Брой 4
Noemi Marin
Abstract. The author approaches the relationship between rhetoric and religion in contemporary Romania from two perspectives: a) the relations between church and state in communist and post-communist Romania, and b) the post-1989 presidential rhetoric and its revisionist return to religion as a political compensation strategy under a new national identity discourse. Lloyd Bitzer explains rhetorical exigence as the need to address an imperfection which invites rhetoric intervention in the discourse. The return to religion in Romania seems to be caused by such a necessity during the shift from communist to post-communist discourse. After almost half a century of absence, the Romanian Orthodox Church is again part of the national discourse, bringing to it a variety of arguments related to the legitimacy of power and the freedom of religion. At the same time the presidential rhetoric brings the language of the sacral to the secular political discourse, thus transforming it.
Keywords: rhetoric, religion, post-communism, presidential rhetoric.
От свещена реторика до публична легитимност:религия и национален дискурс в посткомунистическа Румъния
Ноеми Марин
Abstract. Авторката разглежда взаимоотношенията между реторика и религия в съвременна Румъния през двояка перспектива: а) тази на взаимоотношенията между църква и държава в комунистическа и посткомунистическа Румъния и б) тази на президентската реторика след 1989 г. и нейния ревизионистки обрат към религията като политическа компенсаторна стратегия в дискурса, насочен към изграждане на нова национална идентичност. Лойд Битцер говори за реторическата „спешност“, когато съществува необходимост проблематична ситуация да бъде адресирана чрез реторическа интервенция в дискурса. Завръщането към религията в Румъния изглежда е провокирано от подобна необходимост по време на прехода от комунистически дискурс към посткомунистически такъв. След близо половин век на отсъствие, Румънската православна църква отново участва в националния дискурс, внасяйки в него разнообразни аргументи, например такива за легитимността на властта и свободата на вероизповедание. Същевременно президентската реторика внася езика на религията и сакралното в секуларния политически дискурс и така го трансформира.
Keywords: реторика, религия, пост-комунизъм, президентска реторика.
The Romanian Revolution started in Timisoara, in December 1989, with a clash between Ceausescu’s militia and citizens meeting to exercise their right to freedom of religion. For over 45 years, Romanian Communist Party’s politics were able to maintain religious discourse outside of the public sphere. Rhetorically, however, Romanian revolution starts emblematically within the master trope of irony (to cite Burke), forcing official discourse to invite religion outside of its silenced public space into the public realm, into a renewed relationship with politics.
Flora, Szilagyi and Roudometof (2005) present the events related to a minority religious community, events that led to the downfall of the Ceausescu’s regime:
On December 16 1989, confrontation took place between the local authorities and the religious believers of a Hungarian Reformed community in Timisoara (a city in western Romania). The local church minister, Laszlo Tokes, was an outspoken critic of the oppression of the Hungarian minority and of the Ceausescu plan to destroy thousands of villages. He repeatedly resisted the authorities’ attempt to relocate him into a small remote village and thus successfully segregate him from his congregation. When the secret police came to arrest him, members of his religious community showed up to protect him and his family. Soon, huge crowds of ethnic Romanian Orthodox believers joined them. The unprecedented expression of ethnic and inter-confessional solidarity in the streets of Timisoara caused the uprising to spread throughout the country, eventually leading to the end of the Ceausescu dictatorship.
Post-1989, Romanian public sphere has to make discursive room for a rhetorical conjunction of the sacred and the profane. Official discourse on and of religion re-enters the arena of the political to recapture legitimacy important for both Romanian citizens and post- Ceausescu/post-communist state. Thus, as in most societies in transition in Eastern and Central Europe, Romanian public sphere features two official kinds of discourse on the relationship between religion and politics: a) one on the Romanian Orthodox Church as civic, political, and/or national authority in the state; and b) another on presidential rhetoric that introduces faith-based arguments to re-legitimize the national political arena.
The Bitzerian rhetorical situation5 explains rhetorical exigence as the need to address an imperfection invites a rhetorical intervention In discourse. The need to re-invite religion into the Romanian political sphere seems to address the rhetorical exigence when transitioning from communist to post-communist discourse. After almost half a century, the Romanian Church and religious rhetoric engage with national discourse, contributing a plethora of political, religious, and civic arguments on sanctified authority and freedom of religion. At the same time, post-communist presidential rhetoric reintroduces words of the sacred into the secularized political discourse of transition. In m emblematic way, the relationship religion-politics brings with it a rhetorical revival (pun intended). This essay explores the relationship religion, and rhetoric in post-communist Romania, featuring two brief historical examinations, namely, a) a historical account of communist and post-communist discourse on Church and State, and b) a rhetorical account of post-1989 presidential discourse and its revisionist strategies to reintroduce religion as a political redemptive action, part of a renewed Romanian national rhetoric.
