard to the coming Parliamentary elections: is the Romanian political mainstream taking the road of populist xenophobic extremism? Will there be any place for a debate about viable competing solutions for the country’s economic recovery between the left (i.e. the PSD, perhaps much watered down as a result of the USL electoral alliance) and the right (perhaps in this case it would be the PDL, and their ARD centre–right conservative alliance)? Is the Romanian political mainstream, in general, becoming permeated by radical right populism, with an increasing number of mainstream parties succumbing to xenophobia, homophobia, and submission to heteropatriarchism? Is it of any help to reflect how the main political forces in Romanian plan to address the serious democratic deficit the country is witnessing (Romania has one of the lowest percentage of women involved actively in mainstream politics from the whole EU)? Why would be of any importance if any woman active in Romanian politics, would be of Roma origin or from any other ethnic minority, or if she would be a lesbian, or a professed atheist?

—

In an attempt to ease the understanding of the various abbreviations present within the present post, I attach herein a succinct presentation of the main political parties and their electoral results in the Romanian Parliamentary elections between 1996 and 2008.  For this purpose, I made use of the European Election Database (EED) that has been compiled by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD/ Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste). I do not have any copyright claims on the attached graph, which has been generated on the NSD–EED website containing information about Romania.

Notes:

The total number of seats increased from 332 in 2004 to 334 in 2008. Seats: 316 (elected) + 18 assigned to ethnic minorities other than the Hungarians = 334.
2000: PSD ran as PDSR as Social Democratic Pole Alliance with PSDR
2001: PDSR merged with PSDR into PSD.
1996: PDL ran as part of Social Democratic Union (USD)
2000: PDL ran as PD
2004: PDL as part of Justice and Truth Alliance (DA: PNL-PD)
2004: PNGCD ran as PNG
1996: PNL ran as part of Democratic Convention of Romania (CDR)
2004: PNL ran as part of Justice and Truth Alliance (DA: PNL-PD)

Tags: alegeri parlamentare 2012, anti-Roma, anti-Semitic, Becali, Dan Diaconescu, Evil Other, heteronormativity, heterosexism, homophobia, masculinities, misogyny, nation, nationalism, Partidul Poporului Dan Diaconescu, People’s Party–Dan Diaconescu, PNG-CD, PRM, racism, radical right populism, Roma, Romania, Romania Parliamentary elections 2012, Romanian politics, RRP, Vadim Tudor, xenophobia

2011 Finnish Parliamentary Elections. Constructing Enemies in the Name of Pure Finnish Heteropatriarchy – Examples from the KD, the PS and Other Conservatives

The campaigning for coming Parliamentary elections in Finland to take place on April 17 2011 appears to have started in earnest. Some people may regard as the starting signal for the election campaign PM Mari Kiviniemi‘s comment with regard to questioning the status of Swedish as the second official language in Finland in early September (in Swedish, här). This came as a result of what some thought to be a rather personal defeat for Mari Kiviniemi on the prolonged twists on the issue of Kokkola/ Karleby and its administrative orientation northwards – favored by Kiviniemi and the Center Party (Kesk/ Keskusta/ Centerpartiet) – and the southern alternative – which was eventually preferred; what appeared to have tipped the balance were not the economic, or even the historical reasons, but the discussion on the accessibility of services in Swedish, with Vaasa/ Vasa as the readily available option as a thriving bilingual center for the whole Ostrobothnian region. More recently, Kiviniemi would argue that she is even open to explore the possibility of replacing the teaching of Swedish language in the schools in Eastern Finland with that of Russian in the coming governing mandate (in Swedish, här). The official discourse is one of stimulating the local economies, and increasing the attractiveness of these communes to potential Russian investors, in other words a rather dangerous disregarding of constitutional rights for some probable economic gains. However, this is not a new issue, as the Green League (Vihr/ Vihreä liitto/ Gröna förbundet) has risen up this issue for quite some time.

What is perhaps more worrying, was the unfolding of a very controversial debate concerning the rights of the LGBT community members. More clearly, the Finnish National Broadcaster, YLE aired on October 12 the Homoilta (in English, Gay evening; the recording of the show in Finnish, tässä), that was meant to be a forum for discussing homosexuality in Finland and the possible effects of passing of a gender-neutral marriage act by the Finnish Parliament, especially since this is met with strong opposition from within the Finnish Lutheran Church (Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko/ Evangelisk-lutherska kyrkan i Finland) which enjoys the status of state church. On the side of those who opposed such a move were gathered a conservative priest and Päivi Räsänen, spokes-person of the Finnish Christian-Democrats (KD/Kristillisdemokraatit/Kristdemokraterna) in the company of Pentti Oinonen, a member of the True Finns (PS/ Perussuomalaiset/ Sannfinländarna) in the Finnish Parliament. The discussion focused a lot on how – and surprisingly, even if – the LGBT community should enjoy the same rights as the rest of the Finnish population. Most media attention received Päivi Räsänen‘s (KD) uncompromising remarks on the matter, but she was closely seconded by Pentti Oinonen (PS) with regard to Finland’s defense understood as safeguarding the traditional values of family and religion in the Finnish society. Päivi Räsänen argued that there is no need to change the heterosexual family institution that, according to her, has worked so well for thousands of years. Intriguingly, there was no discussion whatsoever about the continuous struggle for gender equality and for modernizing the aforesaid institution that oftentimes proved to be just another word for women’s subjection to the arbitrary will of men and containment to the ‘safe’ surroundings of the home. More worryingly is that Päivi Räisänen seems to be willing to turn back time, advocating straightforwardly for a total ban on abortions, unless pregnancy is a direct threat to the mother’s life (in English, here). Heteropatriarchy unveiled in its bare and oppressive entirety, some may argue. With regard to rights of the LGBT members to marry and possibly have/ adopt children the opposition was stiff. Such remarks that it is a universal children’s right to have a mother and a father, but it is not a universal right to have children, that the family as a heteropatriarchal institution has been thriving the past thousands of years so there is no need to change it, that the Christian teachings refer to homosexuality as a sin, were often heard during the show.

