Ar trebui să avem doliu național, dar pentru victimele Revoluției și mineriadelor, nu pentru călăul lor

" original sin "

The death of Ion Iliescu on August 5, 2025, at the age of 95, has reignited debates about his legacy in Romania's turbulent post-communist era. As the country's first democratically elected president following the 1989 revolution, Iliescu served three terms (1990-1992, 1992-1996, and 2000-2004), steering Romania through its transition from Nicolae Ceaușescu's dictatorship to a fledgling democracy. Yet, in the echo chambers of social media, particularly on X (formerly Twitter), a simplistic narrative has gained traction: Iliescu as the "Original Sin" of modern Romania—a figure whose actions allegedly condemned the nation to decades of corruption, economic stagnation, and political dysfunction. This idea portrays Iliescu as a singular villain, a neo-communist puppet who hijacked the revolution and perpetuated authoritarianism, often amplified by "woke" commentators or anti-establishment voices framing him as the root of all evils.

Such a reductionist view, while emotionally resonant amid Romania's ongoing struggles with inequality and graft, crumbles under historical scrutiny. It ignores the multifaceted nature of the country's transition, the shared culpability of various actors, and Iliescu's tangible contributions to stability and Western integration. By examining Romania's post-1989 history and recent X discourse, this essay dismantles the "Original Sin" myth, revealing it as an oversimplification that serves political agendas rather than truth. Iliescu was neither a saint nor a devil but a product of his time—a flawed leader navigating chaos, whose legacy reflects the broader complexities of post-communist transformation.

To understand Iliescu's role, one must first dispel the notion that Romania's woes began with him. The "Original Sin" narrative conveniently overlooks the profound damage inflicted by Ceaușescu's regime (1965-1989), which left a scarred society and economy that no single figure could instantly heal. Ceaușescu's cult of personality, economic isolationism, and repressive Securitate apparatus created a nation starved of resources, with widespread poverty, food shortages, and a GDP per capita that plummeted under his austerity measures to pay off foreign debt. By 1989, Romania was an outlier in Eastern Europe—its revolution the bloodiest, with over 1,000 deaths, as Ceaușescu's forces fired on protesters in Timișoara and Bucharest.

Iliescu, a former Communist Party member sidelined by Ceaușescu in the 1970s for his reformist leanings, emerged during the revolution as a key figure in the National Salvation Front (FSN), the provisional government that ousted the dictator. Critics accuse him of orchestrating a "coup" rather than a genuine revolution, pointing to his quick ascension and the execution of the Ceaușescus on December 25, 1989, after a hasty trial. However, this view ignores the spontaneous, popular uprising that began in Timișoara on December 16, driven by ethnic Hungarian pastor László Tőkés' defiance and snowballing into nationwide protests. Iliescu did not "create" the revolution; he filled a power vacuum amid chaos, where the army defected and Securitate forces clashed with civilians.

Far from being the "Original Sin," Iliescu's early actions provided stability in a volatile period. As interim president, he disbanded the Communist Party, released political prisoners, and initiated economic reforms like price liberalization—steps that, while painful, were necessary to dismantle Ceaușescu's centralized economy. The 1990 elections, where Iliescu won 85% of the vote, were flawed but reflected public desire for continuity amid fears of anarchy, as evidenced by the FSN's broad coalition of dissidents, intellectuals, and former communists. To attribute Romania's subsequent challenges solely to Iliescu is to erase the inherited structural deficits: a bankrupt state, hyperinflation (over 300% in 1993), and a society traumatized by decades of surveillance.

Moreover, the revolution itself was not a clean break. Securitate networks persisted, infiltrating new institutions, and economic elites from the old regime repurposed state assets through privatization—issues not unique to Iliescu but systemic in post-communist states like Hungary or Poland. Iliescu's critics on X often amplify this by calling him a "communist pur et dur" who "manipulated the people," but this ignores that the FSN included anti-communist figures like Dumitru Mazilu and that Iliescu distanced Romania from Moscow by rejecting a treaty with the USSR in 1991.