The Historical Context for Religious Rhetoric: A Necessary Exigence
When it comes to the complex relationship State-Church7 in post-communism, a shared problem for most societies in transition is the legacy of communist times, the overruling rhetorical powers of an inherited atheist public discourse, in the name of Communism and Marxism. For half a decade in Romania, the separation of sacred and secular remained the mainstream rhetorical strategy of official governance. Among Eastern and Central European countries, Poland remains an important exception, as its religious discourse contributes partially to a unique situation of the relationship between religion and politics, in that, “for a historical moment, a beleaguered political regime… entered into dialogue, in effect into a partnership with the Catholic Church to attempt to solve social and economic problems”8. As Ornatowski explains, in Poland “the Catholic Church played a direct political role”, legitimizing the relationship between state and church in its distinctive way, creating its own rhetorical and political case (2007).
For most communist societies, public sphere translates into a sphere where politics and politicized rhetoric leave no room for either a discourse of religion or for national churches to engage in dialogue with the authorities in the public realm* Religious topics and ecumenical vocabulary are banned, celebrations and festivities of religious signification moved from the public into the private realm, all in the name of an atheist arena for the “new man” of communist times9. In other words, the presence of religious rhetoric as part of public discourse is set to be only part of the private sphere. Private reads as a lesser area for citizenry, for the “true” citizenry of communism heralds its activities mainly and importantly in the public realm, Politically and legally, this locus for rhetoric and religion, this separation of the secular and the sacred, translates as a Burkean negative, for, in reality, according to the Romanian Constitution, there is no separation between state and church. How, then, an incident that occurred at the end of the historical year 1989, can bring about not just a revolution, a reintroduction of the relationship rhetoric and religion into the public sphere, but also open an entire controversy about the role and function of Romanian Orthodox Church in Romanian political life?
This seems to be the opportune time to announce that, due to the vast problematic of the relationship between religion and politics in post-communist Romania, this article focuses mainly on the relationship among rhetoric, religion, and post-communist politics in relation to the discourse of reconstitution of national Romanian identity in the public sphere. Looking at two discursive intersections between religion and politics in the Romanian public arena, the article offers an account of the rhetorical challenges of State-Church debate on national authority along with rhetorical strategies utilized by Romanian presidents in legitimizing national appeals.
Breaking the Silence: Religion as Political Resistance
In December of 1989, the rhetorical and political silence is broken as religion (re)-enters the arena of official discourse11. Before that time, as i n ail communist countries, the Iron Curtain fell also on the religious window, setting its discourse into a cloister of silence, to borrow a religious metaphor. Emblematic of Romanian political life, communist rhetoric manages to eradicate most presence of religious discourse, to ban an entire grammar of religion, to impact and affect the public memory of citizens and comrades together, a rhetorical strategy of consistent silence of religion in the public sphere, As presented in the controversial and important Anti-Communist Report published December 2006, the Romanian state takes drastic rhetorical measures to cease any possible relationship between religion and official politics.
McKerrow identifies naming as part of the rhetorical axioms related to the discourse of dominance and power. When applied to the communist context in which religion became silenced, naming becomes the primordial rhetorical strategy utilized in communist times to silence any discourse on and of religion – a long lasting discursive attempt to take religion out of the public sphere. In Romania, religious holidays were turned into working days and names were withdrawn from calendars or official sites. That is not to say that such holidays were not part of private discourse and religious dates were not celebrated in the privacy of Romanian homes? For instance, in Ceausescu’s Romania, “Christmas” as a word was eradicated, not to be found in any of the official vernacular, The generation born during the 1980s might still recall how in grammar schools and kindergartens the story was told about the death of Father Christmas, only to be replaced by the “true parents” of Winter Holidays: the General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party, Comrade Nicolae Ceausescu, and his wife, Comrade Elena Ceausescu.
