Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Damiana Gabriela OTOIU
Faculty of Political Sciences, Bucharest University &
Université Libre de Bruxelles, GASPPECO (Groupe d’analyse socio‐politique des pays d’Europe
centrale et orientale)
E‐mail: [email protected]
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania. Actors and Strategies
First draft – April 2006
Paper to be presented during the ECPR Joint Sessions 2006 in Nicosia
Workshop 25 “Interest Politics in Post‐Communist Democracies” Organised by Nieves Pérez‐Solórzano and Jean‐Michel De Waele
Abstract: A recent field of investigation, the restitution of private property represents a central dimension of the economic, political and social process of restructuration affecting post‐totalitarian countries. The present study explores this ʺreconstruction of propertyʺ in post‐communist Romania through the investigation of two interest groups ‐ former owners of the nationalized buildings and present tenants (the ʺnewʺ owners). Focusing on the creation and organization of these two groups as well as on their actions in political, electoral and media environments, it shows that they had been finally transformed in satellites of different political parties. Therefore, we deem this to be an illustrative, while by no means a typical, case for the „partyfication of politics” (Linz) in the post‐socialist context. Our research is based on a field‐work done in Bucharest, Romania (January – July 2004, October – November 2005).
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 2
«In the beginning, some of them courted us assiduously; I don’t want to conceal the fact that several parties actively sought our support. We [the members of the Tenants’ Association] considered that within the program of the Social – Democrat Party we could find a solution to our problems. They supported us on the basis of an agreement and thanks to this agreement lots of people are occupying comfortable parliamentary seats today»
(Eugen Pleşa, president of the Association of Tenants in Nationalized Buildings, May 8, 1996, during the electoral broadcast Turneul candidaților [The Candidates’ tour]).
«In fact, we made an evaluation of the different positioning of the political parties and we chose, I would say, the smallest ill among them. The situation was like that, there was no convenient alternative, and none of the political parties really stand for the restitution. That’s the main reason for our choice…»
(Leader of the Association of Owners Abusively Dispossessed by the State, February 5, 2004, Bucharest)
Introduction
Viewed as a central dimension of the economic, political and social process which affected post socialist countries, the restoration of the private property was considered as the fundament of a new system where the market economy replaced the planned one, or where the individuals played the former role of the State (see Cahiers du CeFRES 1997: 5).
Nevertheless, starting from the mid nineties, this thesis of a radical gap between the socialist and the post socialist use of property was progressively dismantled1. First, its contenders started by explaining the limits of a “transitology” literature2, which presupposed a predicted and predictable evolution, a gradual and compulsory succession of developmental phases3. The principle of a linear evolution, imposed by the “transitology” paradigm, was deconstructed and replaced, starting from the question whether this paradigm constitutes itself into a valid concept, which may be properly applied in relation with the multiple post communist spaces.
Secondly, the proponents of the revision of the “transitology” thesis continued with the remark that the post socialist regime of property had not been established only upon the reconstruction of the pre‐socialist property (from between the two world wars), but also in relation with principles, legal terms and political practices inherited from Communism. This is,
1 Here one can cite several anthropological studies dedicated to the restoration of the private property in post‐socialist Europe: Burawoy and Verdery 1999; Hann 1998; Kideckel 1993; Verdery 1996, 2003. 2 For a critical presentation of the «transitology approaches», see Michel DOBRY (2000), «Les voies incertaines de la transitologie: choix stratégiques, séquences historiques, bifurcation et processus de path dependence», Revue Française de Science Politique, 50 (4‐5) : 585 – 614. 3 See, for example, David STARK and László BRUSZT, Post‐socialist Pathways. Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998 or János KORNAI, The Road to a Free Economy. Shifting from a Socialist System: The Example of Hungary, New York: W. W. Norton and Budapest: HVG Kiadó, 1990.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 3
in fact, the most important thesis of anthropologist Katherine Verdery: “I suggest that, contrary to those who see de‐collectivization as a process of (re)creating private property, it is better understood as a process of transforming socialist property. Socialism was not a property void; it had its own structure of property rights, a structure that had a long afterlife in the course of dismantling socialism […] Old power structures renew themselves in radically changed circumstances” (Verdery 2003: xiv).
The literature on property rights in post‐communism has mostly been concerned with
this conceptualization of the property as a political symbol and as a complex of social relations among people and objects (e. g. Abrahams 1996; Burawoy and Verdery 1999; Cartwright 2000, 2001; Hann 1993 a, 1993 b, 1998; Hann, Humphrey and Verdery 2002; Verdery 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2003) or with the economic consequences of the post‐socialist reprivatisation (e.g. Wegren 1998; Turnock 1998; Mathijs and Swinen 1999; Przeworski 1991). However, we know little about the political mechanisms underlying the formulation of reprivatisation laws, that is the political negotiations that shaped the legislation concerning property restitution (but see Stan, forthcoming) or the institutional and non‐institutional actors involved in these negotiations.
The purpose of this research is to put under the spotlight the most significant interest groups involved in the process of the restitution of private property in post‐communist Romania. Two antagonistic interest groups constitute the object of our research: the Association of Owners Abusively Dispossessed by the State (AOADS) and the Association of Tenants in Nationalized Buildings (ATNB). While other foundations and associations founded in Bucharest since 1992 in defence of ownersʹ rights (and tenantsʹ rights, respectively) generally endured only for a short time, maintaining a weak organizational structure and mobilizing only a small number of members, the AOADS and the ATNB can boast a large membership, various local branches, and partnerships with several political parties, having imposed themselves as the sole legitimate representatives of owners and tenants.
Focusing on the creation and on the organization of these two groups, as well as on their actions in the political, electoral and media environments, we show how they have ultimately been transformed into satellites of different political parties.
The main question that we address in our paper concerns the validity, in this particular
case, of the classical distinction between political parties and interest groups/ pressure groups.4 If the “canonical” definitions of the interest group emphasize the fact that an interest group “does not seek to form a government itself, but to influence public policy” (Jordan, Halpin, Maloney, 2004: 199), could we still use this “label” to name an organization which includes in its strategy not only the aim to influence key institutions (such as Romanian and European Parliament or Romanian Government) and to gain access to policy makers, but also the goal to act as an “electoral machine”? And, if so, could this transformation of the interest groups in satellites of different political parties be an illustrative case for the phenomenon of „partification of politics” (Arato 1994; see also Fink – Hafner 1998; Linz 1990) in the post‐socialist context?
1. In the first part of the paper, we are briefly discussing the legislation area, as the means whereby (to use Claus Offe’s terms, Offe 1997: 85) “the dilemmas of justice in post‐communist transitions” were solved in Romania. Our hypothesis is that the legislative redefinition of the private property concerning the “restitution” laws permitted more the development of a new private property (to the detriment of the State
4 This contribution leaves aside the distinction between interest groups and pressure groups.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 4
and of the ‘former’ owners), and less the reconstruction of the inter‐war one. In fact, in the nineties, the great majority of the adopted bills and normative acts privileged more the “redistributive” than the “compensatory” justice. 2. The second and the third section explore the creation and organization of these two groups as well as on their actions in political, electoral and media environments. 3. Finally, the fourth section summarizes the empirical findings and tries to suggest new avenues for further research. I. REAL ESTATE AND QUASI‐PROPERTY DURING POST‐SOCIALISM The restoration of the private property concerning the buildings nationalized5 after the
instauration of the totalitarian communist regime (more than 400 000 buildings were labelled as belonging to “the class enemies”, “the capitalists”, “the exploiters”6 – among which 150 000 were demolished7) was not a priority for the first post‐communist governments: between 1990 and 1996 there was no law concerning this issue8. Even more, two special decrees were adopted (no. 61/1990 and no. 85/1992), by means of which 3 million owners, living in the buildings formerly constructed by the Communist State, had the opportunity of buying the properties they had lived in, at very low prices (Zerilli 1998: 166). The leader of Association of Tenants in Nationalized Buildings thus considers that the two laws in question were “an act of benevolence from the State’s leaders. Why? Because the prices of those flats were between 100 000 and maximum 250 000 lei (for the larger ones), prices reduced to almost nothing by the increasing inflation, after which the value of a house became, in a few years, comparable with the one of a TV”9.
The President of Romania promulgated the Law no. 112 (for the regulation of the situation of certain immovable goods that became State property) quite late ‐ in 1995. This law met strong critiques. Even if it recognized the owner’s right of reclaiming his or her property, the law stipulated as well that an owner could claim only one building, and this upon the double condition that he had formerly lived there or the building was not occupied at the moment (thus, the number of possible property reconstructions was lowered). On the other hand, the Law no. 112 dealt more with “the protection of the current inhabitants” (Chapter 3, article 7‐11), who had the right to buy the buildings they were occupying.
