Romanian Revolution 1

8/16/2019 Romanian Revolution 1

1/27


2/27

-1-

Scope

Focus can be directed toward exploring why countries in Eastern Europe (also known as Eastern Bloc,

Soviet Satellites, or member States of the Warsaw Pact ) abolished decades-old Communist regimes through

peaceful transition contrasted with the violent revolution of 1989 which overtook the Romanian government

headed by Nicolae Ceaucescu. Part and parcel with such discussion is how these Eastern Bloc States expedited

their adoption of democracy, welcomed more of its facets, and have maintained democratic reforms compared to

Romania, as well as underlying roots for welcoming democracy; this, though, will not be the scope of this

analysis, despite temptation. The scope will be Romania-centric or why that nation’s entry into a tepid

“democracy” (at least more hesitant to adopt democracy and less forcefully than the rest of the Eastern Bloc), or

at least a removal of its totalitarian rule, was achieved through bloodshed compared with the peaceful

introduction of reform by the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Nor will the focus, though it is difficult to divorce from

the 1989 Romanian revolution, be on why Romania has been less steadfast than its Eastern European

counterparts in perpetuating democracy with the same vigor. While peaceful change can be, sometimes

erroneously, associated with reforms in economics, religion, education, and culture, these institutions (along

with others) will be stipulated as possible catalysts leading to and/or accompanying the removal of a

dictatorship, not products or effects of this removal, or the implementation, expedited or delayed, of democratic

reform--what drives the inquiry is what motivated a violent coup in Romania in 1989. In short, what factors

differed in Romania leading to violent revolution in 1989 which did not exist (or existed to a lesser degree) in

other Eastern European nations which peacefully adopted change?

Methodology of Compiling Research

Cursory review of literature in journals was prompted by the aforementioned research question along

with searching under the heading “The Romanian Revolution of 1989.” Once a list of resources was compiled,

this author sought themes or recurring patterns (i.e. economics, immigration, religion). In this paper, the

literature is used more as a springboard for ideas than quotations or citations (though some quotations are

included).

Context

Leadership in the Soviet Union by its premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, opened new diplomatic channels

with the USSR’s superpower adversary, the United States, as well as pivoted the Eastern European countries

under Soviet dominance since World War II to follow suit from Gorbachev and gradually ease toward erasing, if

not socialism, at least the dictatorial strong arm of Communism; in conjunction, this dispensation of

Communism allowed for an introduction of Democracy or something akin to democratic governance. What


3/27

-2-

followed was acceptance of democratic reforms as well as removal of dictators from ruling states (alphabetically

listed) in Bulgaria (not to a great extent), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and the crowning achievement of

bringing down the Berlin Wall and uniting Communist East Germany with Democratic West Germany, making

for one Berlin and one Germany; even the Soviet Union ultimately dissipated in 1991 into individual states

(Russia, Georgia, Armenia, etc.). This domino effect or avalanche toward democracy was also welcomed in theBaltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Reluctant to follow this pattern was the totalitarian rule of

Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu, a man who ruthlessly dominated his land from 1965 through 1989.

Imitating the deadly crackdown in China’s Tiananmen Square in June, 1989, Ceausescu ordered the shooting in

December, 1989 of demonstrators in Timisoara, Romania, killing 97; the death toll for the 1989 Romanian

revolution is tallied at approximately 5,000 people.1 A mass protest demanding that Ceausescu vacate the

presidency ensued on December 16, 1989 and, on Christmas Day of 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife,

Elena, were executed following a one-hour pro forma “trial” (a kangaroo court serving as justification to kill the

dictator and his wife); their bullet ridden bodies were shown on television in Romania, the United States, andother countries as well as adorning magazine covers. The almost-spontaneous killing of Nicolae and Elena

Ceausescu might have been the retribution for what prosecutors estimated were roughly 64,000 people killed

under the Ceausescu regime over 20 years.2

Romania differed from other Warsaw Pact nations in moving toward democracy, or at least in forcing

the removal of a dictator, in that “only in Romania was there a bloody overthrow of the regime…”3 Even in

contrast to how Romania approached democracy, however tepid compared with other Eastern Bloc nations, was

and remains the absence of durability of democratic reforms in Romania in light of those adopted elsewhere in

Eastern Europe: “Romania presents something of a paradox,” Jeff Goodwin reflected. He continued:

“On the one hand, the process of change there was apparently the most ‘revolutionary’

among the Eastern European cases, characterized as it seemed to be by the brief but bloody

confrontation between the population, soon joined by the army, and the Ceausescu regime.

Indeed, in Romania for the first time in history a ‘Communist’ party itself (unlike those

elsewhere in the region) was quickly outlawed. On the other hand, the immediate outcome

of the events of December 1989 was the least revolutionary among the Eastern European

cases, since these events produced a government dominated by people with more or less

strong ties to the Romanian Communist Party. H ence, the Romanian ‘revolution’ did

not lead to an unambiguous break with the past.4

1 www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.html

2 Russell Watson et al., The Last Days of a Dictator in Newsweek, January 8, 1990 (pp. 16-27)

3 Lavnia Betea, “The History of the Fall of Communism: An Area of Inquiry for the Social and Human Sciences,” in Crossroads of European Histories:

Multiple Outlooks on Five Key Moments in the History of Europe, edited by Robert Stradling4 Jeff Goodwin, “Old Regimes and Revolutions in the Second and Third Worlds,” in Social Science History, Volume 18, Number 4, Winter 1994, pp.