During the totalitarian regime, Romanian Communist Party decrees and laws introduce new communist words, with strong atheist social resonance, to replace ’old* Romanian vocabulary pertinent to long standing historical traditions- Once out of the public sphere, religious words leave way for a novel vocabulary of communist rhetoric, a vocabulary populated with words that assist people in their “(reconstruction the Multilateraiiy- Developed New Citizens” living in the bright New Socialist Republic of Romania.
As most rhetoricians know, words do have power and the Romanian Communist Party attests to the rhetorical powers of atheist discourse. During the Ceausescu regime, communist rhetorical strategies to change language and eradicate the religious vocabulary from the public sphere reflect sustained rhetorical efforts to manipulate audiences, changing Romanian vernacular. Most education textbooks, school systems, or even historical monuments turn a-religious. Old historical churches of national importance are either demolished or re-painted to glorify the historical past, rather than its religious tradition, No history manual reminds students of Christianity as related to Romania-s own past, Following the Soviet model, Romanian history textbooks present a victorious atheist past, forever communist in its glory. Religious education exists only in limited seminaries, where candidates for the priesthood have to pass civic and communist tests in order to justify the need for such a vocation. In gloomy, Orwellian style, the “rhetoric of eradication” strategically and actively eliminates ail reminiscence of a religious past for the Romanian people.
Political Debate on State and Church in Post-Communist Romanian: Religion as Free For All?
As religion as discourse and rhetorical practice under the Romanian totalitarian regime moves to the private sphere, an official political perspective inherited from communism raises even more problems in post-communist times. According to the Romanian Constitution of 1948, State and Church arc not separate – a legal stipulation that remains current to this day, Bria (1999) notes that “among the countries formerly under state socialist regimes, Romania had the most “Constantinian Church”, rendering the separation between church and state impossible, in both the past and the present”(4). Pre-1989, the Romanian Socialist Republic develops a modus operandi with the Romanian Orthodox Church, a “social apostolate” based on biblical principles. As Bria explains, divinitas and civitas translate into “ Christians should obey the civil authorities” since the (Romanian Communist) State stands for a morally legitimate entity where the Church, as part of it, should not and will not advocate civil disobedience (Bria 1999: 4).
From this standpoint, the public argument that in Romania Church and religious rhetoric are not included In the public realm can be seen as problematic, for the discourse on and by the Church relates to its official contributions under its authority as a constitutional entity during communist times. Hence, it is important to note that while the Romanians as a people were not allowed to engage in religious rhetoric in the public realm, the Church official discourse is (silently) embedded into the political canvas of official discourse of the State. Why is it important to make this distinction from a rhetorical standpoint? Precisely because after 1989, the arguments on official religious discourse and freedom of religious practices lead to dramatic rhetorical consequences that affect both the Romanian Constitution adopted in 1993 and the ongoing public debate on the role of the Romanian Orthodox Church as the National Church of current Romania.
As part of the legacy of the communist period, most Eastern and Central European countries face public debates on religious victims of communism; on the legitimacy of religion as part of nationalist rhetoric; and on religious and political rights for the minorities. The list is not only shared, but also painfully long. In Romania, the communist legacy brings religion and its complex discursive facets into multiple arguments that populate the already challenging political life. In the aftermath of the communist era, the public debate on freedom of religion reveals how arguments about and on religion populate both the Church official discourse as well as partisan debates on legitimacy and political rights for various religions and religious groups. Defending the National (Romanian) Church as the only and most legitimate body to continue the social apostolate that contributed to a continuum of religious life under communist regime, Bria states that:
The most negative description of post-communist Romania is that of a religious vacuum, a spiritual desert, a fertile field for mission. This picture becomes the alibi of Western evangelists, Eastern religious movements, and missionary agencies coming to Romania to fill the gap and conquer a new religious public.
Arguments on religion and National Romanian Orthodox rights to political authority, along with arguments and freedom of religion find their ways in the creation and re-creation of the new Constitution of Romania, a painful process that took place in early 1990s. Immediately after 1989, a strenuous and to this day continuous debate on the freedom of (which) religion surfaces, giving way to an array of discursive challenges and rhetorical actions in reference to the relationship State-Church, national church vs. minority’s churches, and public and private roles of religion. Pope (1999) acknowledges that “the Revolution brought about important changes within Romanian society at large and for the religious communities in particular (my emphasis)”, During the winter of 1990, The National Salvation Front (provisional Romanian Government) re-Jegaiizes the Greek Catholic Church (also called the Uniates) suppressed by the communists, maintaining the legal status of fourteen other religious communities (recognized under Ceausescu) and allowing them for the first time to govern themselves.
