I repeat that I don’t give a great attention to this reality, though there would be a facet worthy of that: it’s common sense for me to imagine that I have a lot of people, all over the world, next to me in the idea that at Christmas it’s the most beautiful.

Affirming this in full conviction, I immediately add that I don’t think first and foremost of the much beloved Santa Claus (even if he is the most generous with gifts), although the adorned Christmas tree still fills me with pleasure; essential, however, is the atmosphere – with the efforts to retrieve quietness, helped by the traditional carols. (Speaking of atmosphere, I think that winter weather cannot be excluded, so I reached the opinion that it would be simply tragic if I resided in a zone of everlasting heat or in the southern hemisphere.) Those who are close to me feel the same, and I consider we have no reason for remorse when implying also in the superficial aspects of the celebration, since we are filled with the spirit of Christmas – as I think I’ve shown.

After all, producing joy to children means to follow the requirements of The One Whose birth has created the premises also for the highly expected days at the end of the year. I admit, however, that I considered this only now; nevertheless, I don’t need arguments in addition (and equivalent to justifications) to narrate in writing, too, what I repeated verbally until the younger people around me got bored. It’s a luck that I have the former possibility of communication; I hope to find one or two folks receptive to the great pleasure to exhibit my considerably old relation with Santa Claus. (I used the formula “Father Christmas” within the title in order to get it right.)

It’s around 45 years since my maternal grandfather, during one of our frequent walks through the city, stressed firmly that he wouldn’t buy me anything, but I could ask from Santa – for 100 lei, at most. (For comparison, the salary of my mother – as a beginning teacher – was 900 lei; the cheapest bread was 2.20 – as I remember.) I wondered about this limit, considering what I was imagining, but I complied with that. (Grandfather loved me very much, which I understood much better after some 15 years, but cared for discipline – as a former officer, combatant on the Russian front.) Even today, I can see myself choosing a little train and an airplane with a little engine and lights. I don’t know anymore which of them had the cost of 58 lei and which was 42, but essential is what I felt when I saw exactly those toys under the Christmas tree full of electric candles.)

After moving to our home, I experienced confusion again – but with a different object: I didn’t know how was it that Santa Claus came only after my father arrived from his job (at about 7 p.m.). Moreover, “very curious” was that he always felt an urge to go to the bathroom (announcing that in loud voice), and, immediately after finishing, heralded us that he saw lights in the smaller room – where there had been deeply dark before, as we, too, had remarked.

I should specify that the bathroom and the interesting location communicated with a little lobby – as did the other room (where we stayed – with the door shut, of course). At the same time, in order to avoid unpleasant surprises, by identifying people close to us, both me and my sister (born when I was in the first form) had been informed that Father Christmas appeared and disappeared like smoke.

However glad had I been by finding of the Christmas tree in lights and with gifts underneath, I felt a pleasure incomparably higher when participating to the “setup”. It’s not that I have caught my father (as it happened to him), but, at 10, I exhibited my own deductions – triggered by a book I had read. Evidently, he had no alternative to co-opting me for the preparations – and, gradually, I took over everything. I don’t wish to boast, but the flow of recollections stimulate me to tell that I made it in such a way that, when my sister was 12, I revealed her the secret, in order that she wouldn’t make a fool of herself at school. My parents reproached that to me; yet, I’ll be always convinced that I did what I had to do.

In parallel, I felt extremely well while adorning the fir-tree also in the house where I had lived during my first years (and where now came my too little girl-cousins – who were younger than my sister); thereafter, I helped my grandma with other things, too – my part being, of course, the “unqualified work”.

After I had my own family and house, I followed the same line a few years, but then I got an idea to reduce the risk for my descendant to be disappointed. Ever since he started school, it was settled that we adorned the Christmas tree together, and consequently Santa (who had fixed it in the sup¬port and had left it in the basement; it’s a luck for us to have that space) would lay the presents, while we slept. This part was, most often, extremely hard, but what’s important is that – as one can easily guess – his pleasure didn’t diminish; on the contrary. Anyway, the surprise of the gifts remains, up to this day – when he is over 24. This aspect is the business of his mother – who, as a matter of fact, ornaments our home, as soon as December begins, with representations of Santa Claus, as well as reindeers, stars, etc.

As I told directly to my son, I am convinced that he wouldn’t catch me even now, had I tried hard. I’d even want to do so, but he and his mother consider that would be ridiculous. Therefore, it’s left to me only to expect grandchildren!

The subsequent biographies of the men I saw in that exceptional day (December 22, 1989) are also proofs for Iliescu’s imposture, backed up – naturally – by huge efforts to remove uncomfortable witnesses. (I have the conviction that legitimacy – for which he went so much and which he claimed in front of those who had no way of contradiction – won’t be granted to him by history, as he hasn’t got it from lucid minds, either.) Dumitru Dinca hasn’t yet fulfilled his dream to see communism brought down, but continues to fight for that dream also on forums where I can learn his ideas. Dan Iosif – the only who offered a revolutionary source to Iliescu’s party, with its diverse denominations – has left politics, as far as I know. (Unfortunately, in 2007 he has also left this world, because of a cancer.) As for the others, they appear only on anniversaries; else, they continue to practice their professions. We ought to consider Doctor Filipoiu a pride of our “guild”.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Having the conviction that my message is clear and the hope that this new digression didn’t dilute my narration, I reach the most important (as I was going to notice thereafter) appearance in the first hours of free expression: that of Ion Iliescu (another one who fought Ceausescu from the interior – like Teoctist.) He was presented by Brates with much ado: “son of a revolutionary, he himself a revolutionary”. Reading his biography recently, I realized what that really meant, but when I saw him for the first time, I had never heard of him before. Conversely, my father knew a thing or two: he was the man that Gorbachev saw as a reformer of the system for us. What’s certain is that I couldn’t assign to him any kind of dissidence – and it was more than a year since I listened to foreign channels.

I became quickly aware that many of those in the studio, ahead with the coordinator, were informed about the role destined to that man with a modest aspect, starting with his clothing. I find the term “role” appropriate; soon, it was easy for me to conclude that the representatives of the television maneuvered in such a way that they could impose to the public this quasi-unknown man, thus making his path smoother.

It also seemed strange to me that he spoke unbothered, considering the agitation in the room. I was wondering why the director of the Technical Publishing House (as he introduced himself, also affirming that the revolutionaries had brought him with a lot of sympathy, almost forcing him to leave job earlier) was more worthy of attention than the people who had suffered in the streets. I couldn’t dissipate my puzzlement urgently; I left it temporarily behind and focused upon listening to him. I have approved him in the beginning, as my opinion, too, was that socialism had been maculated by Ceausescu.

Several specifications are imposed here: I have always believed that a decent life for everyone is possible, and continue to desire a society that would create the frame for that. Party documents defined communism as a world in which these ideals would be met. The perfect equality between all individuals was stated, and another fundamental feature was depicted by a well-known – at that time – formula: “from everybody according to capacities, to everybody according to needs”. As my horizon and life experience were limited, I wasn’t aware that such a society is for angels, not for human beings. Now it’s clear to me that it will be long till the time will come (if ever) when the engines of progress and of individual and public richness will no more be competition and concern for private propriety. As a matter of fact, the results of Gorbachev’s actions, based on his trust in the positive side of the system, could be seen.

Therefore, just this is to add: luckily, the construction of communist society proved to be beyond the reach of those who had enthroned socialism, in the sense used also by Iliescu: the totalitarian regime pretending to belong to left political wing and to which the denomination of communism was applied after 1989. I, too, employed (and still will) the term with this connotation; it doesn’t correspond to my opinions, but I want to avoid confusions. (An even bigger confusion appears when some assimilate communism with the ideology of Marx, Engels and Lenin.)

Perhaps it’s not necessary to point out that the essence of this first intervention of Ion Iliescu was predictable; nearly all of us were preparing for a sort of perestroika or “communism with a human face” (it was just the face, indeed!). However, I saw Corneliu Manescu as the new leader; I explained before why. This is how the French had announced, and I thought the ground was that his international prestige was still remembered. By the time I learned that, in fact, it was about some resemblance to Sergiu Nicolaescu (who was also present from the beginning of this unforgettable transmission), we – in the interior – were edified regarding who ascended to leadership.