Apart from (re)creating a right to property, those laws (Law no. 61/1990, no. 112/1995) created a quasi‐property because neither the former, nor the present owners could use their
5 After numerous decrees dedicated to nationalization (especially the Decree 92/1950), legal decisions (established during political trials), requisitions, or after arbitrary appropriations. 6 For a brief history of this battle against «class enemies», see François FEJTÖ, Histoire des démocraties populaires, Seuil, Paris, 1992, vol. I, L’Ère de Staline, pp. 148‐158 (the nationalizations), pp. 312‐330 (the collectivization) and vol. II, Après Staline, pp. 157‐159. 7 Gheorghe Tara, representing The Commission against Abuses from the Chamber of Deputies, in his intervention during the first international Congress of Romanian Owners (Bucharest, September 15th‐17th, 2000), cited the statistical data of 1994, without mentioning the precise source (he mentioned approximately 400 433 expropriated buildings, of which 154 000 had been demolished). 8 But there have been numerous drafts, for example: a Bill of the National Peasant Christian‐Democratic Party sent to the Parliament on June, 28th, 1993, a Bill elaborated by the government and sent to the Parliament in June 1993, or the Bill elaborated by the parliamentary group of the National Liberal Party, and sent to the Senate on September 28th, 1993. 9 E.P., interview, April 26th, 2004, Bucharest.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 5
right entirely: the first had to extend the inhabitants’ contract by at least five years10, whereas to the second the ownership of the houses they had lived in was legally negated11. But, if we take a traditional definition of property12 (inherited from ancient Roman law system), then “the action of owning something, of having its benefits, implies that the owner has all the rights upon this good, i.e. the exclusive exercise of its usus (the usage), its fructus (the ability to harvest its fruits), and its abusus (or the right which permits the abandonment of all initial rights, either material or legal)” (Maurel 1997:14). This quasi‐property created by the Law no. 112/1995 (but also by the Decree‐law no. 61/1990) draws attention to “the special attachment towards the private property of the socialist system, whose formal and explicit interdiction concerning the assertion of one’s right to dispose of (hence also of the liberty to rent) a good that had already been acquired came in sharp contradiction with the regime of private property under the Roman legal system” (Barbu 2005: 111).
A new « Bill concerning the restitution in kind of the buildings taken by the State after 6 March 1945 » drafted by the government was discussed for three years at the Parliament. Contested by the owners as well as by the tenants of nationalized buildings, the law was adopted after the 2000 elections (Law no. 10/2001). The implementation of this law gave way to the reopening of the administrative process of property restitution13. Nevertheless, the representatives of the owners consider this law as one of “expropriation of sold goods”, because it stipulates (art. 46, par. 2): “The legal documents for the alienation […] of confiscated buildings without a valuable title14 are legally null and void, except for the cases where the document had been drafted in good faith”. Therefore, it admits the legality of the sale “without entitlement” of nationalized buildings that had been forbidden by the Law 112/1995 and by the privatization laws, and merely conditions it by the “good faith”15 of the inhabitant who had bought the assets in question.
Since the second half of 2004, the issue of the reconstitution of private property was restated with a vengeance. The « Justice and Truth » coalition, which won the November 2004 elections with a long list of legislative priorities, first addressed the reform of the system of justice and the « provision of justice » to the owners. Indeed, the new government elaborated the Law no. 247 of July 2005 to embark on these two reforms, for which it assumed responsibility in front of the Parliament. The new law was built around the principle of restitutio in integrum (stipulating the restitution of all the buildings held by the Romanian state, including
10 Law no. 112/1995 for the judiciary regulations concerning immovable goods (which had become State property), published in The Official Bulletin of Romania (B.O.), no. 279/ November 29th, 1995, chap. 3, art. 7. 11 Decree‐Law no. 61 / February 6th, B.O., no. 22/ February 8th, 1990, stipulated that « the act of buying houses which could be demanded or are presently occupied is forbidden » (art. 4, abrogated by the Law no. 85 from July, 22nd, 1992, B.O., no. 180/ July 29th, 1992, art. 19). The Law no. 112/1995 limited the interdiction of selling to a period of 10 years from the moment of purchase (chap. 3, art. 9). 12 This “traditional” definition of the property is widely disputed in the contemporary legal doctrine, which favors the idea of a “destruction of the property” for the benefit of a “bundle of divisible and overlapped rights” (Xifaras 2004: 8‐9). But we consider this “classic” definition as most effective for our study, because it allows us to understand that the private property created and recreated shortly after 1989 is a “quasi‐property”, that the new holders of the rights of property on the nationalized buildings during the communist regime are “quasi‐owners” indeed. 13 210 000 restitution requests were registered (128 000 “in kind” and 82 000 par by compensation), of which more than 41 000 were filed in Bucharest (see www.pmb.ro). 14 This means that the (former) owners had not been deprived of their property as a consequence of the various nationalization decrees or by other normative acts listed in Article 2 of Law 10/2001, but following arbitrary confiscations. 15 The definition of “good faith” (“unawareness of the administrative status of the building, whether it was claimed or susceptible of being claimed by its rightful owner”) was initially written in the bill, but it was removed in the final form of Law no. 10/2001.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 6
the various embassy or party quarters, which had been forsaken by the previous laws). Nevertheless, the former owners continue to accuse the government of having “renationalized” their properties, recognizing the legality of the sale of the nationalized buildings (“they restored the Palace of Justice, but not justice itself”, as a former owner bitterly noticed16).
This short examination of the legislative framework allows us to notice that the laws that
have been drafted in the field of restitution, as well as the associated jurisprudence, lack in consistency and often make the object of dispute and negotiations both among and within the various political parties (above all the National Liberal Party, the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party) and interest groups (especially the Association of Owners Abusively Dispossessed by the State and the Association of Tenants in Nationalized Buildings).
II. THE ASSOCIATION OWNERS ABUSIVELY DISPOSSESSED BY THE STATE
II. 1. The Founding of the Association
«Practically, marea lume [this term translates, depending on the context, either as the
more prominent persons or as the majority, n.n.] took no action until 1995, when the Law [no. 112] was published. Everyone awaited the appearance of this Law […]. The associations had no reason to exist until 1995», claims the current president of the AOADS.
In fact, the first association defending the rights of the owners was constituted in Bucharest already in 1992. Numbering a few hundred members, the Association of Owners of Nationalised Buildings (AONB), headed by an engineer, Gheorghe Crăciunescu, organised regular meetings, often held in the aula of the Faculty of Law. Several key figures of the National Liberal Party and of the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party (two of the so‐called “historical parties”) joined in these reunions of the ‘former owners’ (as the expropriated group came to be known).
Apart from these meetings, AONB was mainly involved in drafting various letters of protest to the Romanian authorities, to the members of Parliament; more seldom it organised meetings in front of the Government or the Parliament buildings; lastly, it initiated a vast correspondence with the European Court for Human Rights, with the members of the European Parliament, etc.
After more than six years of practicing the same three types of activities (in 1997), a crucial moment came, which a founding member of the Association designated by the term of desantul (the descent17): it is then, after having lost one of the trials in which she was involved by recours en annulation [appeal by annulment], that Maria Theodoru decided to attend a meeting of the owners. Disappointed in the «naïveté» and lack of information of the then‐leader of the association, Maria Theodoru tried to impose herself for that function on the very same day.
16 V.S, interview, December 9, 2005, Bucharest. 17 My interlocutor explains why she chose this term to explain the appearance of a new leader of the owners: apparently, some older members of the Association suspect that M. Theodoru is intimately allied with the Party of the Social Democracy in Romania. In the words of another owner: «many owners have lost their confidence in this sort of associations; they are saying that those who pretend to be their leaders and representatives are taking this opportunity to put their own affairs in order, because one promises them that they will recover their own property if they behave themselves and keep quiet […]. These are the suspicions that circulate. Perhaps they are true».
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 7
Moreover, she brought a considerable social and economic capital18. This is the meeting that set the grounds for the future Association of Owners Abusively Dispossessed by the State, which will form officially two years later, in 1999.
Several associations of owners of nationalised buildings functioned in Bucharest during this period: among them, the Mociorniță Romanian‐Canadian Foundation, directed by Marie‐Rose Mociorniță (the niece of an important industrialist and politician of the interwar years), the Association of Former Owners in Romania, founded by Dumitru Mociorniță, the cousin of Marie‐Rose Mociorniță, the Association of Owners of Demolished Buildings, under the leadership of a lawyer by the name of Rotăruş. The most important remained the Mociorniță Foundation, which initiated the setup of a database containing short descriptions of each case. The lawyer contracted by this association, Nicolae Sterescu, drafted several amendments to the draft law put forth by the Government (the future Law 10/2001). As for the rest, these were associations with an ephemeral existence, which did not succeed to attract or mobilise any important number of members.
In 1997 two other associations, this time uniting the owners who live abroad, also set their foundations: the American‐Romanian Committee for Private Property (CPP), New Jersey, directed by Mihai Vînătoru, and the French Association for the Defence of the Right to Property in Romania, Paris, under the leadership of Dinu Ionescu.
Organisational Structure of the Owners’ Association (AOADS)
According to Erik Neveu, in his work on Sociologie des mouvements sociaux (Neveu 2005: 24), «The creation of an organisation that would coordinate the actions, gather the resources, and conduct propaganda activities for the cause defended by its members appears like a necessity for the survival of any social movement». William Gamson, in The Strategy of Social Protest (Gamson 1975), a study that takes into account 53 movements in the US, between 1800 et 1945, defines even a norm of «bureaucratisation» of movements, according to criteria that include the existence of written statutes, a database of the members, and the presence of several hierarchical levels; he then proves that the groups with the more rigid and centralized organizational structure are the most efficient.
In the AOADS Statute19, all these criteria seemed to check: there is a Directing committee, made up of nine members (a president, three vice‐presidents, a secretary and four members), who meet generally once a month, a General Assembly of the founding members, convoked in ordinary session at least once a year.