While everybody acknowledges the victimization of Greek Catholics during communism, the position of Orthodoxy reflects current heated discussions on partisan rhetoric and nationalist discourse. Bria offers such an example:
None deny that the sufferings of the Greek Catholic Church and its victims and martyrs under the communist regime constitute a national problem, but the Romanian Unites spoke against the current privileged status of the Orthodox Church and asked for punishment of the compromised leaders. While the Orthodox are not saints, it is senseless to denigrate their Christian commitment solely because they did not organize an anti-communist movement and social opposition. There is a credible and faithful remnant in the church that does not reject the claims of the Greek Catholics to repossess their properties.
A brief history of the legal debate on the Hew Constitution of Romania approved in 1993 reflects the fluid, unsettled rhetorical dimension of the relationship State-Church, Immediately after the revolution, the Hungarian Protestant Churches (Lutheran, Reformed and Unitarian) join in a rare coalition with the Latin Rite Catholic Church in Transylvania in adopting a document that calls for a free church in a free society. From 1991 to 1993, the New Romanian Constitution is formulated, debated, and finalized. Approved by the Parliament in November 1991, the negotiations on its final version call for a rhetorical and ecumenical reading of several articles. Article 29 states that freedom of religious belief cannot be restricted in any way and that freedom of conscience is guaranteed, but that it must be expressed in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. The religious communities remain free by Constitution, yet all forms of controversy seem to be prohibited. As part of Article 1, under General Principles, the State recognizes and guarantees national minorities the right to preserve, develop, and express their ethnic/cultural/linguistic/religious identity. Further on, Art. 32 emphasizes freedom of religious education in accordance with the specific requirements of each faith. The Baptist religious groups, attentive to the Constitutional discussion, propose the phrase “by the Grace of God” to be added to Article 124. Along with the new Constitution, another legal document, the Law of Cults, valid since 1948, goes through similar revisions, ample sets of drafts (1991, 1992, and 1993) and multiple articles (78) only to articulate freedom of churches, without calling for a strict separation of Church and State.
The New Romanian Constitution (1993) does not stipulate an official (state) church, accepting all religious communities as equal before the law. However, a decade-and-a-half later, the ecumenical situation presents a less-than-successful (legal) picture; new religious legislation is not yet completed, and mounting fears re-populate the public discourse on religious freedom. In the last days of 2006, right before Romania’s long-anticipated integration into the European Union, the Romanian Parliament passed a law in favor of a National Church, that is, the Romanian Orthodox Church, Adding to the public debate on the role of an official state church, on freedom of religion and legitimacy of religious groups, arguments to justify National Orthodox Church continue to populate the political sphere, Pope (1999) almost a decade ago identified the current ecumenical fears shared by minority churches in light of the strong support for a National Church in Romanian politics:
The question remains however as to who will have the courage to tell the majority churches with all their political and social power that they also engage in forms of proseiytism by claiming to possess the absolute truth and demeaning other perspectives, by creating and communicating caricatures of other religious communities or demonizing them, by demanding restrictions on the religious freedom of other groups because of their love of power, by instilling false fears regarding the subversion of the nation that they maintain they alone can defend against, and by encouraging discriminatory actions or even outright violence against those who would challenge their religious monopoly.
Presidential Rhetoric and Religious Vocabulary: Faith-Based Exigence
When examining post-communist Presidential rhetoric, irony continues to function as the master trope, revealing how official discourse utilizes religion as a legitimation strategy to reconnect citizens’ fight for democracy with articulations of religious freedom for a unifying argument of national identity. While the previously mentioned debate on the political legitimacy of the National Church remains unresolved, post-1989 presidential rhetoric provides a coherent approach to religion as an exigence for civic ethos. After silencing religion m the public sphere during the communist regime, Romanian presidents, starting with the former communist Ion Iliescu, recognize the need to re-introduce religion into official discourse as part of the new rhetoric of democratic values. From a legal standpoint State and Church continue to remain one, from 1948 on, However, the presidential rhetoric of the 1990s attempts a re-legitimation of religion, that is to say, of Christian Orthodox religion as an identifying and unifying argument of national (Romanian) identity. From early 1990s on, ail Romanian presidents address the nation every Easter and Christmas, gradually introducing powerful religious presence and faith-based arguments to contribute to the “national thread” of Romanian existence28. Religion, along with national history, becomes strategically present in presidential discourse to provide renewed political legitimacy for all democratic and civic discourse. Thus, for almost two decades, post-communist presidential rhetoric incorporates religion to add redemption and new authority to the political narrative of “free” and “freed” Romanian people.