Honestly, I couldn’t have imagined that Iliescu would reappear; in any case, not more frequently than others. That’s why I was surprised – a state that quickly left place for a sort of resignation, as the man was far from enchanting me – when he was the one to communicate that the National Salvation Front was constituted. This already told that he would count among the new leaders, and I surely didn’t understand what gave him the right to be there. (That moment, I had no way to know that in the location of the central committee governments had been done and undone. Even the ex-prime ministers Dascalescu and Verdet had come to offer service, but, naturally, they were expelled by the representatives of the demonstrators. The latter, however, were also removed – by those who were prepared to seize power and later tried to impose what they missed: legitimacy – stolen, in the first place, from the authentic fighters against Ceausescu.)

When I could have a cool judgment of the events, it became clear to me – even without knowing what was behind the scenes – that the revolutionary phase ended (and was even counteracted) with Iliescu’s leap in the front plan. For the moment, however, it was not so evident that he grabbed power. With the slyness he would repeatedly prove, he co-opted all known dissidents in the Council of National Salvation Front (abridged NSF). I had no objections to Laszlo Tokes (that would have beaten all!), Doina Cornea or Mircea Dinescu, as well as toward the authors of the protest letters from communist positions. Conversely, even today I think ab¬out Ana Blandiana that she had no subversive intentions in one of her poems, but we couldn’t expect her to shed light upon that; evidently, the posture was convenient for her. I was totally puzzled regarding Gelu Voican-Voiculescu, about whom truly nobody of us had heard. What he shared to us about his former activity (a geologist continuously researching through mountains) was not at all consistent with his military clothing. I didn’t like the name of the new formation, either; it took my thoughts to the National Rebirth Front of Carol (Charles) II (by which this king instituted dictatorship). Nevertheless, I was disregarding details. It was capital that we had got rid of Ceausescu – and there were a few guys who knew this much better than us, the commons.

As justly said the man who had read this first act of the new power, (“the last on the list, with your acceptance” – to quote him), the priority was uninterrupted provision of vital necessities. It’s probable that instructions had been given, since rapidly were formed NSF organizations, down to the level of villages. I still had the naiveté to believe that they had been created by common citizens, and not by party structure metamorphose, considering the strict discipline within. (I was just partially wrong; like at the central level, the authentic opponents were progressively held down.) Conversely, it became clear to me that the last on the list would become the first within hierarchy. What I couldn’t infer was how much bloodshed and grief he was going to provoke along with the maneuvers destined to impose his position.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The next episode that I believe to be outstanding, in that entirely memorable afternoon of December 22, is the first meeting held under the auspices of the new power. Since, as I emphasized, only fine thoughts and sentiments could find a place inside me, I had no other feelings about what I saw, save it was strange and illogic.

It’s probably easy (especially for the Romanians) to infer what I refer to: speeches were held from the balcony of the Central Committee, i.e. on the side of Palace Square opposite to that where Ceausescu had spoken (This seems suggestive to me only now.). The speakers were in the range of spotlights, as it had darkened outside. Simultaneously, in the background (where, evidently, the street enlightenment wasn’t working) fire exchanges took place. It appeared bizarre that the soldiers – who, as I told, had fraternized with the opponents of Ceausescu – were conducted by two actors: Ion Caramitru and Sergiu Nicolaescu. I have speculated, by the way, that the latter thought he was in one of the films directed by him over the years[1].

Overall, what was happening made no sense. Logically judging, the regular troops could shoot only on those still faithful to the man who had fled. The television had already presented them as elite military, specialized in diversion and terrorism. (They had been mentioned in connection with the poisoning of the water sources, if memory serves me right.) Given their training, they should have aimed the new leaders first, especially if the latter exposed themselves like in those moments. On the other hand, one expected that the fight against such military would be coordinated by persons trained in the domain (generals Guse and Vlad – who were at the head of the army and Securitate troops, respectively), especially as they had announced to have passed under the command of the new structures. The situation seemed too serious to assimilate it to a cinema sequence. Yet…

As I’ve pointed out before, I couldn’t imagine on the spot that all of us were double-crossed. Completely different, however, was the situation in the autumn of 1990, when I arrived in Bucharest for the first time after Ceausescu’s fall. I had been edified for some time regarding his follower (in more senses). Nonetheless, in the bottom of my soul I refused to accept that the latter had mocked our enthusiasm so badly, hence I said to myself that I must see personally – the only criterion that, since Christmas 1989, I consider absolute – how the shooting was in Palace Square. Cruel truth was confirmed: all the buildings in the zone were riddled with bullets, apart from the residence of the Central Committee (and of the Senate’s, thereafter); it hadn’t been touched, even by mistake. What can I say about the University Library? To strike by cannon in a cultural site is typical for a Bolshevik of the most miserable breed. At the same time, however, it was the only part of that meeting which had intelligible parts: one could immediately make the connection with the period spent in Moscow (as a student) by the man who had become democratically elected as president in the meantime.

I know it’s tiresome for the majority to follow a frequent change of planes, so I’ll strive to inhibit this tendency. On the other hand, I’m convinced to have conveyed the desire to transpose myself in those days, in order to also avoid doing the grand and seeming cynical. Having these in mind, I’ll say nothing about terrorists, except that we had all reasons to believe they were active, since they still had whom to fight for. Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu had been seen in several cars, continuing their run. I was wondering that so many forces – military and volunteers – weren’t able to stop a Dacia (a Romanian type of car) for which the route and license number had been given, but I attributed that to the chaos in the country. I had too big emotions and too much credulity to figure out that in fact what was natural had happened: the two had been captured, but the interest was not to make public the indubitable final of the preceding regime. There wouldn’t have been any longer justifications for the armed confrontations and for the maintenance of tension. The manipulation wasn’t perfect, however; even I felt that something was dubious when – later that evening – an announcement was made that in Timisoara the shots were resumed. There could be no one to do it; it was known that the army had passed on the people’s side even during Ceausescu’s rule (for two days at least), and special troops hadn’t been displaced there.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The best way of continuing to focus on the essential aspects is to highlight the proclamation of the National Salvation Front, thus bringing this document back again to the place where I have put it during its reading (by Ion Iliescu, of course). I do not wish to describe it in detail; I wouldn’t be capable of this, using only my memory. I feel, however, the urge to do some commentaries – especially because I see two distinct parts in it.

I wasn’t impressed by the promise to assure food, electricity, heat and fuel necessities; it only made me remark again what a misery we had reached. No country of the Soviet bloc had problems with lacks of this kind, as I had seen right there. As for the liberation of the abortions, it was a comeback to what Ceausescu had forbidden. Therefore, I continued to feel that they prepare a more endurable communism and nothing more. By the way, I keep in mind that during all afternoon the term “comrade” had been used, primarily for Iliescu, Barladeanu and other veterans of the party.

However, the great surprise came quickly. It was the commitment to organize free elections, hence a system with more parties. I had reserves regarding the electoral chapter; I didn’t quite imagine that parties able to contend with the unique existent could set themselves afoot till spring. I must add that I didn’t even think of the Liberal or Peasant’s party; I was convinced that they had disappeared in 1947 – along with their members, of course. In a word, it seemed remarkable to me that intention to set grounds for an authentic democracy existed, but I had the reticence that we want too deeply to equalize at once countries like Czechoslovakia, which had broken with communism having a completely different level – not only of life. Anyway, as soon as the elections were announced, the term “comrade”[2] disappeared.

What is truly important can be related in a few words, so I have no reason to speculate any more upon this document. It would be futile to add what I felt when having the perspective of a normal life, as I knew it directly – but for a short time. (I had stayed just two weeks in West Germany and Austria). I’ll speak further about the other illusions I made; for the moment I want to highlight – considering also the beginning of this paragraph – how unpleasantly I was impressed by the analysis of the text proclamation that Ioan Grigorescu did as if we had been idiots, thus wasting our time.