In fact, according to the testimony of a member of the Association, «we are not organized as well as we should be, or as you yourself seem to think». The reunions (both those of the Directing Committee and those of the General Assembly of the Founding Members) are not regular, but circumstantial: they are most often provoked by the adoption of a law, or by the proximity of an electoral campaign.
For instance, the first international Congress of the Owners, entitled «The respect for the property rights in Postcommunist Romania», is organised by the AOADS and by the Committee for Private Property just on the eve of the elections of 2000 (with the participation of the members of the National Liberal Party, of the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party, of the Union of the Forces of the Right). In his speech, Mircea Corivan, representative of the
18 «Her merit is having found some 7‐8 persons who could finance our activities. They never participated [in the actions of the AOADS] […] We never saw them, ever […] But they had the money» (apud G., founding member of the AOADS). 19 The AOADS Statute, adopted by the General Assembly of Members, 18 August 1999 ( see www.apdas.ro).
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 8
CPP in Romania and vice‐president of the AOADS, highlights the same upcoming event: «The elections are almost here. There are still some 100 000 owners seeking justice, who have children and grandchildren of their own. In 1996 we put our trust in Emil Constantinescu20 and that is how he won the elections, thanks to our vote. Now we will give our votes (around one million) to the presidential candidate and to the party who present the best guarantees for a fair, immediate and full implementation of a just law».
Leadership The participation of the members of the Directing Committee to the actions initiated by
the AOADS most often translates to offering financial support21. For the founding members of the Association, it is not clear who takes part in the decision‐making22: all the members of the Directing Committee, a select tier of those members or simply the president of the AOADS? For instance, if the decision to become affiliated to a political party leads to controversies even inside the Committee itself23, apparently this cannot prevent Maria Theodoru from signing a protocol of collaboration with the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party (PNTCD)24 on the 14th of April 2003, and, one year later25, to carry over the Association into the electoral campaign of the same party. 2003 is also the year when M. Theodoru, the president of the Association, is enlisted in the Christian Democratic Party, and becomes its vice‐president and leader of the organization in the Ilfov district. So in fact Maria Theodoru, as president of the AOADS, is the one who officially represents the association in all its relations with the establishment, with other associations, with the political parties and with the media (at the meetings with the Romanian authorities, she is always accompanied by some of the founding members, whereas in the discussions with the political parties, as a rule, it is only the president of the association and the lawyer of the AOADS who may join).
Membership The number of members of the Association is also uncertain: around 300 according to
the evaluation of a member of the AOADS, or 1 500 (from the electronic list on the AOADS website), or 2 300‐2 500 according to certain owners we interviewed or more than 3 500 (all over
20 Romanian President, between 1996 – 2000. 21 Other sources of financing: the membership fees (which are not compulsory, despite the fact that the Statute lists such an obligation, by its art. 5) and sponsorships from individual donors (especially from the members who receive free legal advice from the lawyers of the Association). The expenses regarding curent activities of the AOADS are small, since their headquarters is placed at their disposal for free by the Christian Democratic Party. As for the expenses regarding the organisation of special events such as international conferences, these are generally paid by the foreign partners of the Association (the CPP is co‐organiser for every congress). 22 According to the testimony of most of our interviewees, current or former members of the AOADS. 23 See the summary of the meeting of the Directing Committee on 15 May 2002. 24 The protocole for collaboration states: the PNPCD will support the objectives of the AOADS regarding the restitution of nationalised property and the AOADS will support the actions and the strategies adopted by the Party, as well as its electoral interests. See the protocole of collaboration concluded between the AOADS and the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party, 14 April 2003. (On the occasion of a press conference organised on this occasion, M. Theodoru states: «The members of the AOADS will support and vote for the NPCDP in the elections of 2004»). 25 On 22 April 2004, just before the beginning of the electoral campaign for the local elections, there was a meeting of the president of the PNPCD with the members of the AOADS. The openly stated objective was to «help the PNPCD in its electoral campaign».
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 9
Romania), according to Maria Theodoru. In 1992, when the first associations were created, the movement is said to have counted some 11 000 members spread all over the country (Pirotte 2003: 155).
There are several explanations for the important differences that subsist nowadays between these evaluations: first of all the claim that «there is no updated database of members»; secondly, the number of members plummeted lately, especially following the administrative restitutions; and thirdly, the relationships established between the Bucharest association and the local branches are not always clear, in the light of frequent power struggles. At some point; certain branches adopted the status of autonomous organization; in the province of Banat, it is the case of the AOADS branch of Timişoara, headed by Marius Murgu.
Nevertheless, since it aims to impact political decisions, the Association always claims to be the legitimate representative speaking on behalf of all its potential members. This is how the target audience can now count, for instance according to MP Gheorghe Tara: «Over one million persons» 26.
Activities of the AOADS As with the Association of Owners of Nationalised Buildings that preceded it, the
AOADS uses a wide range of lobbying methods. The most frequent way of applying pressure (or rather persuasion) is simply the submission of carefully prepared documentation with the members of the two Chambers of Parliament, aiming for a favourable decision. The best opportunity for this type of action is the preparatory phase of the Law «concerning the legal status of real estate abusively expropriated between 6 March 1945 and 22 December 1989» (the future Law 10/2001). In the pre‐electoral period, the documents brought to the attention of politicians are drafted differently: more than simply to indicate those aspects of the law that go against the owners’ views, they also seek to persuade them of their importance in terms of potential «electoral capital».
The executive branch is also a privileged target of the interest groups. The rationale is quite simple, and has to do with the progressive transfer of legislative power towards the executive. For instance, the methodological provisos for the implementation of Law no. 112 are stated in governmental ordinances (HG no. 20 of 17.01.1996, completed by HG no. 11 of 29.01.1997). The Association then intervenes even by the president, by seeking (and obtaining) interviews with him or with his councillors.
Other means for intervention – street meetings, strikes, boycotts, etc. – are quite rare, considering the feeble capacity for mobilization of the Association. These types of action are more typical of the mass associative groups, well organised, and with a significant agenda for recruitment (Chagnollaud 1995: 223). N.G, founding member of the Association, admits: «We gave up calling for street manifestations, since there were always very few people who took part in them».
The Association also seeks to participate directly in the decision‐making process decisional, either in the ʺhearingsʺ organized by the Parliament, or by sending one of its representatives to the decision‐making organs, for instance to the Authority instituted to
26 This remark belongs to Gheorghe Tara, vice‐president of the APIN and the representative of the Commission against Abuses at the Chamber of Deputies, at the first international Congres of Owners in Romania, Bucharest, 15‐17 September 2000.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 10
monitor the implementation of Law no. 10/2001. The representative of the Association managed to establish a personal but not an institutional contact with the president of this Authority27.
Finally, an atypical course of action for an interest group as per the classical meaning of the term (that is, a group that aims to influence rather than take the power itself) is their partisan and electoral activism. After having signed the protocol for the collaboration of the AOADS and the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party (PNTCD), in 2003, certain members of the Association, members or sympathisers of the Party, accepted to take up organization and propaganda tasks for the duration of the electoral period (putting up posters, distributing electoral programmes, brochures and manifestoes, etc.). At the meeting of the members of the AOADS with the president of the PNTCD, Victor Ciorbea, in April 2004, an entire «electoral strategy» was drafted in view of the local elections of June that year. One even designated six members of the Association, one for each sector of the capital city, to contact all the (former and current) members of the Association from the corresponding sector and to convince them to vote for the PNTCD candidates. The slogan of this electoral meeting is: «send your own representative to the local administrative structures: vote for Maria Theodoru» (running for municipal councillor on the PNTCD lists).
Going beyond the national arena
«The American‐Romanian Committee for Private Property and the owners’ organisations that function in Romania exhausted all the possible means to pressure the politicians and the public authorities into providing an adequate solution to the problem of confiscated property. Therefore, our future interventions will seek to appeal to the international organisms to which Romania is a part. » (CPP, Declaration28).
Since the activity deployed at the national level appeared not to have the expected effects, «going beyond the national arena» seemed to be a viable strategy. This translates mainly as addressing oneself to the international organisations. We could quote here the entire correspondence of the AOADS and of the CPP with the Council of Europe, with the Direction of Human Rights; the European Court for Human Rights; the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Commission for the respect to the Obligations and Engagements of the Member States of the Council of Europe; the Commission on legal issues and human rights; the European Commission, the General Directorate for Enlargement; the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe – the Helsinki Commission, Washington etc.
Their lobbying activities trying to influence the MEPs are also essential, as the members of the owners’ association emphasize. One must learn how to activate simultaneously both the institutional and informal support of the EU. As a founding member of the Association for Private Property admits, «We had to contact everyone personally to persuade them, to explain the situation, to ask for their help». By means of the PNTCD, the Association claims to have «privileged» relations with one of the more important European federations of parties, the Christian Democrats (the European Popular Party).
27 See the AOADS archives, the correspondence with the Authority instituted to monitor the implementation of Law no. 10/2001. 28 CPP, The New York Statement, drafted after the «Meeting of the Romanian Owners», New York, January 27, 2001 (v. www.romhome.org).