575-604


4/27

-3-

Possible Causal Links of Measurement

How can this departure from peaceful introduction of democracy in Romania be explained in contrast

with her Eastern European neighbors? With the luxury of hindsight, we can venture as to possible causes

explaining this difference; this is entertaining questions of “what if?,” “what would or could be or would or

could have been?,” “why didn’t?,” and “but for” as to hypothesizing “why.” Simply, if an explanation of

linkage is conceivable, then, tautologically, it is not inconceivable, and thus should not be ruled out (a

paraphrased tenet of falsification). What will be explored is pre-1989 factors contributing to the revolution

which differed from other Eastern European nations (independent variables) compared with the violence

exercised in Romania in 1989 (dependent variable). Can the theories of possible causality produce predictive

accuracy? As the word “possible” precedes causality, all we can hope for is not impossibility. Theories as to

possible contributing factors to the chasm of violent revolution in Romania versus peaceful change in other

Eastern European States will be presented alphabetically, so as not to place any one factor in a preeminent

position or give the appearance of doing so.

Possible Independent Variables

The Research Question stated at the top of this paper is the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. The

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES which follow possibly influence the dependent variable, solely or in some

combination.

Demographics & Population = Fundamental to any discussion of possible contributing factors to the

violent overthrow of the Ceausescu regime is collecting data on the demographics (i.e. age, gender, religion,

socioeconomic status) in Romania prior to 1989. To gain insight as to what contributed to violence in Romania,

yet allowed for peaceful transition elsewhere in the Warsaw Pact, demographic data also needs to be

collected from other Eastern European nations. Do differing population features in different countries foretell a

different result, be it peaceful or bloody? Also, what can be gleaned when more than one demographic

category is mixed? Furthermore, how does a particular point in time affect manifestations emanating from

different demographic features?

Economy = Under the umbrella “Economy” are commerce/business (including agriculture and

manufacturing), inflation, unemployment, tourism, technology, and trade (trade alliances which could carry over

politically). A treatise could well be written on linking economics to the propelling or repelling of democracy,

both in its speed, scope, and durability; neither this paper nor this author are equipped to undertake such a

quantitative study. Economic remedies could include price liberalization, privatization, decollectivization of

agriculture, establishment of legal frameworks for economic and commercial activity, exposure of domestic

economy to international competition, and, of course, striking a trade balance with partners for imports and


5/27

-4-

exports. Did the lack of a market-oriented economy, as in Romania (as well as other countries in Eastern

Europe) inevitably entail violent revolution? Though this economic apparatus was (and is) lacking in Romania,

it also was absent throughout the Eastern Bloc. As such, could this similar framework have made a difference

between peaceful overthrow in some countries and violent overthrow in Romania? Did a successful labor-unionmovement such as Solidarity [“Solidarnosc“] in Poland (led by Lech Walesa) nurture a climate more inclined

for peaceful change than the lack of such labor movement in Romania? In crudest terms, deficiency in any one

of these areas, let alone most or all of these economic indicators, could (a) bring to the helm a brute like

Ceausescu, (b) impede the emergence of democracy, (c) stultify the operations of an efficient economic

machine, and (d) plant the seeds for violent overthrow of the government; note that the operative word is

“could.” Further, such economic distress (particularly a scarcity of food in Romania) could easily nurture a

dictatorial ego like Ceausescu’s; history shows this is a convenient demagogic motivator, as Hitler’s initial

argument was fighting economic distress. Economic blight could contribute to violent revolution; Romania,with the exception of personal wealth Ceausescu accumulated and hid, was a country ravaged by poverty. At

question is if Romania’s economy was more dire than that of its Eastern European neighbors and, if so, how

much did such economic blight contribute to violence in removing the dictatorship in Romania? More than a

parenthetical note, was this economic blight brought to light in Romania?

Education = Elementary and secondary education (K-12), along with higher education, might have

lagged behind counterparts in Eastern Europe pre-1989. If the leap is made that an educated citizenry is more

likely to welcome dissent and embrace democracy over dictatorship, and democracy is a peaceful ideology and

system, then was the state of Romania’s educational system, compared to that of other Eastern European States,

somewhat responsible for its bloody entry into a lukewarm democracy?

Foreign Aid = How much foreign aid, particularly humanitarian aid, was offered to Romania (from the

U.S., U.N, IMF) prior to the 1989 Romanian revolution? If substantially less aid was provided to Romanians

compared to other Eastern European lands, then could this have possibly fomented less of an acceptance for

democracy, including the approach toward democracy via bloody revolution? As the George W. Bush

Administration helped set up a government in Iraq (nation building), was such policy assistance offered to

Romania or other Eastern European States prior to 1989?

Geography = Is Romania more of an urban or rural country? How does its landscape compare with its

Eastern European counterparts? Does the proportion of a rural to urban populous, or vice-versa, portend for

violence in seeking reform? If so, one would need to measure if democracy, certainly as an approach of peace

instead of violent overthrow, thrives in urban or rural settings. Is a landlocked country like Romania less likely

to invite democracy than a coastal state? Is there greater cosmopolitanism in states sitting on a body of water?


6/27


7/27

-6-

Tension between Romania and the Soviet Union under Ceaucescu’s rule took dips and turns through different

avenues; of course, these deviations from Soviet command endeared Romania to the U.S. as (a) Romania was

the lesser of two evils the U.S. perceived between Romania and the USSR and (2) there was truth to the proverb

that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

8

One historical example of the tumultuous relationship betweenCeaucescu and the Soviet Union (particularly heightened under Brezhnev’s rule and reignited under the helm of

Gorbachev) is as follows: “Ceaucescu antagonized the Soviet Union by establishing diplomatic relations with

the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1967 and by refusing to follow the Soviet lead in breaking

relations with Israel in the wake of the June, 1967 war [Six-Day War in the Middle East].”9 Additionally,

Ceaucescu denounced the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Further exacerbating the rift between

Romania and the USSR, Ceaucescu distanced himself from the USSR by opposing the Soviet invasion of

Afghanistan.