Sharing this view with other historians and political analysts, Beyer predicts that religion m Eastern and Central Europe follows already known trends. Viewing religion as a cultural marker of national identity, he states that:
Religion in Eastern and Central Europe will follow more closely a twin pattern that has already manifested itself strongly in most other parts of the world: namely, there will be simultaneous trends toward the privatization of religion as the affair of the individual person, and the politicization of religion as part of a wider context over the identity and character of the nation and cultures.
The history of the Romanian presidency post-1989 reflects a transition from communist atheist rhetoric to a more inclusive (not all-inclusive) post-communist rhetoric, where State and Church continue to remain together and religion becomes legitimized in the process. Several years after the Romanian revolution, religion offers novel rhetorical strategies to legitimize both presidential personae and political views on the post-communist civic ethos and democracy, After all, alt elected presidents of post-1989 Romania, the current one included, had been previously part of the Romanian Communist Party, part of the atheist public discourse during Ceausescu’s regime. If so, how can such presidents legitimize a more inclusive discourse on religion and legitimacy of religion after silenced times?
I mentioned irony before. It seems there is a direct relationship between presidential personae and religion: the more extensive the communist past of the elected Romanian president (Ion Iliescu, in this case), the least religious the ethos. The most civically engaged president, Emil Constantinescu, represents the most ecumenically-driven discourse in post* communist Romanian history. Irony allows for a rhetorical explanation of the exigence perceived by all Romanian presidents to legitimize and redeem their public persona through rhetorical strategies that link divinitas and civitas in the name of a “true” Romanian democracy. Religion as a civic argument of redemption starts to be introduced in presidential addresses in the early 1990s (1994) and turns into annual presidential addresses on religious holidays, namely on Christian Orthodox religious holidays. Once again, the relationship between rhetoric and religion in post-1989 Romania offers a rich rhetorical site for historical exploration!
The last part of this article examines chronologically how presidential addresses from 1994 use the relationship between divinitas and civitas in order to both redeem presidents as public and rhetorical personae and to re-legitimize national identity arguments in post- communist Romania* Romania has had four presidential elections since 1990, and an interim President (Ion Iliescu, 1990-1992). The elected presidents of Romania include, in chronological order, Ion Iliescu (1992–1996; 2000–2004), Emil Constantinescu (1996-2000), and Traian Basescu (2004–current), In is noteworthy that all of them had been members of the Romanian Communist Party; as post-communist elected presidents, they represent, respectively, the Romanian Social Democratic party (Ion Iliescu), the Civil Alliance (Emil Constantinescu), and the Liberal Party (Traian Basescu).
Iliescu’s Rhetoric: From Atheist to Politically Religious
After serving as interim President for two years, Ion Iliescu becomes officially the President of Romania in 1992 for the first time. A former communist (yet revolutionary) and a democratic public persona, Iliescu recognizes the rhetorical power of religion, removing it from the silenced private sphere into the public, introducing presidential addresses on Christian Orthodox holidays. During his term, annual speeches on Christian Orthodox Easter and Christmas holidays enter presidential discourse to remain to this day. After a long totalitarian history of public address, in 1995 Iliescu speaks to the Romanian nation using the Christian salutation, “Christ Is Risen!” – a remarkable rhetorical move for a former communist (born-again democratic) politician! And yet, while mentioning religion and using religious idiom, Iliescu focuses more on historical and national appeals that align Romanians as Christians to civic and national identity. “For over two millennia, every year, the Romanian people live in joy and renewed hope, along with al l Christian people of the world, the deeply significant spiritual moment that is today’s Easter Holiday” (my translation), A short speech, like most of his speeches on religious themes, Iliescu invokes the December 1989 victims, the new political and national trajectory of post-communist Romania, and arguments of renewal and revival of national traditions and customs. Combining national pride, civic engagement and embedded religious tones, Iliescu (1995) announces the celebration of Christian Easter for all Romanians, ending with “Happy Holidays, Fellow Citizens!” – an appropriate finale in a country experiencing full rhetorical and political transition!