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 11
They also sought to establish alliances with Western partners (such as l’Union Internationale de la Propriété Immobilière, Paris29) and to create a network of Franco‐Romanian associations (l’Association Française pour la Défense du Droit de Propriété en Roumanie, Paris, presided by Dinu Ionescu), American‐Romanian associations (the CPP, New Jersey, presided by Mihai Vînătoru), German‐Romanian (the CPP branch in Germany, Kirchheim, directed by Claudiu Mott) etc. All these organisations and international networks that include the AOADS thus became just as many «instances for the validation», and «legitimating» this organisation.
II. 2. The media spectacle of protests30 «The communist nomenklatura, which had become an expert in diversions, corruption and blackmail, transformed itself after 1989 in an extremely powerful and active mafia, and infiltrated every political party. Thus it now perfectly manipulates the structures of all the State authorities: the Parliament, the Government, the justice system, the media […] to create the impression, both in Romania and abroad, that it intends to hand back the confiscated goods and that it respects all the existing external obligations, while what in fact occurs is the definitive appropriation of the goods reclaimed by their former owners» (excerpt from a document dating from 1998, signed by the representatives of several owners’ associations).31
The hypothesis according to which the media was «manipulated by the communist nomenklatura» would explain – according to the leaders of the Associations of former owners – the fact that «the owners’ cause» remained little known and that it did not receive adequate media coverage. More important than to check, by a careful analysis of the press, whether there was a real gap between the media visibility of owners and that of the tenants of nationalised buildings, we should notice the fact that their leaders finally began to perceive the field of the media as a «key strategic arena» (Champagne 1991: 72).
In order to ensure «public recognition» for their revendications, in order to have their claims be taken into account by the authorities, the interest groups must above all express them through the media. The lobbying activities for the benefit of the public authorities concerned, the drafting of ample documents and protests, the organisation of street marches and meetings, all these routine forms of expression of a reclaim that make up the «repertoire of collective action»32 would have remained inefficient without a press campaign.
29 Founded in Paris in 1923, the International Union for Real Estate Property is a pan‐european association aiming to defend the right to property. The 20 members of the UIPI are national owners’ organisations (Romania is represented by the AOADS and by its president, M. Theodoru). See www.uipi.net. 30 The issue of the relationship between the media and the social movements is treated above all in the pioneering works of Patrick CHAMPAGNE (1984), La manifestation. La production de l’événement politique, in Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, no. 52‐53 : 19‐41 and (1989) Qui a gagné? Analyse interne et analyse externe des débats politiques à la télévision, in Mots, no. 20 : 5‐22, in France ; by Todd GITLIN (1980), The Whole World is Watching. Mass Media and the Making and Unmaking of the New Left, University of California Press, Berkley and by William GAMSON (1975), The Strategy of Social Protest, Wadsworth Pub., Belmont, Cal., and, later (1992), Talking Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass., in the United States. See also Réseaux, vol. 17, no. 98/1998, issue dedicated to the «Médias et mouvements sociaux» (above all the acticle by Erik NEVEU, «Médias, mouvements sociaux, espaces publics», pp. 19‐85). 31 This same paragraph wil be copied into a Protest, this time drafted by the AOADS and submitted on 23 August 1999 to all the parliamentary groups of the Chamber of Deputies. 32 The notion was coined by Charles TILLY (1984), Les origines du répertoire de l’action collective contemporaine en France et en Grande Bretagne, in XXe siècle, 4, and (1986), La France conteste de 1600 à nos jours, Paris : Fayard.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 12
Strategies meant to capture the media attention?
«The press is extraordinarily positive towards us at the moment. Before… it was
incredibly difficult to publish an article in a newspaper. It was a genuine victory if one of our articles was published in a newspaper. And that was because most journalists were young; they could not understand this process. They «bought» what was being «sold» at the time: the owners who evacuated the tenants, to leave them without shelter […] On the contrary, now the journalists are wonderful. Now they understood, they know exactly what is happening, every single abuse we notify finds an echo in all the newspapers» (affirms the leader of the AOADS).
It is obvious that the various newspapers tackled these subjects (the restitution of confiscated property vs. the protection of tenants) according to their own ideological options. For instance, all through 1997 (to mention just part of the press review), Dimineața, journal edited by the Party for Social Democracy in Romania, acted as a veritable spokesperson on behalf of the tenants.
By contrast to the tenants’ association, who, in addition to the existing press, created its own instruments of communication (founding two newspapers), the Owners’ Association had no media autonomy33. And since «the social movements are more and more dependent on the external media (television, radio, written press) to make their ideas and their demands known» (Neveu 1998), any open attack on the media, describing them as «manipulated by the communist nomenklatura» is obviously not a « rewarding strategy».
Our interviews with the owners members of the AOADS or of the more recent Association for Private Property testify to the importance granted to this «media management task» (Neveu 1998: 21). The leaders of the Association are well aware of the fact that it is very difficult to act without the media, or, a fortiori, against them. «In the beginning, one did not have (how should I put it?) any feeling for the press. Then, little by little, we began to… Above all after our first press conferences, that is when we began to know each other», admits N.G., one of the founding members of the Association.
Maria Theodoru, president of the AOADS, began since 2000 to organise press conferences at the headquarters of the Association. They drafted press briefs, which contained not only the «dry» texts, the commentaries and the amendments proposed for the existing bills, but also concrete and well‐documented cases of politicians, judges, members of the former nomenklatura who had bought – at ridiculous prices – villas reclaimed by their former owners (the briefs included photos of the buildings in question and photocopies of the sales contracts). The AOADS spoke to the directors of the main dailies to obtain the publication of articles on these topics, discusses with the directors of several TV networks in order to obtain dedicated air time34.
Certain publications «of the opposition» actually play the part of disseminating the messages of the owners, above all when the latter organise street meetings or other actions that might turn into media events. This is for instance the case of România Liberă (whose editorial board is dominated after 1989 by the former opponents to the Communist Party).
33 In its Statute, adopted by the General Assembly of members, 18 August 1999 (www.apdas.ro), art. 3, the APDAE gave itself the objective to produce articles, publications and a regular News Bulletin (which it never did). 34 See the correspondence with the director of the TV networks, in the Archives of the AOADS. For example: letter sent to the General Director of the National Television Network, 8 May 2001 («Considering the fact that until now the tenants’ viewpoint was unduly privileged and considering the serious problems connected with the restitution of buildings to their genuine owners, we kindly ask you to grant us air time once a week in order to debate these issues »).
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 13
The leaders of the owners’ associations did not seek to secure the widest media coverage
only in the national, but also in the international press. In France, Le Monde published several articles, based on the documentation supplied regularly to the Romanian correspondent by Maria Theodoru, and Radio France International allowed the Association Française pour la Défense du Droit de Propriété en Roumanie (Paris) to put across the viewpoint of the (former) Romanian owners.
The «technical» and the «media expertise» The savoir‐faire of the leaders of the interest groups, together with the technical mastery
of the legislation and of the related jurisprudence must be accompanied by the ability to «manage the media» and the relations with the journalists35. Consequently, in what Bourdieu calls «the symbolical exercise of forging groups» assumed by «the professionals of representation», «the technical expertise» and «media expertise» constitute valuable assets, even «strategic resources». This is the reason why the leaders of these associations (those who do not have this background, as in the case of the president of the AOADS, who used to be a sports teacher) require the support of various consultants, notably lawyers and journalists. «There is this gentleman who used to work in the media […] every time we need to write a press communiqué we call him, he comes, he takes this task and brings it to shore», says Maria Theodoru.
Thus, the leader must produce a discourse summarizing the reclaims of the interest group but also taking into account the expectations of the media. The former members of the Owners’ Association blame the current president for many ills, but above all they reproach her the incapacity to provide the journalists with the arguments they need to secure the first page of the newspapers, her inability to yield to the expectations of the journalists, or to build a good «mediatisation strategy» (they36 mention her discussions with Cornel Nistorescu, former director of the Evenimentul Zilei newspaper, discussions which did not generate the expected results).
II. 3. Entering the political arena
Almost all political scientists agree to define the pressure groups by their will to
influence political decisions, by opposition with the political parties, who are organised «for the conquest or direct exercise of political power» (La Palombara and Weiner 1966: 6). What is more, Jean and Monica Charlot (1985 : 434) endorse the idea of a «fundamental irreducibility of the parties to pressure groups and viceversa»: those parties borne out of the transformation of a pressure group have a short life expectation and in case of failure it would be impossible to regain the previous status.
But for the leaders of the AOADS, their entrance onto the political and electoral arena constitutes a decisive strategic choice (by contrast with other associations such as the Association of Owners of Nationalised Buildings or the Mociorniță Foundation, which confined their activities to the lobbying of public authorities). For them it is essential not only to bring the problems of the (former) owners to the «agora», but also to have a direct impact on the public
35 See GEMEP (1990), Groupe Étude du Métier Politique, «Métier politique et communication», Université Paris I. 36 Group interview with the members of the Association for Private Property, May 29 2004, Bucharest.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 14
decisions. An entire dilemma appears among the leaders of the AOADS: should they create a partisan structure of their own, or should they join an existing political party? Do the registered members (be they 300, 2 500 or 3 000) and the potential members constitute enough of an «electoral capital» to justify this move? And, finally, who can be a viable partner for the AOADS?
The answer to the first question is quite simple: «We also had thought of creating an owners’ party, but we were constrained [not to take this step], because we do not have the money for it […] Just having the membership is not enough. One cannot do anything without money», explains a leader of the AOADS.