I omit (as I did when he appeared) the fact that he had been a privileged of the Ceausescu regime – impression which couldn’t be wiped out by the interruption of the episodes of “World spectacle” (one of his serials of documentary films). His books continued to be available, and one of them proved that he complied with the orientation from above. Short time after the fall of the emperor of Iran, when the leader of Romania had passed from exhibiting a great friendship to the condemnation of the “esploiter” (this is again an intentional spelling error, adapted from Ceausescu), Grigorescu had rushed to underline that the handles at the toilets within the palace in Tehran were of massive gold. I remembered this while he twisted in all possible ways every word of the proclamation.

Until showing how loathing evolved to fury, there is one more sequence I can’t omit. Around midnight, the birth (out of the official paper of the Communist Youth Organization) of the newspaper “Tineretul liber” (“Free youth”) was announced; those who had contributed to the first number (seemingly Caramitru, too, was among them) spoke about “the German Jew writer Heinrich Heine”. Immediately the thought transported me to the legionnaires (Romanian organization considered of extreme right wing before World War II), whom I considered extremists at that moment (and it had no way to be otherwise). It’s clear what sort of opinion I had of them, as I was fed up with the others – so-called left-winged. (I’ll stress “so-called” at all times, because I pretend to have an idea about the left-wing and right-wing orientations. That’s why I see the political spectrum as a circle: the extremes draw near.) Coming back to this kind of reference to Heine[3] (friend of Marx, by the way – as one knows), I subsequently realized that it was one of the first signs for Iliescu’s intention to compromise capitalism. Unconsciously or not, those from “Tineretul liber” played his game, by opening the path for idea connections centered on the flaws of democracy.

I am not sure whether in those hours, too, there appeared veterans who communicated the restoration of the National Peasants’ Party, at whose name they added the orientation (Christian and Democratic), thus adapting to contemporary times. Obviously, it was for me a huge surprise, which – naturally – eclipsed the impact produced by the reappearance of the National Liberal Party. I also don’t remind whether these historical parties have immediately communicated their intention for “restitutio in integrum”[4] (restoration in whole), which was an immense political blunder. This claim was also totally unfounded; youngsters had self-sacrificed for other purposes. The sole result they obtained was to draw water to Iliescu’s mill (and give him electoral advantage): it was easy for the bugbear with the return of the landlords to have success, mainly among those who had passed through the epoch before World War II – not idyllic, either.

I had too little time for reflection, because of the occurrence of the part that I considered the most horrifying of the week (which anyway was as it was). By 1.30 a.m. (I recall this as if it were today) Brates appeared with a desperate visage, making an appeal to the population to come in a large number in order to defend the residences of the national radio and television, attacked by the terrorists. Almost immediately, the broadcast was interrupted, and I was horrified that the beautiful dream would come to an end. I still have the sensation to have stayed an eternity in front of the dark TV-set, with ideas increasingly sinister sprouting into my mind. I was seeing myself capable of committing suicide if Ceausescu had come back, because the possibility to take care of my family would have been out of the question, anyway: there was no more future for us.

I was together with my father (the two women had fallen asleep, and one couldn’t expect my son – aged 3 – to be deeply impressed by the events), but we had no drive to utter a word. Conversely, the smoke of cigarettes could be seen better and better in the darkness of the room. When – finally – we had a transmission again, my gladness was affected by the resumption of Ioan Grigorescu’s commentaries. Whilst we were not knowing the fate of the audio-visual media (and of the country, implicitly), he continued with the undisturbed tone before. I foamed at the mouth seeing how calm he was, but in a few days I realized why: he knew that everything was a maneuver of Iliescu, destined to demonstrate that the latter had the people’s adherence for the definitive removal of the former government. The new leader had not participated in the revolutionary phase, nor had he been a dissident, so he had no better way to obtain legitimacy (which was normal to obsess him, although only a small part of the population has raised this problem).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

I think that the same full night the idea that (communist) party members should stay aside and repent was launched for the first time. In any case, I have read such a thing in our county newspaper. Despite the fact that I was bothered by the perspective of encountering impediments in implicating into the process of birth of an entirely new Romania, I said to myself that reserves – and even reluctance – toward all that belonged to the communist party were normal, so I had to have the decency to stay at my place. Nevertheless, this hostile reaction was not quite justified; the overwhelming majority of the almost 4 million members, including me, had borne the shortages imposed to common Romanians – as we were, in fact. It’s only that the enrolling into the party gave one the chance to obtain advances in profession that were not possible otherwise. I’d like to be logically deduced that one needed a certain level in order to be accepted; the Romanians more advanced in age will admit this, even just for themselves. Therefore, almost all of those who boast that they haven’t been RCP (Romanian Communist Party) members ought to be more prudent: they didn’t reach that status because they weren’t called on. One may count on own fingers the people who had the dignity and courage to refuse the admission offer or – even more – to give back their membership card (which meant the renunciation to this quality), as a sign of protest.

Subsequently (and too late) did I edify that the common members of the RCP should have stepped aside. Those accustomed to talk a dime a dozen, grounded on the lack of convictions apart from their own ascent, came out in front again, without the slightest embarrassment. (It’s just how a female friend of mine once said: “Ceausescu has only put the pot of cream in front of them; he didn’t also grab them by the scruff of the neck to force their muzzle into that pot”.) The phenomenon is admirably depicted by Ileana Vulpescu in “Arta compromisului” (“The art of compromise”), as is the passivity of those around toward such manifestations. This lack of reaction, added to the reserve of sensible intellectuals, did nothing but draw water to the impostors’ mill. This was the entrance into a vicious circle, which we still witness and which represents one of the weighty causes of the (mainly moral) disaster out of which nobody knows when (and if) we’ll emerge.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

(…)I learned about the massacre at the Otopeni airport. That very moment already, I realized that something was not all right: how could one send military school pupils when an objective of such importance is in dispute? Subsequently, even with my weak knowledge in the military domain, I came to the conviction that it was another tragedy conducted by Iliescu. I hope that the victims’ parents didn’t give up the trial, which must add to others bond to the so-called revolution, as well as to the ones concerning the actions of miners in June 1990. It’s possible, considering how justice works by us, that the man who inspired these bloody episodes will not be condemned until I finish this work. It wouldn’t make a difference to me; one more testimony against Iliescu doesn’t count too much, because his guilt is more than evident. Considering what was in Otopeni, the situation is the same for Victor Atanasie Stanculescu, whom I consider associate to the collective assassinate.

I didn’t mention him by now, as I considered he is not relevant for the narration – besides the fact that the happening with his leg in gypsum is extremely well-known in Romania. (He pretended to have a broken leg in order not to accept his appointment as minister of defense – Ceausescu’s last decision.) It didn’t matter who was the minister of the army those hours (that’s why I don’t know any more whether Nicolae Militaru had already been appointed), since all of the operations should have been commanded by Stefan Guse – the chief of the General Headquarters, maintained in this function after Ceausescu’s run. As far as I remember, he had no knowledge about the orders concerning the massacre of the airport – orders which were given in such a manner that the youngsters would shoot one another. Those in the shadow knew when to provoke everything; the dim light of dawn added to the scarce training of the soldiers. (I don’t wish to talk about the weak instruction of the officers, due to the predominance of politics in this domain, too; that would exceed the subject.)

I must admit not to have given so much attention to this mass crime at that time, since something that shocked me profoundly appeared. It’s an extremely important sequence in the run of the December events; the constantly mentioned Ion Iliescu had serious reasons to want us to forget it – and he succeeded with this, until recently. In essence, after an alarm for an air attack coming from above the Black Sea, George Marinescu has announced that the new leadership has appealed to the embassy of the Soviet Union, and the latter have promised immediate military aid.

I think I wasn’t keeping in mind any more that, the preceding evening, Iliescu had told that he had informed the Russians about the composition and orientation of the NSF. I had given attention to this action only to the extent that I felt vexed: what had the great power of the East to do with the fact that – finally – we had freed ourselves from tyranny? Did we, by any means, have to ask their permission? (I edified later.) Therefore, when I heard about the Soviet intervention, seemingly a huge hammer struck my head; if the price for getting rid of Ceausescu had been the foreign invasion, I preferred not to pay it. Thus, the future heralded itself completely somber. With these sentiments, I gave up the idea to offer myself as a volunteer – in my profession (medicine) especially; I didn’t want to go into the service of nation and country traitors. Disgusted of all, I went to bed and wasn’t aware of anything for some two hours.