Iliescu's terms are often vilified for events like the Mineriads—violent miner-led crackdowns on protesters in 1990 and 1991, resulting in deaths and injuries, for which he faced crimes against humanity charges in 2019. These were indefensible abuses of power, reflecting Iliescu's authoritarian instincts and fear of opposition, particularly from intellectuals and students demanding faster reforms. X users frequently cite this as proof of his "Original Sin," with one post calling him "guilty of giving false hope with his National Salvation Front while causing innocent deaths." Yet, contextualizing these events reveals they were symptoms of broader instability, not Iliescu's invention. The Mineriads stemmed from economic hardship—factory closures and inflation—exploited by unions loyal to the FSN, but also fueled by societal divisions inherited from Ceaușescu's era.

Despite these stains, Iliescu's contributions undermine the "Original Sin" narrative. Economically, his gradualism—maintaining subsidies and delaying privatization—prevented the shock therapy collapses seen in Russia, where rapid reforms led to oligarchic capture and poverty spikes. By 1996, Romania had stabilized enough to attract foreign investment, laying groundwork for EU accession. Politically, Iliescu oversaw the 1991 constitution, establishing a semi-presidential system with checks and balances—far from perfect but a foundation for democracy that has endured, unlike Belarus or Ukraine's early instability.

His second stint (2000-2004) was transformative. Facing isolation after Emil Constantinescu's term (1996-2000), Iliescu pivoted Romania westward, securing NATO membership in 2004 and advancing EU negotiations. This "loosened Romania's bonds with Russia," as noted in obituaries, countering claims of him as a Kremlin stooge. X critics ignore this, focusing on his Gorbachev ties or 1991 USSR treaty (which was never ratified due to the Soviet collapse). Iliescu's "original democracy" rhetoric was flawed, blending socialism with market elements, but it reflected a pragmatic response to public fears of capitalism's excesses, as Romanians polled high nostalgia for Ceaușescu in the 1990s.

Corruption flourished under Iliescu, with PSD (his party) networks entrenching oligarchs, but this was not his "sin" alone. Privatization scandals involved international actors and subsequent governments; Constantinescu's term saw similar issues. Iliescu's modesty—no personal enrichment—contrasts with later figures, as one X post notes: "He didn’t enrich himself... but taught those around him how to steal." This acknowledges systemic problems predating and outlasting him.

The "Original Sin" idea thrives on X, where users like @cultfree54 call Iliescu the "cunning architect of Romania's Frankenstein democracy," linking him to current oligarchic power structures. Posts from 2024-2025, amid Iliescu's death, amplify this: one labels him a "communist pur et dur" who "manipulated the people during the Revolution," while another ties him to "corbii" (crows)—a metaphor for KGB-linked networks. This narrative often intersects with far-right or sovereignist views, comparing Iliescu to Călin Georgescu, a 2024 election figure accused of Russian influence.

However, X discourse reveals the idea's flaws: it's politicized misinformation. Users like @therealzeluvy criticize Iliescu's slow capitalism transition but admit he enabled private businesses, debunking total blame. Others, like @JEyal_RUSI, note he "inflicted trauma" but acknowledge inherited challenges. The "woke fuckers" you mention—perhaps progressive critics—may exaggerate Iliescu's authoritarianism to highlight systemic inequities, but X shows this idea is pushed by nationalists too, e.g., nostalgia for Ceaușescu or anti-PSD rants.

This binary view ignores nuance: Iliescu's Mineriads were reprehensible, but occurred amid real threats like ethnic tensions in Transylvania and economic riots, not pure malice. X posts like @CostinAndriess's tie him to "Securitate remnants," but evidence shows he purged many, though incompletely—a common post-communist failure. The platform's echo chambers amplify extremes, as one post claims Iliescu "destroyed 23 million Romanians for 35 years," ignoring global factors like 2008 crisis or EU conditionality.