The potential members – a political resource? «All those who – both in Romania and abroad – demand the restitution of goods stolen
from them by the communist and neocommunist regimes constitute a powerful segment of the civil society and implicitly of the electorate that every party, irrespective of its political orientation, should take them into account in the future» (as stated in a document drafted by the Mociorniță Foundation, probably in 1998).
In the repertoire of political resources37, “numbers” are an essential element, together with personal competence, the image of the political group in question, the financial and organizational resources. «Words and actions have unquestionable consequences in the political field, but they have only a relative force when compared to the number of those who recognize themselves in these groups and whom they succeed to mobilize» (Bourdieu 2000: 21). The first and foremost measure of the Association’s capacity for political mobilization is its militant strength (the number of active members). But the owners’ associations attempt to sell the numerical force of their potential customers as a promising «political trump card»; this is why the groups relish in this confusion between the members and the potential members of their constituency (a tendency that becomes ever more obvious around the moment of electoral campaigns). If their members are not a sufficiently strong as «electoral capital», the target audience comprises of over «one million persons», according to Gheorghe Tara (vice‐president of the Association of Owners of Nationalized Buildings).
Therefore, both in the discourse of the owners’ leaders on the occasion of international congresses, and in the documents provided to the MPs and to the Government, the social representativity of these associations is a crucial topic. Such is the menace proffered by the AOADS in the final part of a protest addressed to all the parliamentary groups in august 1999: «We decided that, in the future elections, we would rally the entire segment of the population that is interested in this topic, their parents and friends, asking them to vote for the parties that will solve the property issue in a just manner, and summoning them to reject those parties who did not respect their electoral pledge».
Choosing one’s «electoral partner» To obtain trustworthy contacts within the Parliament which might give the owners the
direct power to draft the laws that regard them, one made the decision (a decision contested by certain founding members of the AOADS) to negotiate – with a few selected potential allies –
37 By «political ressource» we understand, apud Robert Dahl, all the means whereby a person or a group can influence the behaviour of others. See Robert DAHL (1973), L’analyse politique contemporaine (French translation of Modern Political Analysis, 1963), Paris : Robert Laffont, 94.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 15
the potential entry of the Association on the political and electoral scene. For the members of AOADS, there were several likely partners («the historical parties», above all the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party and the National Liberal Party) vs. the impossible affiliation with «the neocommunists», notably the current Social Democratic Party, under all its previous titles. The «ideological bipolarism» (Barbu 1999: 136), the dichotomy between communists and anticommunists38, which dominated the Romanian political arena during the first postcommunist decade, remains a constant reference in the owners’ discourse even today.
Let us quote the following illustrative excerpt from a speech held by Ioan Păltineanu39 at a conference organised in New York by the Committee for Private Property: «The neocommunist parties (disguised under «democratic» labels) are vehemently opposed [to the restitution of property]; they did not vote for the necessary legislation and they promised that, once they regain power, they would annul even the existing fragile efforts to give back the fortunes stolen by the communists. Meanwhile, the ‘historical’ parties have also made shameful compromises with their governmental coalition partners, issued from the neocommunist group of the National Salvation Front».
Since the creation of the first Owner’s Association, the members of the National Liberal
Party (PNL) have been involved in the owners’ actions (for instance attending their conferences and the general Assemblies) and in their statements they have upheld the need to return the property confiscated by the communist regime. But, according to E.S., member of the Legal Commission, if one analyses the positions expressed by the members of the PNL at the Commission, «they were more willing to seek a political solution than to contribute to finding a legal clarification». This is the reason why the members of the Association believe that «IN fact, the PNL played the most damaging part. Not only did they breach all the founding principles of liberalism, but, on top of it all, they stood at the origin of Law no. 10 which was aptly defined as a ”second nationalisation“», according to D.I., one of the leaders of an owners’ association. And yet, apparently, this did not prevent Maria Theodoru from taking into account a possible collaboration with the PNL even before the local elections of June 200440.
38 For a study of the political cleavages in the Eastern and Central European countries, see above all DE WAELE, Jean‐Michel (2002), Partis politiques et démocratie en Europe centrale et orientale, Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles: Bruxelles, and DE WAELE, Jean‐Michel (2004), Les clivages politiques en Europe centrale et orientale, Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles: Bruxelles. 39 Ioan Păltineanu (the president of Paltin International, Romanian‐American foundation rallying the owners of forests), statement at the «Meeting of the Romanian Owners», organised by CPP in New York, 27 January 2001 (see www.romhome.ro). 40 In an interview on the 5th of February 2004, one of the Maria Theodoru’s closest collaborators informed us about the «negociations with the Liberal Party» («two weeks ago, the PNL invited Maria [Theodoru] for negociations. She said she had nothing against going to the PNL, if it solved the owners’ problems»). Afterwards, our interviewee denied this declaration, claiming that the discussions with the PNL were eventually cancelled. Neither Andrei Chiliman, member of the PNL, nor Maria Theodoru confirmed this piece of information.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 16
In 1999, immediately after its official creation, the Association established close relations also with the National Christian and Democratic Alliance (ANCD). This Party was founded in 1999, by a group of ex‐members of the PNTCD, headed by former Prime Minister Victor Ciorbea. «Currently, among all the political parties, only the UFD41 and the ANCD understand the need to solve all the injustices that affected the owners», affirms Mircea Corivan, vice‐president of the Owners’ Association, on the occasion of the first international Congress of the owners in Romania (Bucharest, September 2000).
Finally, in April 2003, the APDAE signed a protocol for collaboration with the National Peasant Christian Democratic Party (2003). «In fact, admits T., we evaluated the positioning of all the political parties and we chose, we should think, the smallest ill among the others. The situation was like that, there was no convenient alternative, and none of the political parties really stand for the restitution. That’s the main reason for our choice… ».
III. THE ASSOCIATION OF TENANTS IN NATIONALIZED BUILDINGS
III. 1. The Founding of the Association42 From the moment of its founding, the Association of Tenants in Nationalized Buildings
(ATNB) defined itself as a counterweight to the Association of Owners Abusively Dispossessed by the State (AOADS). This is, in fact, the very explanation given by the president of ATNB on its genesis: the association started in 1991, with the aim of opposing the actions of the Owners’ Association, officially created in 1992, and lead by Gheorghe Craciunescu: “This is how this association of former owners, of former claimers appeared. Of course, it is not our innovation: when an action occurs, a counter action emerges almost by default. This is the reason why we, the tenants, immediately thought that we had to prevent this danger, you see… We’ve sensed this need of properly organising ourselves.” (E.P.)
Afterwards, also in Bucharest, the architect Ene Floricica founded another association for defending the legal rights of the tenants. But, as the leader of ATNB underlines, it was only a small group, with an ephemeral existence. As opposed to it, the ATNB did not have any difficulties in conserving the monopoly in representing the interests of the tenants, for another 10 years, or in being recognised as the only legitimate speaker for their rights by the media or public institutions. The association has a relatively stable structure, and it was not confronted with any crisis for succession, as did the Owners’ Association (with Maria Theodoru in 1997).
Organisational Structure of the Association
41 Union of Right Forces , member of the Democratic Convention. 42 The study of the creation, the organizational structure, the decision‐making process, and the activities of the Tenants’ Association was rendered more difficult by the small number of sources. While for the Owners’ Associations we had access to most of the archives (official documents such as the Statute of the Association, the minutes of the meetings of the Directive Committee, the letters of protest, the comments and the amendments to certain laws, as drafted by the lawyers of the Association, files about the legal actions initiated by various members of the Association, etc.) and we could attend several meetings of three Owners’ Associations, in the case of the Tenants’ Association our sole sources for information were the interviews we conducted with the leaders of the organization and our own review of the printed media.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 17
Questioned by us about the structure of their association, one of the members of the Organisational Committee constructed in his speech the image of a “mass group”, “with leftist political inclinations”, socially and economically disfavoured, which tried to compensate their handicap with a militant fervour; at the same time, their “enemies” were a group of former “cadres”, with rightist political inclinations, friends with the important people, and having a strong financial background.
This general frame, as well as the speaker’s leitmotifs (“they, the rich ones” vs. “we, the poor ones”; the “important friends” who acted from back stage, by discreet pressure and corruption schemes vs. the “masses” lead by a charismatic leader, who acted through direct actions, as the street manifestation) is nevertheless far from constructing a true image of the organisational structure of the Association, or of its mode of action. Even more, this opposition between the political groups of masses and the political groups of cadres (which follows the typology of political parties proposed by Maurice Duverger) in fact denaturises than reveals the reality, as underlined by Jean and Monica Charlot (Charlot 1985: 505‐506).
Nevertheless, this was a massive movement, which in 1997‐1998 totalised more than 10 000 members, in the entire country, but who only counted some 400 in Bucharest, doubled by an “unknown”43 number outside the capital, at the level of local subsidiaries (as explained by the same member of the Organisational Committee). The leaders of the Association are reunited in the Organisational Committee. But, giving the fact that the members of the ATNB were drastically retracting their adhesions, and that the association practically became in the past years only a specialised department of the Greater Romania Party (under the leadership of Eugen Pleşa), the meetings of the Organisational Committee or of the General Assembly are more and more scarce.