Tying religion and history together as powerful rhetorical allies for public legitimation, Iliescu utilizes throughout his presidency (during both of his terms) an increasingly religious ethos to commemorate and celebrate the Romanian nation, For example,, speaking to honor the 136 years since the Romanian Principates Unification, Iliescu (1995) introduces a messianic tone (in its Romanian version) to link with the Romanian pre-communist (hence long-standing Christian) tradition, in an effort to re-legitimize, and re-empower Romanian national identity for its people.
On this occasion, today, I wish you, the participants in this gathering, as well as all citizens of our country, peace, well-being and happiness. May the warm light of the/our Unification guide us (my emphasis) in all we are to accomplish together, toward enabling our aspiration to freedom to take place, toward a change for the better in our Romania! (my translation) His second presidential term (2000–2004) continues with a much more overt strategy to link religious ethos to Romanian history to Romanian national identity. In 2001, in the (already) “traditional” post-communist Easter address, the Romanian president utilizes the calendar date as a unifying argument for all Christians:
As a symbol of unity and harmony among people, this year the entire Christian World celebrates the Rebirth of Our Lord at the same date! Even more so, it is a joy for me, as President of Romania, to address all of you, all the Christians of our country, regardless of the religious order (confession), making the traditional confession: Christ Is Risen! (my translation)
Winning a second term, he continues to utilize powerful faith-based addresses. Only seven years from a much more subdued peroration (1995), Iliescu ends this address with fully-fledged ecumenical rhetoric, wishing his fellow citizens the following:
In this sacred night, the joy of the Rebirth of Our Lord to overflow in your souls, and may Christ who conquered death give us life, health, peace, and prosperity. Christ is Risen!” (my translation)
The rhetorical crescendo and the epideictic ease with which Iliescu moves through religious and political discourse can be exemplified with a (yet again ironic) citation, namely the celebration of May 1, a date that reminds all post-communist nations of their communist past. Epitomizing the discursive need to bridge divinitas and civitas in order to offer re-newed legitimacy to his presidency, Iliescu in the same speech (2002) identifies the May 1 International Day as the fight of the working class for rights and freedom, for civic duty and sacrifice (all part of the communist rhetoric) to follow after a couple of paragraphs with a glorification of Christian life. In his own words, “[D]urring these days of celebration, which precede through a happy coincidence the Paschal celebration of the Rebirth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I wish all Romanians Happy Holidays and may all their dreams and hopes become reality. I believe in our strength to overcome obstacles and act as a unified force for our common good“. Such rhetorical articulations and arguments might be seen as efficient discursive strategies that contribute to legitimize public personae, since Iliescu’s presidency has been the longest in post-communist Romania.
Constantinescu’s Religiosity: Civic and Divine?
Following Iliescu’s first term, Emil Constantinescu, President of Romania from 1996-2000, represents the Civic Alliance of the Democratic forces in Romanian politics. Surprising for a former and current academic Constantinescu’s orations expand on the ecumenical style as his addresses use an overt Christian Orthodox rhetoric in a large number of speeches. In 1999, speaking on the occasion of Pope John Paul II visit to Romania, Constantinescu’s welcoming remarks reflect a true ecumenical vernacular:
Your Holiness, I welcome you with the certitude that God intended for us to live this, most significant, moment which is too close for us to realize its full importance… We, as sons of God, are fully responsible for any disrespect and abuse of freedom and liberty, for each and every citizen. We welcome you on Romanian soil and we ask you, on behalf of the sons of this nation, to bless us under your apostolate! (my translation)
Very soon afterward, reflecting on the Pope John Paul II visit, Constantinescu honors the Romanian Patriarch Teoctist a contested political and religious figure, utilizing Christian Orthodox style and heavy religious tone on May 21,1999:
We all witnessed the blessed visit (John Paul II) in this last month… Tradition states that the Emperor Constantin saw the cross sign in the sky and hence received the message. In hoc signo vinces! Let us see a sign to make us all Christians reconcile and live together, stepping into the new millennium together!
