Suchergebnisse

Este estudio se centra en tres paradojas políticas que caracterizan el sangriento cambio de régimen de 1989 en Rumania y el período de treinta años que transcurrió, es decir, 1989-2019. Estas tres paradojas políticas dicen lo siguiente: Paradoja # 1: La sangrienta revolución anticomunista de 1989 llevó al poder a los miembros de segundo y tercer rango de la élite del poder comunista y a varios tecnócratas que habían estado cerca de las estructuras de poder del difunto Partido Comunista Rumano (RCP); Paradoja # 2: El número de víctimas registradas después del colapso del régimen comunista el 22 de diciembre de 1989 supera el número de víctimas registradas durante el período del 16 al 22 de diciembre de 1989 en una proporción de aproximadamente 7 a 1; y Paradoja # 3: Aunque Rumania pasó por una de las transiciones más largas y dolorosas a la democracia en la Europa Centro-Oriental, el país no ha experimentado hasta ahora un retroceso autoritario después del año 2010 siguiendo el modelo centroeuropeo (especialmente los casos de Hungría y Polonia). El presente estudio aborda estas paradojas y explica por qué el colapso violento del régimen comunista en Rumania ha llevado al nacimiento de una cultura política de contestación, que provocó varias olas de movilización de abajo hacia arriba en favor de la consolidación democrática y, hasta ahora, obstaculizó el auge del autoritarismo en este país. ; de junio de 2020 / Aceptado: 15 de julio 2020 Abstract. This study focuses on three political paradoxes which characterize the bloody 1989 regime change in Romania and the thirty-year period which elapsed, that is, 1989–2019. These three political paradoxes read as follows: Paradox #1: The bloody anti-communist revolution of 1989 brought to power the second- and third-rank members of the communist power elite and a number of technocrats who had been close to the power structures of the defunct Romanian Communist Party (RCP); Paradox #2: The number of registered victims after the collapse of the communist regime on 22 December 1989 surpasses the number of registered victims during the period 16-22 December 1989 by a ratio of about 7 to 1; and Paradox #3: Although Romania went through one of the longest and most painful transitions to democracy in East-Central Europe (ECE), the country has not experienced so far an authoritarian backsliding after the year 2010 on the Central European model (especially the cases of Hungary and Poland). The present study addresses these paradoxes and explains why the violent collapse of the communist regime in Romania has led to the birth of a political culture of contestation, which prompted several waves of bottom=up mobilization in favor of democratic consolidation and, so far, hampered the rise of authoritarianism in this country.

The causes of the revolution -- The overthrow of Nicolae Ceaușescu -- "The bloody bacchanalia" -- "The most obscure problem" -- The Council of the National Salvation Front -- A marked lack of consensus -- The myths and realities of revolution

This paper attempts to find connections between Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu's brand of Nationalism and the violent government reaction to protesters in 1989. It examines how the territories of Bessarabia and Transylvania led Romania to hold negative opinions of the other members of the Warsaw Pact and the Hungarian minority within Romania. In addition, it examines the distrust that cropped up between Romania and the other members of the Warsaw Pact following the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. A mixture of distrust of minorities and the other members of the Warsaw Pact led to the violent government reaction to the 1989 Revolution.

This article deals with the 1989 Romanian revolution and its international mediatization. The specific focus is upon Belgian written press in the period of December 1989-January 1990. The study highlights the misinformation at work in the December 1989 Revolution and the internal political effects it produced (external legitimacy of the new NSF government). The theoretical framework uses on one side four modified journalistic questions (Who says? What? How it is said? And with what effects?) and on another side, subdivides the period under scrutiny into four sub-units, relating to the themes and accents emphasized by the Belgian journalists. The media messages are thus deconstructed by this approach. Before concluding on the specific political and media effects, a short review of other cases (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Iraq) of media manipulation is presented.