Leadership Among the most important founding members of the Association one can list: Gheorghe
Roman44, the first president of ATNB, «career soldier», Eugen Pleşa, the current president, former CEO of a state company which owned and administered the buildings from one of Bucharest’s richer residential areas (RECOROM Dorobanți S.A), Sever Moldovan, vice‐president of ATNB, “who worked for the Ministry of Internal Affaires and was a good advocate” (in reality, a former Securitate officer45), Adrian Popovici, historian at Romanian History Museum, and Mihai Tînjală, a “former military officer”.
But the Association of Tenants in Nationalized Buildings is an association strongly personalised. The image of the core‐group, and the one of its leader, are almost entirely superposed, like in the case of the Association of Owners. In all the articles dedicated to “the problem of the nationalised buildings”, published by the Dimineata magazine in 1997 (almost 40 articles), only one46 expressed the views of another leader of the Association (the Vice‐president Sever Moldovan).
It is almost common place in the 1990s to accuse the tenants of nationalised buildings (members or non‐members of the Association of Tenants) of representing the nomenklatura, of
43 His leaders admit that they aren’t at all aware of the actual number of local subsidiaries of the Associations. 44 As stated by the current leader, the first president of the Association was Gheorghe Roman, chosen because of its notoriety (“a credible person, a symbol”). Older than 80 years, at the moment of its election, he was fast replaced by the current leader (“after two or three weeks, the one chosen by us, Gheorghe Roman, retired, saying that he was too old and didn’t have time for this…” (E.P.) 45 See Lumea Magazin, no.8 (100), 2001, section « Politics and Secret Services » , «Vaszi’s death » , dialogue with the general Nicolae Pleşiță and the colonel Sever Moldovan. 46 Dimineața, no. 45 (1874), 1997, from February, 26th, 1997.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 18
being former communists, and also of being neo‐communists. Of course, the goal of our present analysis is neither to confirm, not to infirm such a hypothesis. Nevertheless, we were able to notice that, for the greater part, the leadership structure of ATNB comprises of people with an important financial standing and from the same range of professions (lawyers or employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
Membership The tendency of over‐estimating the importance of the movement characterises the
Association of Tenants as well. From 10 000 active members, as stated by the president of the Organisational Committee, between 1997‐1998, there were more than 2 million members, according to C. Buaru, the president of the Iasi subsidiary. We have already underlined that, in the case of the AOADS, the active and the passive members are often one and the same (especially during electoral campaigns), and that the frontiers between the in‐group and the out‐group become instable. Moreover, especially in the last years, most of the former members have “betrayed the cause of the tenants”, after buying the apartments they had lived in, as a member of the Leadership Committee bitterly noticed.
The activities of ATNB
The major activities of this interest group are concerned with parliamentary lobbying
and with establishing and maintaining contacts with the political parties. “The tenants (of the nationalised buildings) were always there (at the Parliament), even if the owners were not… or not so frequently. But it is interesting to note that they were never interested in participating in the (Legal) Commission debates. They tried to contact the MPs with important functions in the Chamber of Deputies, the people with a lot of influence, the leaders of opinion, the presidents of political parties, the leaders of the parliamentary groups, and the president of the Legal Commission. They also developed a strong lobby, by participating in the other debates and so expressing their point of view”, said E.S., member of the Legal Commission of the Chamber of Deputies. The delegates of the tenants intervened as “veto‐groups” (protesting against certain political initiatives which were against their interests47), but they also tried to provoke legal changes or to initiate projects of reforms48.
The representatives of the Association expressed their claims also to the acting president Ion Iliescu (on several occasions, throughout the latter’s various mandates). Iliescu, who in his public speeches concerning the restitution of the property always upheld the necessity of protecting the tenants, was in fact one of the “favourite interlocutors” of ATNB.
III. 2. Protesting through mass‐media
47 For example the entire series of street manifestations and protests addressed to Parliament, before and after the HG no. 11, of January, 29th, 1997. 48 See for example the legislative project intended to complete the Law no. 10/2001, initiated for Senate by three politicians from Greater Romania Party, among who Eugen Pleşa (BP 168/March, 26th, 2004) or the legislative project for the abrogation of the 8th paragraph from the article 9 of the Law no. 112/1995, initiated for the Senate by Eugen Pleşa (BP 144/ March, 11th, 2004), see www.cdep.ro.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 19
The media visibility of the Association of Tenants was a constant preoccupation for ATNB’s leaders. The “war”, the “conflict” between the owners and the tenants (which is a recurrent theme in the discourse of the tenants’ representatives49) was enforced via the mass‐ media. From this point of view, one could say that ATNB found itself in a privileged situation: the two journals of the Social – Democrat Party, Dimineata and Azi, constantly devoted long articles to the problem of the tenants.
Besides those two journals, close to Social – Democrat Party and to president Ion Iliescu who “militated for the tenants of the nationalised buildings”, the Association created his own journals: Tribuna chiriaşului [The Tenant’s Gallery] and Radical [Radical]. Printed in limited circulation, the journals were distributed to the participants of the street manifestations. Their existence is necessary, as sustained by the president of the Association, because “very few TV channels or journals let the tenants speak (about their problems), tenants who themselves want to express their point of view”50.
If in the case of the Association of Owners the media mobilisation is, in a way, a mere substitution for the mobilisation of a great number of militants, the Association of Tenants has an essential political resource: the number of its people, which permitted the organisation of large media events. They even can produce what Patrick Champagne labelled as “paper street marches” («des manifestations de papier»: Champagne 1990, 1991: 19‐41). Different from the traditional form of protest, constructed for the purpose of creating a force‐rapport and for permitting a group to express itself, «les manifestations de papier» are a “second degree” (Neveu 1996: 93) type of manifestations, with carefully elaborated and recurrent media campaigns, having as main objective “to produce a valorised image of the group and of its demands through the media” (Neveu 1996: 93).
III. 3. Entering the political arena
Seen from a functionalist viewpoint, the mission of the pressure groups was to
“articulate” the needs and the demands of their members, to the attention of the political authorities (Charlot 1985: 521).
At the same time they also have the function of input to the political system: political socialisation, political mobilisation, political communication and even the recruitment of political elites (Almond and Powell 1966, cited by Charlot 1985: 522). In fact, for several of its leaders (at local or national level), the ATNB opened the way to a political career, by means of the notoriety it granted them, by the relations they established, and by the competences they developed while working within the organisation. Like in the case of the Association of Owners, the political involvement of the ATNB members – interviewed by us – is motivated by the necessity of having a direct influence on the political decisions which concern them. “The implementation of the law51 is guaranteed by the positions we have or can hope to control on
49 See for example the magazine Dimineața, no. 45 (1 874), from February 26th, 1997. Contrary to this, in the interviews, most of the owners claim that this conflict is merely an artefact devised by the current government. 50 Dimineața, no. 117 (1 946), of May 27th 1997. 51 This refers to the Law no. 112/1995 «for the reglementation of the legal situation of certain dwellings that had become property of the State» (Monitorul Oficial al României, no. 279, from November 29th, 1995) and of its dispositions concerning the “the protection of tenants” (Chapter 3, articles 7‐11, which state the tenants’ right of buying the apartments they lived in, if they have not been formerly claimed by their owners).
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 20
the political arena, by our access to the administrative apparatus, because this is the only place from where we could impose certain measures. 52”
Choosing one’s «political partner» Since its creation, the ATNB has always been (explicitly or implicitly) connected to
various political parties in order to defend its objectives. Eugen Pleşa, the president of the Association, became a member of the Party for Social Democracy in Romania (PDSR) as early as 1992: «upon the suggestion of Vasile Văcaru (now deceased), who was the general secretary of the PDSR […] We [the tenants of nationalized buildings] were most likely better… understood by the PDSR. I mean we enjoyed a certain support» (P.). «In the beginning we were courted, I do not want to hide the fact that several parties tried to muster our support. We [the members of the Tenants’ Association] considered that we could find the solution to our problems within the programme of the Party for Social Democracy in Romania. We were supported on the basis of an agreement signed by both parties and thanks to this agreement many persons now occupy comfortable seats at the Romanian Parliament», admits E. Pleşa53. In fact, the members of the PDSR (just like president Ion Iliescu) spoke on several occasions54 in favour of «the protection of the tenants» and of the new owners (the tenants who had bought the buildings which had not or could not be reclaimed). To this effect, we could analyse the parliamentary debates concerning the successive draft laws (dealing either with the restitution of confiscated buildings, or with the protection of the tenants)55. Concerning the position of the PDSR in the debates of the Legal Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, the statements of E.S., member of the Commission, are quite eloquent: «The PDSR wanted to exploit the tenants, who were far more numerous than the owners, by converting them into electoral capital […] It launched populist slogans […] that resembled the communist rhetoric […] and it opposed the restitution of goods», with «a proletarian tenacity […] I am a member in the Commission and I can testify that I heard no legal argument during this discussions. Maybe there were a few, but they were summoned only to support political positions, including labels such as “communists“ vs. moşieri [landowners]».