When the reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet President, Ceaucescu further shied awayfrom any endorsement, let alone affiliation, with the Soviet Union; the democratically-tilted policies of

Perestroika and Glasnost which Gorbachev championed were anathema Ceaucescu. During Gorbachev’s helm,

Ceaucescu criticized Soviet-U.S. dialogue in which “Romania increasingly adopted a more hawkish position

than the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Pact members on a number of East-West issues.”10

Romania remained at odds with the USSR but was now also not on less-than-cordial terms with its one-

time ally, the United States. Without really a friend in either of the two superpowers, it was not unfathomable

that Romania’s government would change through violence.

Media, Culture, & History = What exposure did pre-1989 Romanians have to mainstream news (i.e.

CNN) broadcast internationally or domestically within Romania? Was the message censored? Were there

restrictions on a free press? How persuasive was anti-democracy and pro-Ceausescu propaganda and how often

was it preached and in what arenas and by what means? How was history presented, if not revised, to make

Ceausescu “sacred?” Was there a brainwashing to produce a cult mentality (cult of personality) that was not

present in other Eastern European nations (or present to a lesser degree) and which extinguished one’s

temptation to dissent or rebel and welcome democracy? Ceausescu “manipulated history, national symbols,

‘collective memories,’ and sentiments…Ceausescu demanded he be referred to as ‘Genius of the Carpathians,’

‘Romania’s Most Beloved Son,’ a ‘Luminous Beacon,’ ‘The Helmsman Who Guides,’ ‘The Thinking Polar Star,’

and ‘The First Thinker of the Earth.’”11

Through restricted exposure to an outside world of progress (as

Internet

8 This proverb is attributed to the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu; attribution is also made to “Arabian proverbs”

9 Library of Congress Country Studies, http:// lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi=bin/querylr?frdlcstdy:@field(DOCID+ro0181)

10 ibid


8/27

11 John Ely and Catalin Stoica, “Remembering Romania,” in Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics, and Society


9/27

-7-

access today might be limited in anti-democratic States), what kind of cultural mores could Romanians, pre- and

post-1989, adopt that would not make them fearful of democracy? Was the generational-cultural divide greater

in Romania than in other Eastern Bloc States? In short, was a social psyche produced in the Romanian

populous which ordained that it’s only escape from the brutality of Ceausescu’s rule would be through bloodyrevolution (and execution of Ceausescu), as the citizenry might have been dumbfounded how to peacefully

effect change? Were these cultural-historical seeds sown differently than elsewhere in Eastern Europe?

Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) = Were other countries, such as

today’s Germany (and then-West Germany), more likely to have support of democratic states in Europe due to

NATO membership? Was the absence of Romania from NATO (though as of 2012 Romania is a NATO

member) a factor contributing to less support by European neighbors and developing alliances with other

European countries? If so, was Romania isolated from many of its democratic European neighbors and other

actors on the global stage? Would Romanian membership in NATO have minimized, if not precluded, theviolence which overtook Romania in 1989, as such NATO presence and cooperation might have served as an

incentive for that nation to peacefully adopt change?

Politics & Social Structure = How much did Ceausescu’s ruthless rule, plus firing on demonstrators in

Timisoara, contribute to his execution (and the execution of his wife)? Was there, prior to December 1989, less

“people power” than elsewhere in Eastern Europe? Was suppression of dissenting political parties more severe

in Romania than in other Eastern Bloc lands and, if so, what role did that play in signaling violence? Would a

structure-based meritocracy and non-discrimination (certainly not nepotism in government) and equal

opportunity have boded well for peaceful change in Romania in 1989 rather than the autocratic social structure

of the Ceausescu regime? Were other Eastern European nations quicker to usher in meritocracy? What kind of

election irregularities and possible corruption did Romania encounter compared with its Eastern Bloc

neighbors? Was violence inevitable as there was no heir-apparent to Ceausescu (unlike Lech Walesa’s

ascendancy to power in Poland replacing Wojciech Jaruzelski). Also, political parties lacked organization,

resources, ties to interest groups and grass root constituencies, as well as lacking political skill and experience to

effectively govern. Perhaps a call for nation-building should have been considered.

Religion = Logic behind the atheism propagated under Communism is to remove factious distractions

from the power of the state and the temptations people might give to faith in religion or a God than in an

unflinching faith or allegiance to the Communist state (inherent in Marx’s formulation of Communism and

Lenin’s implementation of this ideology); essentially, a theistic deity is substituted, under Communism, with a

governmental deity--religion in a secular form. Was denial of religious freedom in Romania more severe than in

the rest of the Eastern Bloc? If so, did this trump the emergence of peaceful reform in Romania, perhaps

through peaceful “moral” or “religious” means (assuming that “morality“ and religion are inseparable--a huge


10/27

-8-

assumption)? Quoting a minister, Earl Pope recalled that “The churches became guardians of evangelical,

historical, traditional, and human values. Struggling with internal and external circumstances and drawing

strength from their faith, the churches kept alive in the people the hope of liberation, becoming in this way the

repository of a better and more just future.”

12

Was there less “hope of [and for] liberation” in Romania--liberation from the Ceausescu government--than in other parts of Eastern Europe?