Romania's post-1989 struggles—corruption (CPI score 46/100 in 2024), emigration (4 million abroad), and inequality—stem from systemic issues beyond Iliescu. Ceaușescu's debt repayment left a $0 foreign debt but devastated infrastructure. Privatization under all presidents created oligarchs, as in Constantinescu's term with oil scandals. EU accession (2007) brought funds but also corruption opportunities, with PSD and PNL sharing blame.

Global influences—Soviet collapse, Balkan wars, 2008 recession—exacerbated delays. Iliescu's gradualism, criticized as neo-communism, mirrored successful models like China's, avoiding Russia's chaos. X users overlook this, focusing on Iliescu as "system founder," but successors like Băsescu (2004-2014) advanced anti-corruption, building on his foundations.

The "Original Sin" myth simplifies Romania's history into a villain origin story, ignoring Iliescu's stabilizing role, the Ceaușescu legacy, and shared failures. While flawed, he laid democratic foundations and oriented Romania westward, achievements that endure despite scandals. X amplifies this myth through bias and misinformation, but facts reveal a complex figure in a chaotic era. Romania's challenges are collective, not one man's sin—debunking this idea fosters nuanced understanding for progress.

Deci as dori sa fac un scurt rezumat all fostilor presedinti romani, asta ca sa incheiem grotescul spectacol Ion Iliescu ,
De el nu mai zic nimic ca au zis altii ..
Emil Constantinescu _ 0 barat , m-a invins sistemul si blah , blah.
Traian Basescu - nasul flotei - 1/2 barat ,vara nu-i ca vara si alte dileme.
Klaus Iohanis - ala mai mare prost dintre prostii Romaniei.
Baba din colt care vinde flori are mai mult simt decat Werner.
Germanicus valahius prostum ..!!!
In fine , Domnul Dan , mai are pana sa ii putem face o caracterizare .
Sunt curios ,de ceilalti cand va veni vremea vom vorbi cum ?
Pana la urma , trebuie sa fim sinceri cu noi insine ca sa putem recunoaste ca Ion Iliescu a fost cel mai cinstit dintre presedintii Romaniei posdecembriste, ... El , un vechi bolsevic, nu a putu fii niciodata acuzat ca a dorit sa fie altceva . Sinceritatea o apreciez dintre cele mai multe atribute ,, fiind de altfel si singura calitate care o recunosc detractorilor mei imbecili de pe acest forum .
Indiferent cum , crestineste , sa ii fie tarna usoara..

Mai isi aminteste cineva cum a fost cu mineriada? Cum au navalit barbarii chemati de Ilici (da, Iliescu Ilici, educat la rusi, dar facnd pe democratul, ca mergea si dadea bine la prostime.....) pe strazi si in facultati, lovind in stanga si in dreapta? Si-au luat unii absolut nevinovati batai bune atunci, si nimeni nu a fost gasit vinovat, cand vinovatul era chiar presedintele tarii care i-a chemat!!!! (asa se procedeaza probabil in "democratiile orginale"). Da, Ilici a fost votat "democratic" de o masa de spalati pe creier, care a fost majoritara atunci. Nu insemana ca a avut vreun merit personal doar pentru ca a fost votat.... Iar judecatorii au tot trenat cele 2 dosare in care era Iliescu era chemat in judecata, nu au vrut nicicum sa se implica, grozavii judecatori cu pensiile lor speciale si salariile lor mari (probabil sa sa ii apere pe astia, genul Ilici, de aia au salariile alea, ca etica profesionala IOC). Mie personal nu imi pare rau deloc ca Ilici a murit, imi pare rau ca a existat, si ca a fost la carma tarii. Dar numai asta a putut Romania.