Building a partisan structure: The Social AllianceParty (of Tenants) Based on the axiom that the militant force of the ATNB and its capacity to mobilise can
easily translate as electoral power, meaning a considerable number of votes, the Association endowed itself with a partisan structure of its own: The Social Alliance Party (of Tenants), on the eve of the local elections of 1996. The party founded its electoral programme on the principle of «social justice», defined above all as the necessity for a fairer distribution of
52 The intervention of the Party of Social Alliance (of Tenants)’ candidate at Bucharest City Hall, Eugen Plesu, during the electoral broadcast Turneul candidaților [Candidates’ Tour] on Antena 1, from Mai 8th, 1996 (for the transcription of this debate, see domino.kappa.ro/andronic/turneul96.nsf ). 53 Eugen Pleşa, at the electoral broadcast Turneul candidaților (see footnote 59). 54 For instance, in November 1997, the PDSR expressed its intention to introduce a simple motion at the Chamber of Deputies, referring to the situation of tenants in nationalized buildings, accompanied by a bill regarding the protection of tenants (Dimineața, no. 270 (2099) du 21 novembre 1997). 55 The stenograms and the minutes of the parliamentary debates can be found on the website of the Chamber of Deputies, www.cdep.ro.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 21
housing. «When we speak of more than three apartments (and, in the majority of cases, the expropriation involved 8‐10 apartments belonging to the same owner, up to 179 apartments, in fact), one cannot say that the nationalisation was extremely unjust», claims Sever Moldovan, the vice‐president of the Association56.
The new Party participated in the local elections of 2 June 1996, but its electoral performance was extremely disappointing: 4 123 votes (0.05%) for all his candidates for the position of mayor (therefore no mandate), 7 394 votes (0.09%) for the Local Councils (a single mandate of local councillor), 2 432 votes (0.03%) for the District Councils (hence once again no mandate)57. The Party was not successful as predicted, because «the tenants voted for other parties. There are even some who voted for the PNL and for the PNTCD, parties that are more biased towards the former owners», explains C. Buaru, president of the Iaşi branch of the Association and at the same time president of the Party (Pirotte 2003: 154‐155).
“New” political partners? After the fiasco of this party in the local elections, the president of the Association
decided to support Emil Constantinescu58 as presidential candidate. In a letter addressed to the new president59, «a group of tenants» explain the reasons behind this choice: «During the electoral campaign we have followed you closely, we took note of all your statements, on the radio as well as on TV, and we were persuaded that all your promises will be kept. One of these solemn vows, made to the people on national television […] was that you would respect the Law no. 112/1995, and that you would guarantee the implementation of this document, as it is now formulated».
Apparently, this promise had also been made in a meeting of candidate Emil Constantinescu with the representatives of the Association, according to a member of the AOADS : «I heard that he [Emil Constantinescu] even signed a contract with the tenants… just a few days before the elections, in order to gain their support» or according to a liberal deputy: «I know that Emil Constantinescu had an agreement with the tenant‐buyers in 1996, before the elections. The president of the Owners’ Association told me so, but I had also learned of it from another source».
The decision to support the candidate of the Democratic Convention triggered tensions between the PSDR, «the traditional ally» of the tenants, and the interest group represented by Eugen Pleşa, tensions which, for several months (above all in the immediate aftermath of the elections, between November 1996 and January 1997) were reflected in Dimineața, the newspaper controlled by the PDSR. Pleşa’s «treason» was amply commented in the paper: «The impostor who betrayed the tenants and their good will, the traitor without scruples who cynically passed to the other side of the barricade, pledged his word, his conscience, and his title, asking the mystified tenants to vote for the Convention, because this vote would ensure the preservation of their homes»60.
However, already in the month February, Dimineața became once again «the loudspeaker» of the Association: the journal went back to the regular publishing of the tenants’ protests, of their open letters addressed to President Emil Constantinescu, of interviews with
56 Dimineața, no. 45 (1 874), 26 February 1997. 57 Source: the Central Electoral Bureau, the official results of the local elections of 1996, http://www.kappa.ro/guv/bec96loc/rz96lcgf.html (last accessd on 21 May 2004). 58 The candidate of the Democratic Convention. 59 Published in Dimineața, no. 44 (1 873), 27 february 1997. 60 Dimineața, no. 22 (1 851), 30 January 1997.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 22
Eugen Pleşa and with ordinary members of the ATNB. The main opposition party (the PDSR) allowed the Association to express itself, to construct its «public cause», practically placing at its disposal not just two newspapers (Dimineața and Azi), but even the conference room where the reunions of the ATNB were taking place at the time.
After the local elections that spelled the electoral failure of the Social Alliance (of Tenants) and after the presidential elections of 1996, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, the leader of the Greater Romania Party, proposes to the president of the Association of Tenants to join his party in order to «fight for the cause of tenants» (according to a member of the Organising Committee of the ATNB, member of the Greater Romania Party, PRM). The adhesion of Eugen Pleşa61 and of other members of the ATNB to the PRM, introduced a specialized section within the Party (formally described in the organizational chart).
In October 1997 the bases for the «Partnership for Bucharest» had been set: the PDSR, the PSM (the Socialist Workers’ Party), the PRM (the Greater Romania Party), the PPR (the Party of the Retired Persons of Romania) and the Association of Tenants, who organised in the Revolution Square what they deemed to be one of «the most important manifestations of the opposition». «If the Government wants to chase us from our homes62, we will overturn the Government!», affirms E. Pleşa. Standing by the side of the leaders of the opposition parties, Eugen Pleşa, president of the ATNB and member of the PRM, denounced «the moral fraud» that had allowed the Democratic Convention to come to power, reducing the tenants of nationalized buildings to serve merely as electoral capital. Sever Moldovan, vice‐president of the ATNB, also stresses that «All his campaign [Emil Constantinescu’s] was a lie, otherwise he would have never been elected»63.
Conclusion
Since the emergence and consolidation of the interest groups, pressure groups, and of
civil society in general are considered to be two of the crucial factors in the democratic transformation of the post‐communist states in Central and Eastern Europe, we came to question the role that interest groups had in finding a solution to these “dilemmas of justice in post‐communist transitions” (Offe 1997: 82), in that they placed the issues of «retroactive justice» and «redistributive justice» high on the agenda of postcommunist governments.
We explore the ʺreconstruction of propertyʺ in post‐communist Romania by focusing on the creation and organization of two interest groups – the former owners of the nationalized buildings and the present tenants (the ʺnewʺ owners). Further, we discuss their actions in political, electoral and media environments, and their transformation into satellites of different political parties.
The first part our study was dedicated to the creation of the Association of Owners
Abusively Dispossessed by the State and of the Association of Tenants in Nationalized Buildings. In particular, we tackled their organizational design (including the leadership and the membership questions, with the deliberate confusion between the actual members and the target population), and their patterns of action (referring also to their «Europeanization», as
61 In 2000, Eugen Pleşa was elected deputy of Mureş, on the PRM electoral list. 62 Eugen Pleşa refers to the governmental ordinance HG no. 11 of 29 January 1997, which modifies the methodological norms for the application of Law no. 112/1995, thus limiting the number of dwellings that could be sould to the tenants. 63 Dimineața, no. 45 (1 874), 26 February 1997.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 23
they developed direct contacts with MEPs and other representatives of various EU institutions, and established cross‐border networks with similar associations).
Nevertheless, the actions of these two interest groups can also be circumscribed within
the field of communication. Consequently, a second angle of investigation of our present paper is concerned with the «mediatization strategies» employed by the owners and tenants to convey their respective message, to produce a credible discourse around their reclaims. The lobbying activities for the benefit of the public authorities concerned, the drafting of ample documents and protests, the organisation of street marches and meetings, all these routine forms of expression of a demand that make up the «repertoire of collective action»64 would have remained inefficient without a press campaign. Not only have they “fostered contacts with the media, seeking to use these channels to present their case to a wider audience” (Watson & Shackleton 2003: 95), but they have also created (as is the case of the Tenants’ Association) their own journals, or used the journals edited by different parties, in an attempt to “situate the debate in the most sympathetic light” (Watson & Shackleton 2003: 95).
The final part of our study discusses the entry of these interest groups on the electoral
and political scene, and their transformation into satellites of certain political parties, which is perceived as a vital strategic choice, allowing both the «former» and the «new» owners not only to bring their concerns to the «political fora», but also to have a direct impact on the political decisions.
The underlying research question of our empirical study was: to which degree did the
civil society actors influence the formulation and the implementation of public policies concerning property in Romania? If other Central and Eastern European countries experienced “the evolution of a modern interest group system in the democratic consolidation stage“ (Fink – Hafner 1998: 298), could Romania – towards the end of the 1990s and even after 2000 – still experience some sort of “party monopoly in interest intermediation”, or to use Arato’s terms, the “partification of politics”? (See Fink – Hafner 1998; Linz 1990; Arato 1994.) We kept in mind the “conventional” definition of the interest group (e.g. Wilson, 1990: 8, “an interest group is an organization which has some autonomy from government or political parties”), but also the observation that “organizations that are most significant in particular policy processes tend not to abide by the stereotype that best approximates a pressure/ interest group” (Jordan et al. 2004: 200).
We noticed that the two associations that constituted the main focus of our research are closely linked to two major political parties. More importantly, we found that, in this specific case, rather than being reduced to opportunistic and ad‐hoc alliances, the associations between parties and interest groups tend to remain stable, enduring despite the fact that the political parties in post‐communist Romania lack the acuity of an ideological identity (see Barbu, 1999; De Waele 2002; Preda 2002, 2005; Soare 2004).