Constantinescu’s presidential rhetoric appears faith-based, for along with public addresses on religious holidays, he engages citizens in an almost messianic discourse for the New Year and the New Millennium (December 31, 1999), Inviting Romanians to revisit the history of the last Millennium and reflect on it when entering the new millennium with (anew) religious and civic vigor. Constantinescu offers a unique rhetorical appeal to transform the nation, as he fuses patriotic and Christian values to enforce a strong sense of civic and religious mission for Romanians in the future:
Faith is not an empty word, rather, it is the law that unifies and heightens/lifts our spirit, History has given us such moments of faith and hope, among which was the visit of John Paul II. This visit, after a millennium of schism, has opened the gates to re-unify with the Christians of Europe, God has chosen our country and our old/ancient Christian people to take the first step for this grand Christian reconciliation… I wish you a Happy New Year, joy, and happiness in your lives and souls (my emphasis) (my translation).
One needs to revisit irony as a powerful trope for presidential speeches. Among the postcommunist presidents post-1989, Emil Constantinescu, when elected, was viewed as the most progressive president, representing, in communist vernacular, the intellectual social class. And yet, Constantinescu’s rhetoric, unlike the rest of presidential discourse post-1989, carries the strongest religious content and ecumenical style. Some of his speeches read as religious confessions, an example being his 2000 traditional presidential address on Easter, a voice almost from the pulpit:
Christ is Risen! Today, on the Day full of light of faith and hope, I send you all a message of joy and gratitude, Joy, because the Holy Days of Easter makes us ill Romanian people gather to celebrate the rebirth of our Savior, Grateful, because, on this holy day, more than any other time, we face each other and thank each other for all the good things which, known or unknown, we have accomplished for the benefit of our fellow human beings and for the benefit of our country! (my translation)
It is of note that during his presidential term, Constantinescu initiates the plan to build the Cathedral of National Salvation in Bucharest. His arguments focus on religion as the way to attain democratic life, preaching tolerance and mutual understanding, civic values, and European unity, inviting Romania to partake and have a role in the global future of the New Europe.
Basescu: A Rhetorical Move to the Middle
Similar to Iliescu’s presidential rhetoric, the current president of Romania, Traian Basescu (2004–current) attempts a rhetorical balance between civitas and dininitas. Willing to acknowledge and justify religion as an inherent part of the public argument for Romanian national identity, Basescu suggests that the main force of the Romanian people is their faith in God, which enables them to remain strong only by maintaining hope and humility as Christians. However, a former communist himself, an advocate of a pro-American and pro-European Union foreign policy, Basescu’s discourse focuses more on religion as tradition and mission to assist the economic and political development of the country. On the occasion of celebrating 80 years since Romanian Orthodox Church became a Patriarchate, Basescu (2004) offers a lucrative platform to legitimize the institutional and constitutional ties between state and church. Along similar lines, his yearly addresses on Easter and Christmas engage less religiosity and feature more political dimensions of contemporary Romanian history, a period for the people to focus on European integration and economic growth.
Overall, the brief chronological account of the relationship between Romanian presidential rhetoric and religion emphasizes the need to reintroduce strategies of legitimacy as political redemptive actions within the framework of post-communist national rhetoric in Romania* Such rhetorical perspective calls for important questions and explorations on the future of the relationship between religion and rhetoric in Romania.
Conclusion: In the Beginning There Was the Word
Looking at the complex relationship between religion and rhetoric in post-communist Romania, scholars need to explore the role of religion related to political legitimacy in nationalist and/or democratic rhetoric. Others might examine the role of rhetoric for the new or reinstated ecumenical discourse in civic alliances and new European contexts. To what extent can Romanian Orthodox identity be seen as inherent to national identity discourse remains an open question that calls for further investigations of the role of religion in ethnonational rhetoric in post-communism, For international perspectives on Eastern and Central European rhetoric, the notions of public and publics might highlight yet other layers of discursive complexity related to the relationship between religion and rhetoric. To study the relationships between religion and rhetoric as part of the public discourse in societies in transition (such as Romania), means to engage with some of the most important problematic for contemporary rhetorical theory in this global time.
Bibliography
Basescu, T. Mesajul presendinteiui Romanie 1, Traian Basescu, adresat militarilor aflati in misiune in afara teritoriuiui national, cu ocazia Sfintelor Sarbatori de Fasti (06 aprilie 2007). www.presidency.ro
Bria, I. Evangelism, Proselytism, and religious Freedom in Romania; An Orthodox Point of View. – In: Journal of Ecumenial Studies, 36/1, 1999, 163–183.
