EBP 1 - "Let Them Hate"

Victor Sebestyn’s chapter on the rule of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu (from his book Revolution 1989) provides a description of the various bizarre characteristics of his regime. While Sebestyn never explicitly discusses whether or not Ceausescu is a personal ruler, from this account of his regime it is clear that, at least to some extent, Ceausescu was a personal ruler.

In ‘Personal Rule in Black Africa’ Robert H. Jackson and Carl G. Rosenberg explain the concept of personal rule. “Personal Rule is a system of relations linking rulers not with the ‘public’ or even with the ruled (at least not directly), but with patrons, associates, clients, supporters and rivals, who constitute the ‘system.’ If personal rulers are restrained, it is by the limits of their personal authority and power and by the authority and power of patrons, associates, clients, supporters, and – of course – rivals” (19). Essentially a personal ruler is someone who rules independently and has absolute and total power over their state, making it a form of authoritarian regime. According to Sebestyn, Nicolae Ceausescu definitely shows this throughout his control of Romania. Ceausescu’s wife Elena was the only person that Sebestyn mentions that could possibly have been a challenge to his rule, and even then it was merely in their lives outside of politics that he would fear for her reaction (i.e. he grew to fear her temper, and also grew a greater reliance on her as time went on, however Romania always remained definitely in his control).

Ceausescu’s regime almost resembled a form of oligarchy, as he filled the top roles in the country with his family members (i.e. Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Defence Minister, head of the Red Cross). However by doing this he did not limit his own power and influence, as he still had sole charge of Romania, meaning that his regime still resembled something closer to personal rule than anything else.

One of the most bizarre and repressive aspects of Ceausescu’s regime that Sebestyn points out is his restrictions on abortion for women under forty five, and attempts to increase the population of Romania. This involved completely banning abortion (making Romania the only country in socialist bloc to do so), as “the foetus is the property of the entire society”, and also creating a rule that all women were required to have regular medical check-ups to ensure that no back alley abortions were taking place (Sebestyn 173). Aside from sounding like something straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale”, this was all in order to reach Ceausescu’s target of increasing Romania’s population from twenty three million to thirty million. This is an example of him trying to take total control over his state and its people.

Sebestyn also examines the cult of personality that surrounded Ceauscesu. It is interesting to note the clear difference between the perception of the dictator inside Romania compared to outside of the country. Inside he was widely hated, however people were unable to vocalise their feelings due to his incredibly repressive regime. Some of the names that were used to refer to him include “The Source of Our Light”, “The Great Architect”, and “The Celestial Body”, although these were used in order to further his desired image, rather than as a sincere representation of what the Romanian people thought of him (Sebestyn 161). However outside of Romania he was the favoured communist leader, with George Bush describing him as ‘one of the good Communists’, and Margaret Thatcher stating that she was “left with particular impressions of him as a leader of… a country willing to develop her co-operation with other nations” (171, 169). Sebestyn also acknowledges the fact that Ceausescu’s popularity with states like these was largely down to the fact that they wanted to disrupt the USSR as much as possible and they chose to do this by favouring the communist leader that was the most separate from the USSR. The clear distinction between the two reactions to Ceausescu raises questions about how strong this cult of personality actually was, and how it was actually able to be sustained. Bogdan Iacob claims that it was this that held Romania together during this period. Similar to what we discussed in class in week 2, this was due to Ceausescu’s use of propaganda, although according to Iacob it was done to good effect here (Iacob 349).

Although not included in this particular reading, it is interesting to note how the end of Ceausescu’s regime ties into the media restrictions that Ceausescu imposed that were mentioned in the reading. The end of his regime came about quickly and unexpectedly as a result of him pausingand looking confused during a public appearance. This led to the only violent revolution of the 1989 revolutions although it was relatively short lived, with Nicolae and his wife Elena being executed within three days of the revolution beginning. Sebestyn states that public speaking was one area of weakness that Ceausescu was very aware of, and took care to avoid showing in public. He took this to the extent of ensuring that all television networks and newspapers had editors to ensure that there were no errors in his name, and that no unnatural pauses, stutters, etc. were ever shown on television. Limiting the media/the lack of a free press in Romania was one of the key features of his rule. Another way that he did this was by restricting access to typewriters, requiring them all to be registered.

It is interesting to note Victor Sebestyn’s origins when reading this chapter. In the introduction of Revolution 1989 he states that he grew up in the USSR and was a journalist during the revolutions in 1989. This gives a rather unique account of the events, however it may take away from the reliability of his writing somewhat because of the potential room for bias.

From this chapter we can learn a lot about Nicolae Ceausescu, however Sebestyn doesn’t really delve much into analysis of his regime, it is largely just an account of the different aspect of it. Victor Sebestyn provides an exciting and easy to read account of his time in power, that I would definitely recommend reading for yourself.

Iacob, Bogdan C. The End and the Beginning: The Revolutions of 1989 and the Resurgence of History. NED - New edition, 1. Central European University Press, 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Jackson, Robert H., and Carl G. Rosberg. 1982. Personal rule in Black Africa: prince, autocrat, prophet, tyrant. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 2: The Political System of Personal Rule, pp. 14-82.

Sebestyen, Victor. ""Let Them Hate"" Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire. New York: Pantheon, 2009. 160-74. Print.