Moreover, since the Romanian political system remains authoritatively dominated by
the political parties (Parteienstaat, particracy, see Barbu 2002: 205‐213), the two interest groups which made the object of our study not only enter the electoral and parliamentary arena, but also tend to “imitate” the patterns of action of the political parties in a “particracy” (see Calise 1994, Von Beyme 1995, Budge and Keman 1990). The leaders of these two associations
64 The notion was coined by Charles TILLY, «Les origines du répertoire de l’action collective contemporaine en France et en Grande Bretagne», in XXe siècle, no. 4, octobre 1984 and IDEM La France conteste de 1600 à nos jours, Fayard, Paris, 1986.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 24
simultaneously take an office‐seeking perspective (aiming to find themselves at the helm of political parties, seeking to secure eligible positions on the parties’ candidate lists, looking for functions within the governmental commissions that oversee the privatization process) and a policy based perspective (aspiring to steer the formulation and the implementation of reprivatisation laws).
We deem this to be an illustrative case for the „partification of politics” (Arato 1994) in
the post‐socialist context. Obviously, the conclusions that we have reached by the examination of this particular example need not necessarily be extended to other specific sectors of the interest representation. Indeed, we concede that, as Fink – Hafner noticed for the Slovenian case, “in certain sectors, the more powerful segments of the civil society (economic groups, above all), succeeded in establishing themselves as partners in institutionalized forms of consultative politics” (Fink – Hafner 1998: 298).
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
– *** Anciens et nouveaux propriétaires. Stratégies d’appropriation en Europe centrale et orientale, Cahiers du CeFRes, n. 11f, mars 1997, Centre français de recherche en sciences sociales, Prague.
– BARBU, Daniel (1999), Republica absentă. Politică şi societate în România postcomunistă [Absent
Republic. Politcs and Society in Post‐communist Romania], Bucharest : Nemira. – BARBU, Daniel (2005), Politica pentru barbari [Politics for Barbarians], Bucharest : Nemira. – BLACKSELL, Mark and BORN, Karl Martin (2002), Private property restitution: the geographical
consequences of official government policies in Central and Eastern Europe, in The Geographical Journal, 168 (2): 178‐190.
– BÖNKER, F. et OFFE, Claus (1993), The Morality of Restitution, in BÖNKER, F., OFFE, Claus et
PREUSS, U. K, Efficiency and justice of property restitution in East Europe, ZERP Diskussionspapier 6/93, Papers on Constitution Building No.5, Center for European Law and Policy, Bremen University.
– BOURDIEU, Pierre (2000), Propos sur le champ politique, Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon. – BURAWOY, Michael and VERDERY, Katherine (1999), Uncertain Transition: Ethnographies of Change
in the Postsocialist World. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
– CARTWRIGHT, Andrew L. (2001), The Return of the Peasant. Land Reform in Post‐Communist Romania. Aldershot: Ashgate.
– CARTWRIGHT, Andrew, L. (2000), State Law and the Recognition of Property in Rural Romania, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Working Paper No. 10.
– CHAMPAGNE, Patrick (1991), La construction médiatique des malaises sociaux, in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 90.
– CHARLOT, Jean and CHARLOT, Monica (1985), Les groupes politiques dans leur environnement», in GRAWITZ, Madeleine and LECA, Jean (eds.), Traité de science politique, v III (Action politique), Paris : PUF.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 25
– DAWIDSON, Karin (2004), Conflicts of interest in the restitution and privatization of housing since the fall of Socialism, the case of central Timişoara City, West Romania. A Problem of democracy?, Europe‐Asia Studies, 56 (1): 119‐141.
– ELSTER, Jon (1995), On Doing What One Can: An Argument against Postcommunist Restitution
and Retribution, in KRITZ, Neil (eds.), Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes, Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 566‐568.
– ELSTER, Jon, OFFE, Claus, and PREUSS, Ulrich K. (1998), Institutional Design in Postcommunist
Societies: Rebuilding the Ship at Sea, New York: Cambridge University Press. – FINK HAFNER, Danika (1998), Organized interests in the policy‐making process in Slovenia, in
Journal of European Public Policy, 5 (2): 285‐302. – GAMSON, William (1975), The Strategy of Social Protest, Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth Pub.
– HANN, Chris, HUMPHREY Caroline, VERDERY Katherine (2002), Postsocialism as a topic of anthropological investigation, in HANN, Chris (ed.) Postsocialism. Ideals, ideologies and practices in Eurasia, London and New York: Routledge.
– HANN, M. Christopher (1993a), Property Relations in the New Eastern Europe: The Case of Specialist Cooperatives in Hungary, in DE SOTO, Hermine and ANDERSON, David (eds), The Curtain Rises: Rethinking Culture, Ideology, and the State in Eastern Europe. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 99‐119.
– HANN, M. Cristopher (1993b), From Production to Property: Decollectivization and the Family‐Land Relationship in Contemporary Hungary, in Man, 28: 299‐320.
– HANN, M. Christopher (1998), Introduction: the embeddedness of property, in HANN, Chris (ed.), Property relations. Renewing the anthropological tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1‐47.
– JORDAN, Grant, HALPIN, Darren and MALONEY, William (2004), Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions?, in BJPIR, 6: 195 – 212.
– KIDECKEL, A. David (1993), Once Again, the Land: Decollectivization and Social Conflict in rural Romania, in DE SOTO, Hermine and ANDERSON, David (eds.), The Curtain Rises: Rethinking Culture, Ideology, and the State in Eastern Europe, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 62‐75.
– KOZMINSKI, Andrzej K. (1997), Restitution of Private Property and Reprivatisation in Central and East Europe, in Communist and Postcommunist Studies, 30(1): 5‐22.
– KRITZ, Neil J. (1995), Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democraties Reckon with Former Regimes, Vol.
I General Considerations, Vol. II Country Studies, Vol. III Laws, Rulings, and Reports, Washington: U.S. Intitute of Peace Press.
– LA PALOMBARA, Joseph and WEINER, Myron (1966), Political Parties and Political Development,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1966. – MARCUSE P. (1996), Privatization and its discontents: property rights in land and housing in the
transition in Eastern Europe, in ANDRUSZ Gregory, HARLOE Michael et SZELENYI Ivan, Cities after Socialism, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 119‐191.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 26
– MAUREL, Marie‐Claude (1997), Stratégies d’appropriation de la terre et du capital dans les agricultures centre‐européennes, in Cahiers du CeFRes, 11f.
– NEVEU, Erik (1996), Sociologie des mouvements sociaux, Paris: La Découverte. – NEVEU, Erik (1998), Médias, mouvements sociaux, espaces publics, in Réseaux, 17(98) : 19‐85. – OFFE, Claus (1997), Varieties of Transition: The East European and East German Experience, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press. – OFFERLÉ, Michel (1998), Sociologie des groupes d’intérêt, Paris: Montchrestien. – PADGETT, Stephen, Organizing Democracy in Eastern Germany. Interest Groups in Post‐Communist
Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. – PINE, Frances and BRIDGER, Sue (1998), Introduction: transitions and cultures of survival, in
PINE, Frances and BRIDGER, Sue (eds.) Surviving post‐socialism. Local Strategies and regional responses in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, London and New York: Routledge, 1‐15.
– PIROTTE, Gautier (2003), Une société civile postrévolutionnaire. Étude du nouveau secteur ONG en Roumanie: la cas de Iaşi, Louvain‐la‐Neuve: Academia‐Bruylant.
– SAURUGGER, Sabine (2002), Analyser les modes de representation des intérêts dans l’Union Européenne: construction d’une problématique, Research in Question, no. 2, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales, Sciences Po, Paris, http://www.ceri‐sciences‐po.org/publica/qdr.htm
– STAN, Lavinia (forthcoming), The Roof over Our Heads: Property Restitution in Romania, in Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics.
– STARK, David (1996), Recombinant Property in East European Capitalism, in American Journal of Sociology 101(4): 993‐1027.
– VERDERY, Katherine (1994), The Elasticity of Land. Problems of Property Restitution in Transylvania, Slavic Review 53 (4): 1071‐1109.
– VERDERY, Katherine (1996), What was Socialism and what comes next? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
– VERDERY, Katherine (1998), Property and Power in Transylvania’s decollectivization, in HANN, Chris (ed.), Property relations. Renewing the anthropological tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 160‐180.
– VERDERY, Katherine (1999), Fuzzy property: Rights, Power, and Identity in Transylvaniaʹs decollectivization, in BURAWOY, Michael and VERDERY, Katherine (eds.). Uncertain Transition. Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World. Lanham Boulder New York Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, 53‐81.
– VERDERY, Katherine (2003), The Vanishing Hectare. Property and Value in Postsocialist Transylvania. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
– WATSON, Rory and SHACKLETON, Michael (2003), Organized Interests and Lobbying in the EU, in BOMBERG, Elisabeth and STUBB, Alexander (eds.), The European Union: How does it work?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 88‐107.
The (Re)construction of Property Rights in Postcommunist Romania 27
– ZERILLI, Filippo (1998), Identité et propriété en milieu urbain. Locataires et propriétaires dans la Roumanie contemporaine, in Yearbook of the Romanian Society of Cultural Anthropology, vol. 1.
– XIFARAS, Mikhaïl (2004), La propriété. Étude de philosophie du droit, Paris : PUF.