Social Cohesion & Immigration = Was a unifying nationalism deficient in Romania (certainly starkly

contrasted to the dangerous nationalism which overtook 1930’s Germany)? Were there factions in Romania,

akin to that of Greeks and Turks in Cyprus or Christians and Muslims in Lebanon or Catholics and Protestants

in Northern Ireland, that were lacking in other Eastern European nations? If so, did factionalism prove fertile

ground for Ceausescu’s iron rule? Was there a lack of social cohesion, until December 1989, dissenting against

Ceausescu or at least not willing to confront him? How much does a transient population, such as gypsies in

Romania, contribute to a dilution of social cohesion? Does the gypsy population have such impact, as a largegypsy demographic in Hungary did not lead to violent revolution? If there was a greater influx of immigrants

to Romania and emigrants from Romania, compared to other Eastern European States, could this have led to

less of a “Romanian identity” and warned as a precursor toward less social cohesion? While questions of class

warfare could be grouped under “economy,” without doubt such divisiveness disintegrates social cohesion; the

extent to which class warfare played a role in the very poor country of Romania compared with her neighbors in

Eastern Europe needs to be recognized as a factor which potentially contributed to violent revolution. Of

course, these questions presuppose that it is not a spurious connection that social cohesion helps peacefully erect

and maintain democratic reforms.

Expectations = Though this is out of alphabetical order, the role of expectations cannot be overstated.

If expectations of the Romanian government providing a “good life” (erasing poverty, making institutions

democratic) to its people were too high prior to December 1989 and were not met, the only direction for reform

might have been to resort to violence. At a minimum, we can infer that those revolutionaries who sought

democracy (perhaps even those who died in doing so) were acting to maximize rational choice--”the assumption

that individuals choose their actions in order to maximize some valued object and minimize the cost expended in

achieving it.”13

12 Earl Pope, “The Role of Religion in the Romanian Revolution,” in Religion in Eastern Europe

13 W. Phillips Shively, The Craft of Political Research (8th Edition); this is central to Anthony Down’s thesis of an Economic Theory of Democracy and

game theory in general


11/27


12/27


13/27

-11-

Research Design

SURVEY

Our dependent variable--Research Question--is falsifiable and thus open to testing. As such, testing will

be done in relation to the independent variables listed in this paper. Data will be collected from two surveys--one survey (Survey P) will be administered relating to events prior to the 1989 Romanian Revolution a few

post-1989 questions) and the other survey (Survey Q) will be confined to data following the 1989 Romanian

Revolution (Survey P = Pre-1989; Survey Q = Post-1989). These surveys, relating to the dependent variable-

research question, is a case study aimed at showing different results based on a time study (pre-1989 and post-

1989).

Survey dministration

Form of Administration = Mail (not by telephone, web survey, e-mail, or in person)

Mode for Choosing Mail Survey Participants = Certain demographic criteria must be met to

participate. This will be ascertained by checking records (i.e. voter registration, birth certificates,tax returns) AND asking people at venues. This will be done in a 50/50 gender proportion.

A self-addressed, postage-paid envelope will be provided to participants.

Identity of participants will remain anonymous.

No monetary incentives or other remuneration will be provided, nor will any coaxing or coercion be done.

Survey Structure

The ranking of options in the final question will be listed alphabetically.

A Likert Scale will not be used. Mixed use of question format will include open-ended and multiple choice.

Two-Part or multi-part questions will be broken out.

Dichotomous questions (“yes” or “no” responses) will be used to cultivate follow-up, open-ended questions.

Terms will be clearly spelled out, even at the risk of redundancy. There will not be leading questions nor indications molding a response, as terms will not be capitalized or

bold-typed for emphasis (avoidance of a push-poll). Questions will solicit opinion, suggestions as prescription or proscription, contrasting, and seeking

knowledge of the respondent.

Pre-1989 questions (Survey P) will be phrased in the past tense (with some exceptions) and Post-1989questions (Survey Q) will be phrased in present and future tenses.

The surveys will be comprehensive to better enable drawing conclusions, despite numerous data permutations to sift through.

Survey Sample

Surveys P & Q given to residents in Romania (dependent variable) and for the independent variable

countries of Bulgaria, Czech Republic & Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia), Estonia, Germany (easternsection--formerly East Germany) Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland.

3,000 persons in Romania 3,000 persons in each of the following countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic & Slovakia, Estonia,

Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland

Demographic criteria is required to qualify; this is to be faithful to the measurement goal.


14/27

-12-

Demographics:

Geography per Country:

1/3 = Urban 1/3 = Suburban

1/3 = Rural/Agrarian

Gender per country:

Female = 50%

Male = 50% Age per country:

Age for pre-1989 Survey = Born 1929-1969 (ages 42-82)

Age for post-1989 Survey = Born 1986-1991 (ages 21-25)

Participants found by age in each range will be proportionate (i.e. fifths, fourths)--

ideally recruit, for pre-1989, enough respondents in the age groups to make equal proportions for age groups 42-50, 51-60, 61-70, 71-82 and for the post-1989 survey,

enough equal proportions of ages 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.

Other:

Ethnicity, race, religion, and socioeconomic status will not be proportionally determined.

These demographics will fall under or be determined by, in descending order, the mix or

pool of geography, gender, and age. These other demographic groups, unlike geography,gender, and age, will not be divided proportionally into fifths, fourths, thirds, etc.

Types of Sampling Methodology:

Confirming and Disconfirming Cases = Ultimately the data collected should lead to

inference that certain criteria in the independent variables confirms or disconfirms whycertain countries achieve peaceful change while other countries change their government

through violence. Convenience or Opportunistic Sampling = Recruiting the participants for the survey will be

done (a) by cooperation (as this is voluntary) and (b) by availability, either determined

through records review and subsequent contact or by recruiting people “from the streets”who meet the demographic criteria.