Beyer, P. Privatization and Politicization of Religion in Global Society: Implications for Church-State Relations in Central and Eastern Europe. – In: Church-State Relations in Central and Eastern Europe, Irena Borowik, Ed. Krakow; Nomos, 21.
Biter, L, F. The Rhetorical Situation. – In: Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, 1968, 144.
Burke, K. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method, 1966. Berkeley, U of California P, 1968.
Constantinescu, E. Mesajul de Sfintele Pasti al Presedintelui Romaniei. Emil Constantinescu, 30 Aprilie, 2000. www.presidency.ro, July 14, 2007.
Constantinescu, E. Cuvintul de Bun Venit al Presedintelui Romaniei, Emil Constantinescu, la sosirea Sanctitatii Sale, Papa Ioan Paul II in Romania – Bucuresti, 7 May 1999. www.presidency.rо
Constantinescu, E. Cuvintul Presedintelui Romaniei, Emil Constantinescu, la ceremonia de conferire a Ordinului Steaua Romanici Prea Fericitylui Parinte Patriarh Teoctist – Bucurestt, 21 May 1999. www.presidency.ro, July 14, 2007.
Corley, F. Romania: Controversial Religion Law’s Passing Violated Parliamentary Process. – In: Forum 18 News Services 15 December 2006. http://www. forum 18.org, July 14, 2007.
Dragos, L. Romania: Religion Law Rushed In. www.habitsunetwork.org, July 14, 2007.
Flora, G. Szilagyi, G. and Roudometof, V. Religion and National Identity in Post-Communist Romania. – In: Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 7/1, 2005, 35–55.
Iliescu, I. Mesajul Presedintetei Romaniei, Domnul Ion Iliescu, adresat poporului roman cu prilejul sarbatorilor de Pasti, Bucuresti, 15 aprilie, 2001. www.presidency.ro
Iliescu, I. Mesajul Presedintelui Romaniei, Domnul Ion Iliescu, adresat poporului roman cu prilejul sarbatorilor de Pasti. Bucuresii, 23 aprilie, 1995. www.presidency.ro
Iliescu, I. Alocutiunea Domnului Ion Iliescu, Presedinte Romaniei, la Adunarea Populara din Municipiul Focsani, Prilejuita de Aniversarea a 136 de ani de la Unirea Principatelor, 24 Ianuarie, 1995. www.presidency.ro
Iliescu, I. Chronological Summary of Romanian History. Romania at the Moment of Truth, Henry Berger: Paris, 1994.
Marin, N. Toward A Rhetoric of Exile and Dissent: The Return of the Rhetor. – In: After the Fail: Rhetoric in the Aftermath of Dissent in Post-Communist Times. New York; Peter Lang, 2007, 157–169.
Martin, A. Romania Religious Law Called Restrictive, Repressive. www.oneNewsNow. com/2007/01/romania_religious_law_called_r.php.
Mertus, J. and K. M. Frost. Faith and (In)Tolerance of Minority Religions: A Comparative Analysis of Romania, Ukraine, and Poland. – In: Journal of Ecumenial Studies, 36/1, 1999, 65–80.
McKerrow, R. E. Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis. – In: Communication Monographs 56, 1989, 91–111.
Ornatowski, C. Rhetoric, Religion, and Politics in the Negotiations Between the Church and the Authorities in Poland, 1980-1989. Paper presented at the 16th Congress of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric, France, Strasbourg, 24–28 July, 2007.
Pope, E. A. Ecumenism, Religious Freedom, and the “National Church” Controversy in Romania. – In: Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 36.1, 1999, 184–201.
Presidential Commission for the Analysis of Communist Dictatorship in Romania: Final Report, 1 Jan, 2007. <http: // www.presidency.ro/static/ordine/RAPO RT_FINAL_CADCR.pdf>
Rogobeta, S. E. Some Reflections on Religion and Multiculturalism in Romania: Towards a Reappraisal of the Grammar of Traditions. – In: Romanian Journal of Political Science. Winter 6/2, 2006, 35–55.
The Museum of the Romanian Village. LXXX The 1980s and the People of Bucharest Paideia: Bucharest, 2007.
Winfeld, N. Pope: Other Christians Not True Churches. Associated Press, July 10, 2007. http:/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_ on_re_eu/pope_other_christians, July 12, 2007.
Comments
0 comments