I wouldn’t anyway have learned on the spot that General Guse – who, too, was announced by the television about this appeal (made behind his back, exactly like the assault against Otopeni airport) – had warned that he would shoot to everything moving within the terrestrial or aerial space of Romania[5]. (There were also rumors about “aid” troops that had just entered Moldavia.) This was too much for the men of KGB climbed on the shoulders and corpses of the wonderful youngsters. They could do nothing to him for the moment, but – as maybe it’s still known in Romania – he died of a bone cancer with galloping evolution.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My contentment in relation to the new state of things was affected only temporarily by the appeal to the Soviets, but couldn’t be complete until I knew Ceausescu was under control. (Perhaps I should have thought that all of the new important people have spoken too freely and have launched the proclamation too self-confident to fear about restoration; however – I repeat – trustfulness has always characterized me.) The great and salutary news came by 6 p.m., together with the assurance that exclusively the troops faithful to the Romanian people possess heavy armament. Only then was I convinced that tyranny is definitively buried. (I wanted to use the term “regime”, but this survives through its representatives. I hope that at least the entrance into the European Union will bring the definitive disappearance of communism – more or less manifest – in this so mocked country.)

By postponing one day the announcement of the arrest, with a purpose that I have already highlighted, Ion Iliescu becomes guilty also of psychic aggression upon his own (theoretically) people, but especially of serial murders. By maintaining the myth of terrorists, he made possible the tragedies at the Military Academy and Otopeni, as well as the sullying of people who served their country with honor. (I remember the great handball player Dan Marin, awfully beaten because he seemed to be a terrorist in the eyes of a low breed man.) Even admitting that the accusations above emerge from my own interpretations (being subjective therefore), the well-known figure argument is unassailable: after Ceausescu’s run there have been 10 times more victims than from December 16 to that event.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The evening of that Christmas, I was at my door-to-door neighbors when the trial and the condemnation of the two Ceausescu were announced – together with the promise that the cassette would be broadcasted the same night. It’s normal that I kept vigil; I was deadly curious how one of my most beautiful (and most absurd, at the date of its birth) dreams was going to fulfill. (It was, in fact, the only somehow materialized – in all my existence.) As probably my compatriots still know, I waited in vain. It’s easy to understand what I felt at this first mockery of Iliescu’s regime. (…)

The sole effect of this sleepless night was that I missed the moment when Iliescu and Brucan acted resolutely. Doina Cornea was reduced to silence, and a young man’s appeal to continue the revolution hadn’t – evidently – had any adherence. He hoped that the demonstrators of the preceding week would gather in the subway station of the University Square, to remove the neo-communists, but these already held control. I don’t even know whether anyone came to that meeting.

In some way it was good that I haven’t seen then the trial expected with so much enthusiasm; I would have been even more disappointed. Out of this reason – together with the fact that it was debated and resumed excessively until recently (and will still be) – I shall refer to that masquerade only for pointing out the aspects that I considered worthy of that.

On the first place stays, for sure, the way it ran – hence the term “simulacrum”, used (justly) by almost everybody. It was not ridiculous (though this is what Romanians notice easier), but filthy, that the defense lawyer was the most vehement accuser. It was not clear to me then that the new leaders wanted to get rid of the old one as quickly as possible; I thought that paranoia made the latter speak about “foreign agincies”. (It’s again an intentional spelling error, as it’s easy to guess.) Later, when I learned about the suicide of the chairman of that court, I started to have puzzles. It wasn’t long until everything corroborated: they eliminated the bothering persons, one way or another – including General Guse, whose attitude I reviewed.

All these actions (I refer also to those that made so many innocent victims) denote – maybe I repeat that – the “school” of KGB, with the lack of any scruple or human sentiment in attaining the goals. There was much chatter on the fact that such a source would also have determined the rapid and uninhibited killing of the couple that had terrorized us: it was stressed that a profoundly Christian people, like ours, wouldn’t dare do this at Christmas. It’s one of the circumstances when I have a distinct point of view, which I desire to highlight. Besides the fact that everyday life gives me serious grounds to doubt that the majority of the people here are deeply touched by Jesus’ teachings, to kill on a great religious holiday constitutes a sin if the victim is a fellow man; however, the two Ceausescu were wild beasts.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

What I consider important is to evidence the aspects symptomatic for the treason of the ideals of those who intended to make a revolution; thus was produced our stagnancy on the way to civilization. It’s very sad that we’ll still endure the consequences of that deviation of the authentic capitalism toward something farcical, reflecting Stalinist vision upon consumer society and democratic organization within it. One can see clearly that even now (2005) we stumble at the door of the European Union, although the external support (and interest) is incomparable to that at the end of the nineties. This shortcoming is also linked to the fact that some bad habits from the first months of post (?)-communism perpetuate. It can’t be otherwise, since even today we haven’t the politicians we would have wished. A basic characteristic of theirs should have been the absence of any connection with the apparatus of the totalitarian regime.

At the end of 1989, I had for a short time the illusion that this desire accomplished, hearing of the new prime minister. The name Petre (Peter) Roman told me nothing, and I considered him agreeable at the beginning, young as he was. (If I’m correct, he was born in 1946; hence, at that time he was 2 years younger than I’ll be this autumn[6].) My good sentiments toward him amplified when I noticed how many foreign languages he knew. (I have doubts regarding Italian, but – although I am reserved toward his ambition to show that he can speak that language, ambition grounded on an overstated self-pride – I liked how he has hit it, based on French and Spanish.) It’s for sure that he attracted especially the women of my family (like those all over the country, as a matter of fact), who – except for my wife (luckily!) – saw him as very gifted, too. Without wanting to open way for speculations upon my envy for his renown and attraction, I feel the urge to affirm that this impression of utterly special intelligence was given mainly by the skill in expressing himself. I am far from the intention to deny his intellectual capacity – above the average, indisputably. Nevertheless (and also as an anecdotal detail), I must point out that he was not strong at all in geography; picky as I am, I didn’t spare him for expressions like “the Far Extreme” or “the former Eastern Germany”.

It’s easy to understand what a blow I got when I learned that the young head of the government doesn’t come quite out of nothingness. I consider stupid to depict here, too, the biography of Walter Roman, even if he is one of the individuals whose facts can’t be omitted, even after death. I prefer to bring a detail, bound also to his son: in 1990 I noticed that a manual of so-called “scientific socialism” was written by Walter Roman and Petre Roman. (A name coincidence, in the case of the latter, was ruled out; it was specified that he was an assistant lecturer at the Engineering School.) I had to mention this, for it was an aspect kept dark (naturally) by “Pedro” – as I began to call him following the parade of Spanish he was concerned to do. Therefore, the bugbear concerning an engineer activity of such a nature that made him receive a scholarship in Toulouse didn’t work with me, as also was not going to work the one about his spontaneous participation in the revolution. A colleague of mine, who had been in Bucharest those days, knew from a trusted source that Roman constantly told his students something like that: “Let me pass ahead, as I must be seen!” Maybe his words were not quite those, but the essence remains.

The descendants should not be judged by the deeds of their parents and it’s not right for the former to pay for those deeds. I applied this principle also to the personage I speak about. Yet, there were enough moments when one could see the environment he came from. Moreover, his activity during the period I evoke (as well as thereafter) contradicts his claims to have fought with all his force for a modern society. I set aside the stirring of the masses against the historical parties; I focus upon the economic field, where he often pretended to be a courageous promoter of capitalism, impeded by Iliescu and his miners to carry out his program. Only this is to comment: one of his first measures, presented in loud voice as a big step to privatization, was the establishment of enterprises with 20 employees at most. The newspapers have shown immediately that in the former German Democratic Republic, within a typical communist economy, there were private units with up to 100 people. I add that Petre Roman also created the big gas and electricity monopolies, and I think comments are not necessary. As an overall image (having also the value of a conclusion), I markedly remember that the previous regime had left a surplus of 4 billion dollars, and at the end of his government we had external debts again. Therefore, it seems comprehensible to me that he contradicted with vehemence (but with no substance) Tom Gallagher, the author of that just analysis of the Romanian society – starting with the title (“The stealth of a nation”)[7].