Criterion Sampling = Cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance. Thatcriteria is being a country in Eastern Europe and changing from a Communist government

to a democracy (or at least abolishing totalitarian rule). Critical Case = “If it happens here, it happens anywhere” or “if it does not happen here, it

won’t happen anywhere.” Results from surveys for countries comprising the independent

variable and Romania (dependent variable) as well as two time frames (pre-1989 and post-1989) could lead to inferences as to which country(ies), if any, are the critical case.

Stratified Purposeful Sampling = Variations can hopefully be captured throughdemographic combinations meshed with independent variables.

Trend = Different samples from the general population, within the prescribed demographic

criteria, at different times (pre-1989 and post-1989).


15/27


16/27


17/27

-15-

varying scores on the independent variable; or (2) by how completely the independent variable determines the

dependent variable, that is, how complete an explanation of the dependent variable is provided by the

independent variable.”18

Reflexive questions we need to ask are: (1) Can we make a uniform conclusion of the relationship of

the independent variables to the dependent variable for both surveys if numerous permutations are produced (asthey will be)? (2) Is our phenomena causal or correlative? It is the latter, as necessity can be ruled out in the

relationship between independent variables on the dependent variable (the linkage is not one of a law of

physics). (3) By eliminating the prospect of causality, is it moot to abandon alternative explanations of

causality? Can we, though, rule out alternative explanations of correlation? No, as any one of the independent

variables can correlate to the dependent variable. Drawing any conclusion prior to collecting and synthesizing

survey data for patterns would be premature and thus inconclusive; certainly inaccurate, even as an

approximation.

Bias and manipulation--can it be isolated from our study and implementation of surveys? Simply byframing this study (or any study) as is, there is bias and manipulation--a selection by the researcher of what to

study and what to include and what to omit, let alone how to phrase questions and answers. To be scientific in

using data (some might say interpretation is manipulation), results will not be manipulated, but reported within

the safety parameters exercised in designing surveys, collecting survey data, and reporting that data.

SURVEYS

SYNTHESIZING THE DATA

See APPENDIX A [Survey P = Pre 1989]

GOAL OF SURVEY = What factors in Romania led to its bloody revolution that were present which were not present in the other Eastern European countries which conducted peaceful revolutions?

See APPENDIX B [Survey Q = Post 1989]

GOAL OF SURVEY = What conclusions can be drawn from present or absent factors to predict if a revolution

is likely to be peaceful or violent in a country?

18 ibid, pg. 114


18/27

Bibliography

Barany, Zoltan. Democratic Consolidation and the Military: The East European Experience.Comparative Politics, Volume 30, Number 1, October 1997

Betea, Lavinia. The History of the Fall of Communism: An Area of Inquiry for the Social and

Human Sciences. Crossroads of European Histories: Multiple Outlooks on Five Key Momentsin the History of Europe, edited by Robert Straddling (2009) [Council of Europe Publishing,Belgium]

Bunce, Valerie. Sequencing of Political and Economic Reforms. East-Central EuropeanEconomies in Transition, edited by John Hardt and Richard Kaufman (1995) [M.E. Sharpe,Inc.; Armonk, New York]

Bunce, Valerie & Wolchik, Sharon. Favorable Conditions and Electoral Revolutions. Journal ofDemocracy, Volume 17, Number 4, October 2006

Diamond, Larry. Promoting Democracy. Foreign Policy, Number 87, Summer 1992

Ely, John & Stoica, Catalin. Remembering Romania. Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics,and Society, edited by Henry Carey (2004) [Lexington Books; Lanham, Maryland]

Gaddis, John. The Cold War: A New History (2005) [Penguin Books, New York & London]

Goodwin, Jeff. Old Regimes and Revolutions in the Second and Third Worlds. Social ScienceHistory, Volume 18, Number 4, Winter 1994

Hall, Richard. Theories of Collective Action and Revolution: Evidence From the RomanianTransition of December 1989. Europe-Asia Studies, Volume 52, Number 6, 2000

Hardt, John & Kaufman, Richard. Introduction. East-Central European Economies inTransition, edited by John Hardt and Richard Kaufman (1995) [M.E. Sharpe, Inc.; Armonk,New York]

Levitt, Steven & Dubner, Stephen. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the HiddenSide of Everything (2005) [Harper Collins, New York]

Light, Duncan & Phinnemore, David. Post-Communist Romania: Coming to Terms WithTransition (2001) [Palgrave Publishers Ltd., New York]

Jackson, Marvin. Political Incredibility and Bureaucratic Transition in Romania. East-CentralEuropean Economies in Transition, edited by John Hardt and Richard Kaufman.

Patton, Michael. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd Edition) (2002) [SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, California]


19/27

Pope, Earl. The Role of Religion in the Romanian Revolution in Religion in Eastern Europe(2003) [Evangel Press; Nappanee, Indiana]

Roberts, Adam. Civil Resistance in the East European and Soviet Revolutions. MonographSeries, Number 4, The Albert Einstein Institute

Shin, Doh Chull. Democratization: Perspectives From Global Citizenries (2006) [Center forStudy of Democracy, University of California, Irvine; Irvine, California]

Shively, W. Phillips. The Craft of Political Research (8th Edition) (2011) [Longman, animprint of Pearson Higher Education, Boston & New York]

Siani-Davies, Peter. The Romanian Revolution of December 1989 (2005) [CornellUniversity Press; Ithaca, New York]

Tismancanu, Vladimir. Reinventing Politics: Eastern Europe From Stalin to Havel (1992)