The effects of YLE’s show became shortly apparent, with an estimated of more than 34,000 people to have signed off from the registry of the Finnish Lutheran Church (as of October 24 2010) (follow the updated numbers here). The Finnish language online service eroakirkosta.fi (in Finnish) through which people can resign their church membership has registered a sharp increase in numbers soon after the airing of the TV debate. This will certainly have some serious financial effects which will soon be noticeable, with a church official arguing that the church might lose as much as EUR 2 million annually (in English, here).

However, while much of the public debate has focused on Päivi Räsänen‘s remarks, very little attention was given to the company in which these comments were made. It should not be surprising that the (arch)conservatives gathered the most traditionalist elements of the Finnish Lutheran Church, and the KD and the PS. In other words, the two parties appear to consolidate the tactical alliance they built up with the occasion of the 2009 European Parliamentary elections, which witnessed the alliance winning two mandates (out of a total of 13 that are allocated to Finland). And in the light of the last opinion survey by Taloustutkimus, the PS is riding on high horses, collecting 14.3% of the people’s votes, while KD increases only slightly to 4.6% (from 4.4% last month) (the whole results, in Swedish, här).

While the debate on gender-neutral marriage act was unfolding, Timo Soini, the PS leader, announced he would not prevent party members from drafting an anti-immigration election manifesto for the PS. He maintained that since he is not more than a member of the party’s leading organ, he will not stop the internal party dynamics (in Swedish, här). Arguably, this preserves Soini‘s image of a middle of the road politician that rarely crosses the borders of gentlemanly civility. At the same time it reveals his rare political ability, since he does not make any efforts to moderate the more radical members of his party. The anti-immigration election manifesto, titled Nuiva Vaalimanifesti was drafted by some 13 PS parliamentary candidates, who distinguished themselves through their extremely critical if not outright xenophobic comments during their political activity. Unsurprisingly, the neologism ‘nuiva’ denotes an anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalist attitude, as the manifesto proclaims to be against the “new state religion of worshiping foreigners”. In so doing, Soini allows the party to fish for votes among both the conservative voters at the center that react positively to his embodiment of a straightforward, patriarchal way of doing politics, and the xenophobic, nationalistic and radical voters at the margins.

The relationship between these two parties is worth monitoring closely, as it is the KD who claims to belong to the political mainstream, while the PS plays the role of the underdog; but if the surveys are correct it would be increasingly difficult to keep the PS out while allowing the KD to continue its homophobic rants from within. At a first sight, it seems that the competition for conservative votes is open and it becomes very vivid, and the scapegoats are readily available: Swedish-speakers and the status of Swedish, immigrants and their alleged unwillingness to integrate, or more blatantly refusing full citizenship rights to the LGBT community.

At the end of the day, it is a bit strange that the whole discussion about the status of Swedish as one of the two official languages has become a sort of departure point in discussing economic matters. With regard to the developments in Eastern Finland, what was eluded, however, was that the teaching of Swedish does not prevent from the teaching of Russian (or the other way around). Who has to gain by to presenting these teaching options as antithetically exclusive? If the need is so stringent, why not Swedish and Russian, or for those who prefer – Russian and Swedish – besides Finnish (and English) of course?

And when it comes to the issue of religion and the state, perhaps it looks a bit odd that the Finnish Lutheran Church is still a state church? In Sweden, the separation between the state and the church was officially proclaimed in 2000; in Norway this issue is more and more discussed. Which way will the Lutheran Church of Finland go in the light of the continuous drop out of its members, especially since instead of representing the whole nation will soon become a stronghold for the most conservative segments of the entire Finnish population?

And to conclude with a return to politics, how productive was for KD to antagonize at least some 30,000 potential voters, when a mere few hundreds have joined the party after the much debated TV show? How easily does KD accept to have an electoral companion like PS in their quest for the votes from staunchly conservative supporters? Is the indiscriminate glorification of Finnish heteropatriarchy worth preserving at any cost, even for those who do not identify themselves with an anti-immigration, xenophobic party like PS?

Tags: conservative, Finland, Finnish Christian Democrats, Finnish elections 2011, Finnishness, heteropatriarchy, Homoilta, homophobia, Nuiva Vaalimanifesti, Päivi Räsänen, Pentti Oinonen, Perussuomalaiset, radical right populism, Timo Soini, True Finns