I have some more to retain from the end of 1989. One of the remembrances is linked to an afternoon of guard in the gynecology clinic where I completed my studies. Although a week had passed since the announcement of Ceausescu’s arrest, the dark comedy about terrorists hadn’t ended yet. Even now, I don’t realize what the sense of my presence in that place was; of course, no weapon had been given to me. Naturally, I killed almost all of my time on the TV. In one of the broadcasts, the well-known caricaturist Mihai Stanescu was asked like this: “What will you do now, as there’ll be nothing left to criticize?” He smiled rather enigmatically, and I didn’t understand why; like many others, I was convinced about the truth in that question. Soon, however, I realized (unfortunately) that he knew a thing or two.

I’d also point out the New Year’s Eve night, spent – after a considerable period – together with a group of close fellows, fact which has harmoniously fit into that nice period. I liked that Iliescu and Roman had the decency to appear at 9 p.m., unlike Ceausescu (just before midnight). However, my good mood was quickly left behind: on that occasion, I learned, from the colleague that had told me about Petre Roman, how organized had everything been in Bucharest on December 22.

—————————————

1] Maybe he had reasons.

2] If we went to essence, this word denotes a most noble relationship, but was it altered by the communists.

3] I directly conveyed them my disagreement, in a letter.

4] The phrase “restitutio ad integrum” is more acknowledged, but for them is fit the formula from the text (taken over from the mass media). Unfortunately (I say so because the generations after the war are disregarded), it seems that their claims start to be honored, the path opener being King Mihai (Michael). It’s outrageous that he accepts to receive 30 million eu­ros, when the people subsists as we know.

5] General Guse remains a controversial personage. Some call him criminal, starting from the fact that he was the man sent by Ceausescu to repress the revolt in Timisoara. Let’s not forget, however, that Guse also ceased fire, allowing the worker columns to demonstrate, on December 19, 1989. I don’t think that, next day, Viorel Oancea would have let the first free meeting run, if he hadn’t had the general’s permission. (Viorel Oancea, a major at that time, was in command of the troops that surrounded the Opera Square. He became later mayor of Timisoara.)

6] I didn’t modify what I wrote in 2005.

7] I sense that I will refer to this book again; I intend to do that in a separate article. However, I already ought to emphasize its essential message – according to me, at least: until those holding the power will not want to understand what a true democratic society means, we won’t be able to integrate within modern Europe, even if we’ll be admitted into the European Union – formally and in case they are interested to do that. (In the meantime, the work I spoke about was presented to the Romanians throughout the world, on the Internet.)

Poate că nu m-aş fi apucat de aceste rânduri dacă personajul la care mă voi referi ar fi dispărut din atenţia publică – ceea ce era puţin faţă de ce ar fi meritat. Iată, însă, că recent s-a vorbit că ar fi fost implicat, împreună cu Mircea Geoană (se va vedea de ce pomenesc şi acest nume) în plecarea din funcţie a profesorului Adrian Streinu-Cercel – adevărată personalitate a lumii medicale. Verificările ce le-am făcut nu arată clar – trebuie să recunosc – că un asemenea zvon s-ar confirma (de altfel, renumitul doctor infecţionist a revenit asupra demisiei), dar gândul continuă să mă ducă la zicala cu focul şi cu fumul. E firesc, ţinînd cont de cât rău a făcut Ion Bazac medicilor. (Nu pot să zic „colegilor de breaslă“; l-aş măguli semnificativ.)

Când a devenit ministru al sănătăţii, m-am amuzat, împreună cu cunoscuţii, de mica deosebire dintre numele noastre de familie. (Evident că toată lumea şi-a dat seama că nu m-am ajuns eu, măcar din motivul că n-aş fi putut să ader la partidul lui Iliescu.) La prenume – atenţi la nuanţele limbii române – putem vorbi de diferenţă, dar tot de o literă; aceasta nu contează în fond, apărând la mine datorită faptului că în Ardeal s-a preluat exact numele Botezătorului. Unde mai pui că îl găseam uneori cu apelativul Ionuţ (cum sunt eu, pentru apropiaţi) şi că pe soţia lui o cheamă Camelia – ca pe a mea?

Amuzamentul a lăsat repede loc indignării, aceasta determinând atâta teamă de a nu fi confundat încât o vreme mi-am scris numele cu majuscule în ce trimiteam pe Internet. Gestul a fost, poate, exagerat, dar am recurs la el sub imperiul furiei pe care întotdeauna mi-o provoacă samavolnicia. În momentul când am aflat că i-a desfăcut contractul de muncă unui medic de gardă care avusese un deces în condiţii dubioase, fără să aştepte măcar schiţa unei anchete a specialiştilor, mi-a venit în minte că ultima dată am făcut intenţionat rău (o piedică la fotbal, pusă unuia care îmi iritase toată echipa) pe la 9 ani – deci acum vreo 40. (Ca să previn comentariile cum că e aproape unanim întâlnită tendinţa de a-ţi acoperi neajunsurile, nu mai menţionez normele de conduită ce mi le-am impus – şi m-am străduit să le respect – încă din tinereţe.)

Astfel, mi se pare firesc să aştept şi din partea altora o atyitudine decentă – ceea ce, desigur, e la limita iluzoriului în România. Chiar şi aşa, nu ar fi trebuit tolerat un act absolut ilegal – din perspectivă generală (la cea medicală am să revin); excluderea din serviciu fără etape preliminare este o încălcare a Codului muncii. În atari condiţii, nu este de acceptat explicaţia pe care unii au găsit-o; că ministrul a vrut să-şi construiască o imagine de om dur, dar drept, ştiind că aceasta prinde – cum vedem şi din felurite statistici – la marea masă.

Cu atât mai tare m-a şocat măsura cu cât cunosc din proprie experienţă ce implică gărzile în urgenţă; reprezintă parte a specialităţii mele. Aşa am ajuns să caut date despre pregătirea lui Bazac. Voiam, în primul rând, să văd dacă are autoritatea morală măcar să se pronunţe în privinţa activităţii celor care se străduiesc să salveze vieţi la orice oră (şi cu dotările cunoscute). Aş putea spune că era de aşteptat ce am găsit: specializare în medicină socială. Aceasta implică absenţa până şi a relaţiei cu bolnavul; ce să mai vorbim, deci, de stări grave?

Cred că nu trebuie să punctez că atunci am remarcat deosebirea puternică – şi deloc amuzantă – dintre noi; e mai potrivit să accentuez că nici măcar în acel domeniu nu a prea activat, de vreme ce era cunoscut, practic, doar ca dealer de Ferrari. Am aflat, însă, repede, cum de a ajuns ministrul sănătăţii – după ce fusese secretar de stat: e (pot să pun la prezent, cred) omul lui Geoană şi al lui Ovidiu Brânzan. (Despre acesta din urmă se ştie încă – bănuiesc – că a fost şi el ministru al sănătăţii, printre altele; mai puţin cunoscut este, probabil, că unul dintre motivele pentru care nu a mai practicat medicina îl reprezintă ratarea ca anestezist-reanimator.)

Voi trece cât pot de repede peste faptul că tot Ion Bazac a redus drastic veniturile medicilor de familie (motivând, bineînţeles, cu criza), pentru că asta se încadrează în bătaia de joc a guvernanţilor faţă de domeniul în care mă aflu şi eu. Intenţionat nu am precizat că ar fi vorba de cei care au condus în ultimii 20 de ani. Nici nu ar fi oportun; veniturile mici ale celor din sănătate au fost stabilite încă sub Gheorghiu-Dej (după cum am citit), cu argumentaţia: „Lăsaţi, tovarăşi, că ştim noi: mai o găină, mai un Kent…“. După cum poate oricine observa, această abordare nu a fost înlocuită de una adecvată pentru o societate democratică: salariul – pentru toate sectoarele bugetate – reprezintă o măsură a consideraţiei acordate de stat. Astfel avem – după mine – (încă) un semn clar că nici vorbă să fi avut loc o revoluţie. Atitudinea tipic comunistă se converteşte, însă, şi mai clar în aspecte conexe (dar nu repercutate exclusiv asupra personalului sanitar – evident): diversiunile ce urmăresc asmuţirea celorlalţi când un grup îşi revendică drepturile.