[The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster; New York]

Watson, Russell; Meyer, Michael; Breslau, Karen; Nordland, Rod. The Last Days of aDictator in Newsweek, January 8, 1990 (pp. 16-23)

Watts, Larry. Reform and Crisis in Romanian Civil-Military Relations, 1989-1999. Armed Forces& Society, April 2011, 37(2)

Web Sites

www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Romania_and_the_Soviet_Union_1965-1989

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi=bin/querylr?frdlcstdy:@field(DOCID+ro0181)

www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.html

www.soviet-empire.com/USSP/viewtopic.php?f=130dt=49598

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.htmlhttp://www.soviet-empire.com/USSP/viewtopic.php?f=130dt=49598http://www.soviet-empire.com/USSP/viewtopic.php?f=130dt=49598http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.html


20/27

APPENDIX A

SURVEY P

Where choices are provided, circle ONLY ONE option

Questions should be answered based solely on your knowledge. If youcannot answer a question, then leave it blank.

1 What country do you live in?

2 What city or town do you live in?

3 How long have you lived in that city or town?

4 How long did you live in that city or town prior to 1989?

5 Gender: Male Female

6 What is your age?

7 What part of the country do you live in? (a) Urban (b) Suburban (c) Rural

8 What part of the country did you live in before and through 1989? (a) Urban (b) Suburban (c) Rural

9

Socioeconomic Status--Do you consider yourself:(a) Upper Class (b) Upper Middle Class (c) Middle Class (d) Working Class

10 Employment--Prior to and through 1989, was your employment status?:

(a) Professional--White Collar (b) Skilled Labor or Trade--Blue Collar

11 How would you describe the state of the economy of your country prior to and through 1989?

12 Do you think the economic state of your country prior to and through 1989 had any bearing on a revolution?

(a) Yes (b) No

13 If “Yes” to question 12, what bearing did the economy prior to and through 1989 have on the revolution in

your country?

14 Was the economic state in your country prior to and through 1989 more likely to lead to?:

(a) peaceful change (b) violent change

15 Were you employed in 1989? (a) Yes (b) No

16 If you were employed in 1989, what was your job?

17 Do you think capitalism existed in your country prior to 1989? (a) Yes (b) No18 If “Yes” to question 17, how would you define “capitalism” in the time prior to 1989?

19 Did labor unions play a role toward political change in 1989? (a) Yes (b) No

20 If labor unions did not play a role toward political change in 1989, would you have liked labor unions to play

a role in helping generate political change? (a) Yes (b) No

21 If “Yes” to question 20, what role would you have liked labor unions to play in helping achieve political

reform?

22 What is the highest level of education you attained prior to 1989?

23 If you were a college graduate prior to 1989, what was your major or area or concentration?

24 Do you think there was a connection between your country’s education level (for the majority of people) and

political change which took place in 1989?

25 Did your level of education influence your views on government change through revolution?

(a) Yes (b) No26 If “Yes” to question 25, how did your level of education influence your views on government change through

revolution?

27 Do you think your country’s level of education led to revolution through?:

(a) peaceful means (b) violence

28 How do you think your country’s level of education led to revolution through peace or violence?

29 Do you think your country was given monetary aid (for food, infrastructure) and military aid by other

countries prior to 1989? (a) Yes (b) No

30 If “Yes” to question 29, what country or countries gave aid to your homeland?

31 If aid was not given to your country prior to 1989, should a country or countries have assisted your nation


21/27

prior to 1989? (a) Yes (b) No

32 If there was not aid, what country or countries would you have liked to aid your homeland prior to 1989?

33 Why did you choose the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 32?

34 If aid was given to your nation prior to 1989, do you wish it was not provided? (a) Yes (b) No

35 If aid was provided to your nation prior to 1989, which country or countries do you wish did not provide aid?

36 Why do you wish the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 35 did not provide aid?

37 Prior to 1989, did you consider your country more?: (a) agrarian-agricultural (b) metropolitan-urban

38 Do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 made a difference in achieving revolution?:

(a) Peacefully (b) Violently39 Why do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 led to peaceful or violent revolution?

40 How do you define “human rights?”

41 Are human rights important? (a) Yes (b) No

42 If human rights are important or are not important, why are they important or not important?

43 Do you think before 1989 your country’s government honored human rights? (a) Yes (b) No

44 Do you think that prior to 1989 honoring human rights in your country had any connection toward peaceful

government change? (a) Yes (b) No

45 Do you think that prior to 1989 if your country’s government did not honor human rights, that this could

have led to violent revolution? (a) Yes (b) No

46 Are you worried answering questions 43, 44, and 45 about human rights? (a) Yes (b) No

47 Do you think it was a duty, prior to 1989, for the governments of other countries to ensure that human rights

in your homeland were honored? (a) Yes (b) No

48 If “Yes” to question 47, why do you think the governments of other countries had a responsibility to ensure

that human rights in your homeland were honored?

49 Prior to 1989, how much guidance do you think your country took from the then-Soviet Union in conducting

your government?: (a) Too Much Guidance (b) Some Guidance (c) Little Guidance

(d) Not Enough Guidance (e) No Guidance

50 Should your country’s government have, prior to 1989, followed the lead of then-Soviet Premier Mikhail

Gorbachev? (a) Yes (b) No

51 If “Yes” for question 50, why should your country’s government have followed Gorbachev’s lead?

52 If “No” for question 50, why should your country’s government not have followed Gorbachev’s lead?

53 Did citizens in your country have access to all media prior to and through 1989? (a) Yes (b) No

54 What do you define as “all media” prior to and through 1989?

55 Should citizens in your country have had access to all media prior to and through 1989? (a) Yes (b) No

56 Did the government in your country censor the press? (a) Yes (b) No57 How do you define “government censorship of the press?”

