Romania’s constitution, established in 1991, declares that “Human dignity, civic rights and freedoms, the unhindered development of human personality, justice, and political pluralism are supreme and guaranteed values.” While Romania was once a relatively progressive country at the turn of the 20th century, dictatorship and subsequently communism under the Soviet system tarnished human rights in the country. After the 1991 revolution, Romania adopted their current constitution and transitioned to a market economy and democracy. Despite strong economic growth, all has not been well in Romania in the 21st century. Presidential impeachments and as of more recently, political protests have plagued the country. Freedom of speech has been for the most part upheld in Romania but not without controversy. In 2004, the government was accused by many journalists of being threatened by the government during presidential election season. Freedom House, a U.S. based NGO, rated Romania as “partly free”. Corruption in the government rather than freedom of speech has proved itself to be a much larger deal in contemporary Romania. In cases examined by Bleich, he highlights controversial court decisions on speech and strictness on certain issues (i.e. banning holocaust denial speech). Similarly, on October 7, 2015, the Romanian Senate passed a law that states that anyone accused of ‘social defamation’ can be subject to a financial penalty. This penalty can range between about 200-6000, and go even higher (up to 22,000 Euros) for a group defamation. The law was introduced by one of the more questionable Romanian politicians, Liviu Dragnea, who has shown to favor private interests over Romanian constituents. Many NGOs had criticized the law as a gross violation of freedom of expression. While the law was ultimately not adopted, the fact that it was passed by the senate shows how susceptible the government can be to outside interests, or how sensitive it can be to criticism. Freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution and is generally respected by the government and police. However, ongoing protests have grown massive in scale between 2017-2018. These protests are not against injustices involving speech, but government corruption after the newly elected Romanian administration pardoned various criminals, including many former politicians, just weeks after taking office. Police brutality has become a problem in the wake of these mass protests. Holocaust denial is strictly prohibited in Romania, which is similar to many of the cases Bleich examines. A Romanian ordinance passed in 2002 prohibits Holocaust denial as well as xenophobia, racism, and fascist symbols. Starting an organization that is deemed to be associating with any of the three can carry a prison sentence from 5-15 years. Bleich states that he believes limiting controversial speech such of this can weaken democracy. I wouldn’t favor a law like this in the United States, which admittedly could be called protecting the freedom to be racist, but I believe there is an ongoing battle in Europe against fascist and autocratic sentiments. A law like this may be necessary to avoid repeating a history that is all too familiar to Europe but non existent in the United States.
Russia, like much of eastern Europe, has deep historical roots in the governance of Romania. After the revolution of 1991, Romania expressed its desire to join NATO and the EU, which it did both respectively in 2004 and 2007. Relations with the Russian federation were initially nonexistent, before an attempt to sign a bilateral good-neighborly relations treaty went haywire in 1996 after the sitting Romanian president refused to sign the treaty at the last second due to lack of condemnation of certain historical acts. Tension over clauses in the treaty continued in the late 20th century and even though the good relations treaty was eventually signed in 2003, the conflict over the non-condemnation of a WWII era treaty and the rights to the Romanian Treasure went unsolved. The Romanian Treasure is a collection of valuable objects and gold that was sent to Russia for safekeeping during World War I that as of 2018 has not been returned. Russian engagement with Romanian parties has been largely unsuccessful in the 21st century. Tension over the territory rights to neighboring Moldova, as well as the fact that Romania is a part of NATO and has allowed U.S. troops to station at Romanian military bases. Russia has warned Romania that if it becomes central to a confrontation between NATO and Russia that its military bases could be compromised. Russian relations with Romanian parties have so far been neutral at best.
Works Cited
Bleich, Erik. The Freedom to Be Racist?: How the United States and Europe Struggle to Preserve Freedom and Combat Racism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011.
“Free Speech under Siege in Romania.” ADF International. February 16, 2016. Accessed November 20, 2018. https://adfinternational.org/news/free-speech-under-siege-in-romania/.
“Russia Warns Romania.” Nine O Clock. February 12, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2018. https://www.nineoclock.ro/2015/02/12/russia-warns-romania/.
Stan, Marius. “Romania’s Threatened Freedom of Speech.” Public Seminar. June 01, 2017. Accessed November 20, 2018. http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/10/romanias-threatened-freedom-of-speech/.
This was a very interesting analysis and goes along with my case study country of the Czech republic. Like Romania, Russia has had deep historical roots in the country and has recently established ties with the government. On the grounds of freedom of speech the Czech Republic is similar, where they have speech rights in the constitution but not always in practice. It is not that surprising since both countries are in the same geographical location and have the same external influences.