Cele de mai sus au tentă de divagaţie, dar imediat se poate reînnoda legătura cu ţinta preocupărilor mele în aceste momente: a introdus, în ministerul pe care îl conducea, o linie telefonică permanentă pentru populaţie. Scopul era evident – dovadă stând şi negarea lui categorică.

Au mai fost iniţiative pe acelaşi calapod, dintre care – pentru mine – s-a detaşat intenţia de a trimite comisii care să urmărească dacă în unităţile sanitare se primeşte mai mult decât salariul. (Vreau să fiu explicit – şi, în acelaşi timp, lipsit de ipocrizie: mă pronunţ cu fermitate împotriva condiţionării, dar acceptarea recunoştinţei din partea pacienţilor nu este incriminată în lumea civilizată.) Bine că n-am apucat să vedem materializarea acelei idei, însă şi mai bine este că n-a avut timp să pună în aplicare alta, care se carcterizează de la sine: verificarea prin poliţişti a prezenţei la domiciliu pentru pacienţii care figurează în concediu medical.

Aşa ceva n-am auzit nici pe vremea lui Ceauşescu – şi îmi începusem cariera de medic. Poate perioada stalinistă să fi cunoscut asemenea măsuri – mi-am zis, gândindu-mă la descinderea în miez de noapte la Slatina (cea soldată cu desfacerea contractului de muncă). Aşteptam ca măcar de această dată să reacţioneze vehement corpul medical, dar am fost şi mai dezamăgit decât în cazul menţionat din nou puţin mai sus – în care a existat, totuşi, o luare de poziţie (chiar dacă palidă) din partea Colegiului Naţional al Medicilor.

Având toate acestea în memorie, se deduce ce am simţit când au plecat miniştrii P.D.S.R. (e clar că nu pot să le zic social-democraţi). S-ar putea zice că am avut o reacţie nepotrivită la diminuarea capacităţii de guvernare, dar cine este realist trebuie să admită că nu a fost un dezastru că Videanu a preluat şi sănătatea; oricum, mai rău nu putea merge.

Acum, cu 6 zile înainte de primul tur al alegerilor prezidenţiale, mă gândesc că ar fi culmea să câştige Geoană, deci să se întoarcă Bazac. Eventualitatea este extrem de puţin probabilă (şi fac tot ce depinde de mine ca să o contracarez); totuşi, dacă s-ar valida, prin cele scrise aici îmi asum riscuri peste cele la care se poate aştepta orice medic. Cu toate acestea, nu se poate să înghiţim la infinit abuzuri grosolane fără o cât de mică reacţie.

M-am apucat să scriu şi din motivul că am asistat – sau chiar am fost părtaş – la dispute dure cu compatrioţi de aici sau de la distanţă în legătură cu preşedintele în exerciţiu, blamat de marea majoritate, la fel ca în presa vorbită sau scrisă.

Nu m-aş fi implicat în dispută dacă împrejurările m-ar fi ajutat să îmi fac meseria de anestezist în ţări care o preţuiesc; mi s-a vădit, însă, că nu am cum să plec de aici. Aşa se face că mi-am zis că mă voi opune prin toate mijloacele ca Ion Iliescu să-mi distrugă viaţa complet; destul este cât de profund mi-a afectat-o deja – aspect la care trebuie să revin. Deocamdată voi afirma răspicat că îl consider marele vinovat pentru aşa-zisa criză politică din această lună. La cât este de malefic, numai evenimente de asemenea natură poate declanşa, după cum s-a tot demonstrat. Am, însă, satisfacţia amară că i-a jucat o festă vârsta (care ar fi trebuit să îl ţină acasă, mulţumit că nu e în închisoare – cum ar merita): n-aş fi bănuit implicarea lui dacă nu se manifesta pe ecran atât de vehement (şi de des – aş spune, de vreme ce l-am văzut eu, care nu urmăresc ştirile şi emisiunile pe teme politice).

Aceste imagini cu Iliescu au răscolit în mine resentimentele din ultimii 20 de ani. Capacitatea de a-ţi reaminti aduce dezavantaje – s-ar putea zice; eu, însă, sunt de părere că numai cei care stau foarte prost cu memoria (intenţionat sau nu) ar putea uita cât rău a făcut după răsturnarea lui Ceauşescu şi la mineriade – dintre care e îndeobşte reţinută (cu mult temei) cea din 13 – 15 iunie 1990. Cu toate acestea, crima majoră a lui Ion Iliescu este – după mine – că a edificat aici o caricatură hidoasă de capitalism şi democraţie, ajutat fiind de profitorii regimului comunist, cărora le-a asigurat menţinerea în poziţii privilegiate. (Chiar şi Traian Băsescu e, indiscutabil, dintre aceştia – cum foarte bine ştim.) Astfel a deturnat (ireversibil, pare-se) drumul sperat la sfârşitul lui 1989 de către cei cu inima şi mintea deschise, afectând profund existenţa acelora dintre ei care au refuzat să se transforme.

Cu acestea spuse, devine clar (şi, cred, justificat) că am ajuns să îl susţin pe cel împotriva căruia s-a ridicat bătrînul bolşevic de cea mai joasă speţă, cu toate că părerea mea despre respectivul e departe de a fi măgulitoare – ba chiar am ajuns să reacţionez prin scris la episodul cu ginerele lui Ion Dincă. De asemenea, din momentul în care mi-a apărut Iliescu în faţă, nu a mai fost relevantă activitatea guvernului Boc. Mai mult a contat cine s-a asociat în a-l răsturna – dacă nu cumva a fost chiar coordonatorul acţiunii: Dan Voiculescu.

Am motiv să cred asta: Băsescu mi-a reamintit că acelaşi fost mare securist, devenit „onest“ şi foarte prosper om de afaceri cu banii ţării, a stat la originea suspendării de acum 2 ani. (Iau drept bun ce spune preşedintele vizat atunci şi în prezent, pentru că am avut confirmarea unei afirmaţii a lui, şi anume că Emil Constantinescu a eşuat în funcţia supremă şi din cauză că a avut încredere în maleficul său predecesor. Nu am putut să concep că omul pe care l-am ales cu atâta entuziasm în 1996, sperând să o rupem de tot cu comunismul, a recurs voluntar la un asemenea sfătuitor, până nu l-am văzut târât chiar de Iliescu la o emisiune televizată – şi n-a fost prima dată când loveau împreună în succesorul lor.) Revenind la Voiculescu, mi se pare important, pentru claritate, să punctez ferm că este „doar“ tâlhar, nu şi criminal – din ce ştiu eu, cel puţin. Din aceeaşi categorie, mai mic ca anvergură şi ca rol în această poveste murdară (ce altceva se poate spune despre felul cum s-a pus la cale doborârea unui prim-ministru şi înlocuirea lui?), face parte Sorin Ovidiu Vântu. Se află în urma lui Voiculescu şi ca virulenţă a atacurilor împotriva actualului preşedinte, la postul de televiziune patronat. Nu am înţeles de ce Realitatea s-a luat după Antena 3 în a împroşca venin, până tot Traian Băsescu mi-a arătat că Geoană îi este vasal şi lui Vântu, nu numai lui Iliescu.

Teoretic (dar şi practic, într-o democraţie solidă), guvernul şi preşedintele îşi desfăşoară activitatea – cu toate laturile ei – fără o strânsă interdepedenţă. Evident, la noi situaţia e radical diferită – nu doar din cauza a ce a creat Iliescu, ci şi prin natura noastră ca popor. Cred că e de prisos să intru în amănunte; în loc de asta, voi puncta că am făcut această consideraţie pentru ca să fie pe deplin înţeles că e dificilă o sistematizare a celor pe care vreau să le expun. Cu toate acestea, încerc să ating tot ce mi-am propus.

Astfel, pentru un om cu principii e şocantă şi compoziţia majorităţii generate la „Grivco“, nu doar circumstanţele pe care le-am pomenit. E în afara firescului o alianţă între liberali şi social-democraţi chiar în ţările unde partidele îşi respectă doctrinele, însă pe Dâmboviţa există precedente: cu mult înainte de participarea grupării lui Tăriceanu la tentativa de eliminare a preşedintelui, Radu Câmpeanu s-a repezit să se asocieze la guvernarea F.S.N., după mai 1990. Atunci era dorinţa de a apuca din ciolan, dar acum substratul e mult mai îngrijorător. Îl voi aborda în partea cuprinzând candidaţii la preşedinţie.