58 Should the government prior to and through 1989 have had central control over the press, allowing for

censorship? (a) Yes (b) No

59 If “Yes” to question 58, why should the government have been allowed to censor the press prior to and

through 1989?

60 If “No” to question 58, why should the government have not been allowed to censor the press prior to and

through 1989?

61 If you think the government censored the press in your country prior to and through 1989, do you think such

censorship of the press took place in other countries in Eastern Europe? (a) Yes (b) No

62 If “Yes” to question 61, what other countries do you think, prior to and through 1989, the press was

censored by the government?

63

What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?64 Prior to and through 1989, was your country a member of NATO? (a) Yes (b) No

65 If your country was not a member of NATO prior to and through 1989, should it have been a member of

NATO? (a) Yes (b) No

66 If “Yes” to question 65, why should your country have been a NATO member?

67 If “No” to question 65, why should your country have not been a NATO member?

68 What benefits does NATO membership provide, if any?

69 What disadvantages does NATO membership provide, if any?

70 Was your country a member of the Warsaw Pact prior to and through 1989? (a) Yes (b) No

71 If your country was a member of the Warsaw Pact, what benefits did Warsaw Pact membership provide to

your country, if any?


22/27


23/27


24/27

APPENDIX B

SURVEY Q

Where choices are provided, circle ONLY ONE option

Questions should be answered based solely on your knowledge. If youcannot answer a question, then leave it blank.

1 What country do you live in?

2 What city or town do you live in?

3 How long have you lived in that city or town?

4 Gender: Male Female

5 What is your age?

6 What part of the country do you live in? (a) Urban (b) Suburban (c) Rural

7 Socioeconomic Status--Do you consider yourself:

(a) Upper Class (b) Upper Middle Class (c) Middle Class (d) Working Class

8

Employment--Is your employment status?:(a) Professional--White Collar (b) Skilled Labor or Trade--Blue Collar

9 What do you expect your employment status to be in five years?

10 How would you describe the state of the economy of your country?

11 Do you think the economic state of your country could have any bearing on a future revolution in your

country? (a) Yes (b) No

12 If “Yes” to question 11, how would the present economy have a bearing on a future revolution in your

country?

13 Is the economic state in your country more likely to lead to?: (a) peaceful change (b) violent change

14 Are you employed? (a) Yes (b) No

15 If you are employed, what is your job?

16 Do you think capitalism exists in your country? (a) Yes (b) No

17 If “Yes” to question 16, how would you define “capitalism?”

18 Do labor unions play a role toward political change in your country? (a) Yes (b) No19 If labor unions do not play a role toward political change in your country, would you like labor unions to play

a role in helping generate political change? (a) Yes (b) No

20 If “Yes” to question 19, what role would you like labor unions to play in helping achieve political reform?

21 What is your highest level of education?

22 Do you plan on pursuing a higher level of education? (a) Yes (b) No

23 If you are a college graduate, what was your major or area or concentration?

24 Do you think there is a connection between your country’s education level (for the majority of people) and

political change, be it present or potential political change? (a) Yes (b) No

25 Does your level of education influence your views on government change through revolution?

(a) Yes (b) No

26 If “Yes” to question 25, how does your level of education influence your views on government change

through revolution?27 Do you think your country’s level of education can lead to revolution through?:

(a) peaceful means (b) violence

28 How do you think your country’s level of education can lead to revolution through peace or violence?

29 Is your country given monetary aid (for food, infrastructure) and military aid by other countries?

(a) Yes (b) No

30 If “Yes” to question 29, what country or countries gives aid to your homeland?

31 If aid is not given to your country, should a country or countries assist your nation? (a) Yes (b) No

32 If there is not aid, what country or countries would you like to aid your homeland?

33 Why did you choose the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 32?


25/27

34 If aid is given to your nation, do you wish it not be provided? (a) Yes (b) No

35 If aid is provided to your nation, which country or countries do you wish not provide aid?

36 Why do you wish the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 35 not provide aid?

37 Do you consider your country more?: (a) agrarian-agricultural (b) metropolitan-urban

38 Do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 makes a difference in achieving revolution?:

(a) Peacefully (b) Violently

39 Why do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 can lead to peaceful or violent

revolution?

40 How do you define “human rights?”41 Are human rights important? (a) Yes (b) No

42 If human rights are important or are not important, why are they important or not important?

43 Do you think your country’s government honors human rights? (a) Yes (b) No

44 Do you think honoring human rights in your country has any connection toward peaceful government

change? (a) Yes (b) No

45 Do you think that if your country’s government does not honor human rights, this could lead to violent

revolution? (a) Yes (b) No

46 Are you worried answering questions 43, 44, and 45 about human rights? (a) Yes (b) No

47 Do you think it is a duty for the governments of other countries to ensure that human rights in your

homeland are honored? (a) Yes (b) No

48 If “Yes” to question 47, why do you think the governments of other countries have a responsibility to ensure

that human rights in your homeland be honored?