Știu că e fără rost, dar repet: încetați să mai "evocați" o Românie din 1990 care nu a existat niciodată!
Niciun președinte nu conduce 20 de milioane singur. Iliescu a fost votat democratic, exact asta a votat poporul român și exact asta ne reprezenta pe noi. Probabil că sunteți prea tânăr și nu ați trăit niciodată în provincie, unde încă se mai simte nomenclaturismul. Iliescu sau altul, tot așa era, sute de mii de șefuleți aveau grijă să nu se schimbe nimic și îi striveau pe "ciudații" care ar fi spus altceva, în timp ce restul întorceau capul.
Unii lași, alții odioși, așa era majoritatea acelei generații. Nu vă iluzionați că o mână de intelectuali sau studenți ar fi schimbat ceva. Evident, nu o făceau, cei mai mulți "se adaptau" când ajungeau în "câmpul muncii".

Să privim înainte, e acum mai bine, poate fi și mai bine, fiindcă a trecut timpul și UE a mai șlefuit noile generații (nu atât pe cât pare că aveți impresia, însă). Și să nu avem așteptări nerealiste de la niciun președinte, care e doar fața câte unei generații.

Strict tehnic, iliescu a fost presedintele Romaniei in 3 mandate, a fost judecat pentru o serie de infractiuni dar nu a fost gasit vinovat niciodata. Conform legii, are dreptul la funeralii cu doliu national. Atat Guvernul cat si Presedentia au procedat corect.

Totusi: justitia romana NU si-a facut datoria, inculpatul iliescu nefiind nici condamnat, nici reabilitat, dupa zeci de ani de procese sterile. Aici ar trebui sa cada niste captete pentru tergiversarea actului de justitie. Acest lucru se suprapune nesimtirii fara limite cu privire la blocarea oricaror reforme ale acestei institutii, ceea ce ma determina sa cred ca ar trebui declarata starea de necesitate care sa impuna o reorganizare fortata a justitiei, incepand cu modificarea constitutiei si anularea statutului actual al curtii constitutionale, care ar trebui sa fie numai organ consultativ in procesul de legiferare.

Democratiile liberale sint in fapt oligarhii. Intr-o democratie adevărată deciziile țin cont de vointa majoritatii. Libertatea de opinie, votul liber si o justitie corecta sint doar condiții necesare, nu si suficiente pentru a afirma ca o societate este democratica. De ce? Pentru ca și oligarhiile pot prezenta aspecte democratice, precum cele trei conditii de mai sus, insa deciziile țin cont de vointa unei elite, a unei minoritati. Aspectul democratic al oligarhiilor apare cind interesele membrilor elitei economice sint divergente, cazul economiilor puternic concurentiale (economii de piata functionale), unde acestia se supraveghează între ca nici unul sa nu aibe avantaje economice nemeritate datorate politicului, ceea ce ar duce la falimentarea celor ce nu au aceste avantaje.
In cazul Romaniei, dosarele revolutiei si ale mineriadelor, referendumul de care elita politica nu tine cont, alegerea primarilor intr-un singur tur, pensiile speciale, avantajele materiale ale parlamentarilor și demnitarilor, subfinatarea învățământului și a sanatatii, legile permisive cu infractiunile economice sint in interesul poporului?

1. Românii creștini fac mare caz de credința, de religiozitatea lor. Nu sunt nici practicant asiduu, nici fan al lui Ion Iliescu, nici detractor al său, dar azi, dacă tot e sărbătoare însemnată, îi rog pe toți analiștii, analizatorii și realizatorii de care s-au umplut televiziunile (de parcă n-ar fi fost pline), să-și țină cățeaua legata la gard, cât să fie înmormântat cu un minim respect un fost șef de stat. La o zi după asta, n-aveți decât să "analizați" și să vă ștergeți balele de pe piept.
2. Dacă bine știu, Dominic Fritz nu este (încă) cetățean român. Dacă nu e, mi se pare o ofensă gravă la adresa acestui popor și a instituțiilor statului, să "recomande" acest specimen nedezvoltat când și pentru cine să declare România doliu național.
În rest, hai la pupat moaște și la votat cu ghiotura!

.

dumnezeu nu iartă
doliu național pentru un criminal e demență și batjocură și scuipat pe obrazul poporului român. acum se văd slugoii.