Cu aceste premise, acord mai puţină importanţă celui pe care au decis să-l susţină; e clar pentru toţi cei (încă) lucizi că respectivul e destinat a fi o marionetă – şi, prin asta, un paravan pentru jafurile indisolubil legate de guvernarea lui Iliescu. (S-ar putea spune că sunt opinii partizane, deci subiective, dar reproduc ce afirmă un om căruia nu i se poate imputa aşa ceva, mai ales că e englez: Tom Gallagher. În „Furtul unei naţiuni“ scria: „Dacă România ar fi comparată cu un magazin de bijuterii, s-ar putea spune că, timp de doisprezece ani, Iliescu a fost un client fidel care a distras atenţia personalului de vânzări, în timp ce complicii lui au fugit în mod repetat cu cele mai valoroase bijuterii.“.)

Poate că Johannis – cu suficienţa care i se citeşte pe faţă – nu-şi pune problema că ar fi om de paie. (Deocamdată nu am motive să mă îndoiesc de onestitatea lui, deci nu cred că face parte din maşinaţie; naivitatea – chiar dacă nu e uşor tolerabilă la această vârstă, după o bogată viaţă intelectuală şi socială – merită, evident, mai puţină severitate decât ticăloşia patentă.) Mă mir, totuşi, că – având solida pregătire pe care am menţionat-o (ştiu din surse sigure că a fost un apreciat profesor de fizică), nu pune la socoteală faptul că ar fi în situaţia să administreze o populaţie de 100 de ori mai mare decât a Sibiului – şi trebuie să ţinem cont că mentalitatea (şi, implicit, nivelul de civilizaţie) nu e la fel (ca s-o spunem blând) pe teritoriul României. În plus, chiar primul-ministru căruia i se caută înlocuitor s-a dovedit lamentabil (sunt şi eu de acord) în această funcţie, după ce a fost bun ca primar – ceea ce, noi, clujenii, putem atesta.

Cine ştie cât timp vom vorbi la prezent despre Emil Boc ca premier, dar bine a făcut cel care l-a promovat (şi l-a ţinut în obedienţă – fapt pe care nu-l pot nega) că nu a cedat presiunii grupului de la „Grivco“, chiar dacă e şi el conştient că nu-şi va impune candidatul, din cauză că Iliescu e dispus să sacrifice ţara şi poporul – cum a făcut-o de atâtea ori – ca să-şi îndeplinească planurile. Fostul căpitan de vas e, însă, obişnuit să reziste urgiilor, ba chiar să le ia în piept. Aşa interpretez eu iniţiativa cu referendumul pentru parlament unicameral şi redus numeric (semn şi al dorinţei de revanşă), venită după anunţarea unei noi candidaturi la preşedinţie.

Această intrare în lupta electorală am avut-o în vedere când am pus titlul. Cu durere constat că, dacă dorim să avem un viitor cât de că acceptabil, nu există variantă la Băsescu. (Mă gândesc cu groază, fiind în România, că s-ar putea să se fi înţeles – pe seama celor de rând, desigur – cu cei pe care aparent îi contracarează.) Excluzând acest scenariu (până nu vom fi puşi în tragica situaţie de a-i suporta consecinţele), e de spus că, totuşi, el nu reprezintă o alternativă în sensul cel mai deplin; cred că nu e nevoie de lămuriri, pentru cine ştie cu adevărat limba română.

De ce, cu toate declaraţiile necugetate şi patimile stânjenitoare (reliefate din plin de presă), mă raliez la numerosul – din câte ştiu – grup al doresc ca actualul preşedinte să mai aibă un mandat? Răspunsul se află în analiza posibililor contracandidaţi din turul II. (Apropo de manipulări: sondajele difuzate de Realitatea TV îl dau pe Băsescu învins până la urmă, în timp ce la un post maghiar am văzut exact invers. Important mi se pare că şi un canal care – la comanda patronului – manifestă adversitate feroce faţă de cel care tinde să redevină preşedinte trebuie să admită că va participa la disputa în doi.)

De Mircea Geoană am amintit în treacăt; mai am de spus că, în toate apariţiile sale, nu face decât să confirme faimoasa etichetare ca prostănac – pe care nu un adversar politic i-a dat-o. Te şi umflă râsul când auzi că nu vrea vot negativ, ci unul generat de puterea sa de convingere.

Figura lui Crin Antonescu inspiră de la început reticenţă, deci nu e de mirare că am crezut imediat că s-a oferit să devină turnător la Securitate ca să scape de la ţară. În acelaşi mediu eram şi eu (expediat din Cluj, nu din Tulcea), dar nu mi-a trecut prin cap să mă demonetizez în aşa hal. Dincolo de aprecierile de ordin moral, contează că acest gest din trecut îi generează acţiuile din prezent. Nu e absurd să presupun că înscrierea în cursa electorală i-a fost impusă de securistul căruia îi dădea raportul (cam cum a fost cu Lia Roberts), acelaşi mecanism stând la baza ascensiunii în fruntea partidului. Cert este că a trecut în subordinea clicii lui Iliescu la fel de deplin ca Tăriceanu – ginere de general de Securitate – când s-a dorit înlăturarea lui Traian Băsescu.

Spuneam mai sus că sunt mulţi care doresc ca preşedintele să rămână unde este. Am constatat personal asta, auzind discuţii în troleibuz – mediu grăitor, zic eu. Foarte probabil că acei oameni nu fac analize precum cea de aici, dar (simt şi) ştiu una şi bună: mai degrabă Băsescu decât Geoană sau Antonescu. Fenomenul este întâlnit şi în alte părţi ale ţării (după câte aflu pe Internet) – ceea ce mă duce cu gândul la spusa lui Lincoln cum că nu poţi să înşeli un popor întreg la infinit.

Rămâne de văzut ce ne va aduce seara de Sf. Nicolae. Este de mult clar ce doresc să se întâmple, dar nu e propriu-zis o speranţă; aşa ceva s-ar lega de adevăraţi lideri. Voi continua să-i aştept câte zile îmi va da Dumnezeu, chiar numai pentru binele nepoţilor.

Nu pot să spun că am fost crescut în spirit religios, cu toate că mi s-au transmis în familie ele­men­te de învăţătură şi cult creştin. La şcoală, aşa-zisa educaţie era de esenţă contrară – precum la ge­neraţiile ce au urmat învăţământul în perioada comunistă. Poate chiar asta mi-a stimulat curiozita­tea de a cunoaşte mai multe despre viaţa, faptele şi ideile lui Iisus şi ale apostolilor Săi. Le-am abor­dat din perspectivă istorică – deci cu mintea, nu cu sufletul. Totodată însă, pe măsură ce treceau a­nii, îmi dădeam seama că trebuie să existe o entitate supremă, care să fi creat universul şi să-i fi sta­bi­lit legile. De la început mi s-a părut şubredă afirmaţia lui Engels cum că materia e infinită în timp şi spa­ţiu; chiar şi ştiinţa (fizica, în speţă), prin progresele recente, o contrazice.

Toate religiile (în primul rând cele larg răspândite, cu care se impune să fac conexiuni) au, însă, ca punct nodal existenţa unui Creator, care – în general – este şi divinitatea supremă. Bineînţeles că de aici până la a fi creştin e o cale lungă, şi se ştie unde trebuie să ajungi: să fii pătruns de miracolul Învierii – prin care Iisus Hristos demonstrează incontestabil şi pe veci că este El Însuşi Dumnezeu şi individualizează ca religie ansamblul învăţăturilor propovăduite. Astfel, totul poate fi sintetizat în ce­lebra zicală „Crede şi nu cerceta“.