49 Do citizens in your country have access to all media? (a) Yes (b) No

50 What do you define as “all media?”

51 Does new media--Internet, Facebook , Texting, Scype--play a role in your country? (a) Yes (b) No

52 Should the new media listed in question 51 play a role in your country? (a) Yes (b) No

53 If the new media listed in question 51 plays a role in your country, what is that role?

54 Does use of and access of the new media listed in question 51 play a role in maintaining democracy in your

country? (a) Yes (b) No

55 If you answered “Yes” to question 54, what role does new media play in maintaining democracy in your

country?: (a) Advantageous (b) Disadvantageous

56 If new media plays an advantageous role in maintaining democracy in your country, how so?

57 If new media plays a disadvantageous or detrimental role in maintaining democracy in your country, how so?

58 Should the new media listed in question 51 have a role in maintaining democracy? (a) Yes (b) No

59 Should citizens in your country have access to all media--traditional and new? (a) Yes (b) No60 Does the government in your country censor the press? (a) Yes (b) No

61 How do you define “government censorship of the press?”

62 Should the government have central control over the press, allowing for censorship? (a) Yes (b) No

63 If “Yes” to question 62, why should the government be allowed to censor the press?

64 If “No” to question 62, why should the government not be allowed to censor the press?

65 If you think the government censors the press in your country, do you think such censorship of the press

takes place in other countries in Eastern Europe? (a) Yes (b) No

66 If “Yes” to question 65, in what other countries do you think the press is censored by the government?

67 What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?

68 Is your country a member of NATO? (a) Yes (b) No

69 If your country is not a member of NATO, should it be a member of NATO? (a) Yes (b) No

70

If “Yes” to question 69, why should your country be a NATO member?71 If “No” to question 69, why should your country not be a NATO member?

72 What benefits does NATO membership provide, if any?

73 What disadvantages does NATO membership provide, if any?

74 Is your country a member of the Warsaw Pact? (a) Yes (b) No

75 If your country is a member of the Warsaw Pact, what benefits does Warsaw Pact membership provide to

your country, if any?

76 If your country is a member of the Warsaw Pact, what disadvantages does Warsaw Pact membership

provide to your country, if any?

77 Is dissent and protests by the citizens toward your country’s government allowed? (a) Yes (b) No

78 If “Yes” to question 77, what kind of dissent is allowed?


26/27

79 If “Yes” to question 77, why do you think dissent by the citizens toward the government is allowed?

80 If “No” to question 77, why do you think dissent by the citizens toward the government is not allowed?

81 Should dissent by the citizens toward the country’s government be allowed?

(a) Yes (b) No

82 If “Yes” to question 81, why should dissent by a country’s citizens toward the government be allowed?

83 If “No” to question 81, why should dissent by a country’s citizens toward the government not be allowed?

84 Are you religious? (a) Yes (b) No

85 What does “religious” mean to you?

86 If you are religious, what is your religion or what religion do you identify-associate with?87 Is religion important? (a) Yes (b) No

88 Does the government in your homeland?: (a) allow for religious freedom

(b) persecute or punish people for religious freedom or not allow practice of one’s religion

89 If you circled (b) for question 88, how is religious freedom not allowed?

90 What is “religious freedom?”

91 Is religious freedom important? (a) Yes (b) No

92 If “Yes” to question 91, why is religious freedom important?

93 If “No” to question 91, why is religious freedom not important?

94 Can allowing for religious freedom contribute to revolution which is?:

(a) Peaceful (b) Violent (c) No Impact on Revolution

95 If religious freedom can contribute to peaceful revolution of the government, how can such freedom

produce peaceful reform?

96 If religious freedom can contribute to violent revolution of the government, how can such freedom

produce violence toward reform?

97 If religious freedom does not have any impact on changing the government, why does such freedom not

have any impact?

98 If there is religious freedom in your country does it contribute in your country toward?:

(a) Unity (b) Divisiveness (c) No Impact

99 What race are you?

100 What ethnic group (ethnicity) do you identify with--name all that apply?

101 Is there more than one or multiple ethnic groups in your country?

102 Is it good to have multiple ethnic groups? (a) Yes (b) No

103 Are there any ethnic groups you dislike? (a) Yes (b) No

104 If “Yes” to question 103, name all ethnic groups you dislike.

105 For the ethnic groups you listed in question 104 as disliking, why do you dislike each group named?106 Do you think having different ethnic groups in your country can lead to revolution?

(a) Yes (b) No

107 If “Yes” to question 106, why do you think these different ethnic groups can lead to revolution in your

country?

108 Do you think any ethnic group or groups in your country can be responsible for revolution?

(a) Yes (b) No

109 If you answered “Yes” to question 108, which ethnic group or groups do you think can be responsible for

revolution?

110 If you answered “Yes” to question 108, why do you think the ethnic group or groups you list for question

109 could be responsible for sparking revolution?

111 Should ethnic groups other than the one you belong to be exiled from your country?

(a) Yes (b) No112 Do you think immigration to your country is?: (a) Good (b) Bad (c) Neutral

113 What expectations do you have for government reform?


27/27

114 Rank from the alphabetical list below which factor most contributed to revolution in your country, be it

peaceful or violent revolution (Example: A ranking of 1 is the factor most responsible, a factor of 18 was

the least responsible, with other number rankings falling in between):

_____Age

_____Economy (employment, technology, trade)

_____Educational Level Attained (cumulatively for the country)

_____Ethnicity

_____Foreign Aid to Your Country

_____Gender

_____Geographic Composition (urban-metropolitan or rural-agricultural)

_____Human Rights (honored or violated)

_____Immigration to Your Country

_____Media--Access to Media and Freedom of the Press

_____Membership of Your Country in NATO

_____Membership of Your Country in the Warsaw Pact

_____Political Freedom (or lack thereof)

_____Race

_____Relation to then-Soviet Union

_____Religious Freedom (or lack thereof)

_____Social Cohesion (removal or reduction of special interests)

_____Socioeconomic Status

Romanian Revolution 1

Documents

Transcript of Romanian Revolution 1