Recunosc că – dată fiind formaţia mea de om al secolului XX, cu asaltul informaţional implicit – mi-e greu să mă conformez acestui principiu din Evul mediu, ceea ce nu mi se întâmplă cu cre­din­­ţa într-un Creator, după cum sper că am arătat clar. (Aceasta este diferenţa dintre a fi ateu şi a fi li­­ber-cugetător – termeni care adesea sunt luaţi ca sinonimi de către oameni ce se pretind cu ori­zont.) Totuşi, chiar din perspectiva unor domenii ce ţin de sfera materialului (is­torie, sociologie, etc.), creştinismului i se cuvine mai mult decât consideraţie, fie şi pentru că este cea mai răspândită re­ligie din lume. Timp de 2000 de ani a atras întruna adepţi, în ciuda obstacolelor de tot felul (la ca­re voi reveni), şi continuă pe acelaşi drum. Un astfel de fenomen nu ar fi putut avea loc dacă nu be­ne­fi­cia de temeiuri extrem de stabile şi impresionante.

Înainte de a prezenta unele pericole şi lovituri din interior la adresa religiei noastre (şi care, de fapt, m-au îmboldit să scriu aceste rânduri), îmi voi permite să vorbesc despre ascensiunea ei, a­lă­turi de re­laţia cu celelalte două mari religii din bazinul mediteranean, precum şi cu ipoteze deri­vând din stu­dii de analiză istoriografică. Toate acestea – după cum se poate şi remarca – afectează mai puţin creştinismul şi pe adepţii săi decât unele manifestări recente, pe care le consider aberante; voi încer­ca să îmi argumentez punctul de vedere trecându-le în revistă. Trebuie să adaug o pre­ci­za­re: nu am de gând să mă refer la clerici. Ar fi de discutat cu privire la colaborarea înalţilor prelaţi or­to­docşi cu regimul comunist, dar am făcut-o destul în alte părţi. Cât despre preoţii protestanţi care cu­nună homosexuali, nu ne afectează îndeaproape în prezent. Aşadar, mă opresc aici cu această te­mă, motivul primordial fiind că Mântuitorul Însuşi spunea că fiecare om poate să-şi facă biserica lui – chiar dintr-o piatră de pe câmp; totul este să se roage cu credinţă. În plus, nu vreau să cad în e­roa­rea învăţământului politico-ideologic de pe vremuri, care ataca Biserica în cadrul şedinţelor de ate­ism ştiinţific. (Aş pune ghilimele dacă n-aş fi convins că termenul e grăitor chiar pentru cei care nu au luat contact cu conţinutul lui.)

Din informaţiile mele, se admite unanim că schimbarea unei orânduiri cu alta se face prin revo­lu­ţie. Este evidentă, în ţările care au influenţat mersul istoriei, instaurarea pe această cale a capita­lis­mu­lui şi a socialismului (denu­mit actualmente co­munism – punctez şi aceasta, ca să elimin orice con­fuzie). Chiar trecerea de la comuna primitivă la orânduirea sclavagistă putem să o atribuim unei re­voluţii, în­să în tehnologie: perfecţionarea uneltelor şi armelor din fier. Logic, mi-am pus problema că trebu­ia să fi existat o revoluţie şi între sclavagism şi feudalism, dar nicăieri nu am găsit formulat explicit acest punct de vedere. Reflectând mai profund, mi-am dat seama că tocmai creştinismul a ju­cat acest rol revoluţionar, subminând Imperiul roman.

Mă simt dator să îmi argumentez părerea, şi înainte de orice voi sublinia că nicio altă religie nu are atâta importanţă în istoria omenirii. Desigur că, în conştiinţa comună, o transformare de tip revo­lu­ţionar presupune confruntări cu grad variabil de violenţă desfăşurate într-un interval scurt, în­să uneori trebuie să privim dincolo de aparenţe. Toată lumea îşi dă seama că, la apariţia creştinismu­lui şi cel puţin 200 de ani mai apoi, puterea – implicit ordinea ­– romană nu avea cum să fie răsturna­tă pe cale armată. În schimb, mesajul Mântuitorului – cu nenumăratele lui faţete, asupra cărora nu am pregătirea şi spaţiul să insist – a înlăturat teama oamenilor simpli faţă de opresori; de aici răs­pân­direa colosală. Slăbirea imperiului s-a concretizat şi pe plan militar – poate cel mai important, du­pă cum sugeram mai sus. Convertirile masive, de la soldat la general (Sfântul Gheorghe), în pa­ra­lel cu intensificarea atacurilor popoarelor migratoare (datorită şi acestor circumstanţe favorabile), au dus, în timp, la situaţia în care a devenit necesar gestul lui Constantin cel Mare de a statua religie creş­tină ca oficială. Pe de altă parte, consider fundamentată ideea că Biserica a fost prima or­ga­niza­re de tip feudal – idee găsită în cartea „Sfinţii – mit, legendă, adevăr“, apărută în comunism, dar ca­re aborda problemele cu considerabil mai multă decenţă decât întâlnim deseori astăzi; de a­ce­ea am ţi­­nut să îi menţionez titlul.

Există opinii că această religie ar fi una a sclavilor (deşi de la început a câştigat adepţi între membrii clasei sus-puse, iar pe împărăteasa Elena – mama celui tocmai pomenit – nu trebuie eu să o pun în evidenţă) sau că nu poate avea prestigiu o credinţă al cărei întemeietor a suferit cea mai de­gra­dantă moarte existentă la acea vreme. Faptele au demonstrat, însă, că tăria creştinismului stă chiar în aparenta sa slăbiciune, ceea ce mă face să îndrăznesc a afirma că îl urmează pe Cel care l-a fondat – şi care a ales să îşi sfârşească asfel existenţa pământească, să nu uităm. Această trăsătură e­senţială i-a permis să reziste şi ulterior agresiunilor de tot felul, păstrându-şi nelaterată fibra.

Încerc să trec în revistă câteva dintre cele pe plan ideatic, remarcate pe parcursul anilor. Nu mă a­plec asupra relaţiei dintre iudaism şi creştinism, pentru că o consider arhicunoscută; totodată, e un subiect prea vast şi cu prea multe aspecte dureroase pentru a fi cuprins aici. Vreau doar să punctez o opinie – despre care nu ştiu dacă e originală. Cred că o serie de dificultăţi din această relaţie au provenit din fap­tul că adepţii lui Iisus au fost consideraţi o sectă desprinsă din religia iudaică. E o simplă ipo­teză; de aceea nu mă hazardez să afirm că din acest gen de concepţie derivă opinii afectând dogma creştină, cu pretenţie la o bază raţional-ştiinţifică. Voi enumera – fără comentarii – pe cele mai izbi­toa­re (pentru mine, cel puţin): Iisus nici n-ar fi existat ca personaj istoric (şi – legat de aceasta – în­treaga doctrină creştină ar fi fost creată de Apostolul Pavel) sau – dacă a existat – S-ar fi născut dintr-un viol al unui legionar roman, iar sfârşitul Său nu ar fi venit prin răstignire, ci ar fi fost cobo­rât viu de pe cruce, ulterior plecând în sudul Franţei actuale împreună cu Maria Magdalena (deja so­ţia Lui) şi cu fiica lor.

Deşi e o abatere serioasă de la dogmă, personal nu văd nimic rău în ideea că Iisus ar fi fost că­să­torit. Şochează, însă (fiind mai mult decât blasfemie), o altă redare a relaţiei Lui cu Maria din Magdala – şi cu aceasta ajung la loviturile din interior (teoretic, cel puţin) asupra religiei împămân­te­nite aici chiar de către unul dintre discipolii lui Iisus: Sfântul Apostol Andrei. Iarăşi nu vor mai fi necesare comentarii după ce voi arăta că mă gândesc la acea piesă scrisă de Alina Mungiu-Pippidi care a stârnit – firesc – multe şi vii reacţii. Trec peste cele majoritare şi justificate (între care a fost a mea şi a întregii familii), dorind să le consemnez doar pe cele care mi-au stârnit impresii asemănă­toa­re cu lucrarea teatrală. Le voi lua în ordinea ascendentă a neplăcerii provocate: unii au luat în râs (cum prea des e la români) autoarea, în legătură cu anumite refulări, iar alţii au reproşat actorilor ca­re au refuzat să joace într-o asemenea porcărie (să-i spun pe nume) că nu sunt destul de deschişi la cap. În acel moment m-am gândit ce s-ar fi întâmplat dacă ar fi apărut ceva analog într-o ţară mu­sul­mană. Mulţi s-au ridicat împotriva lor când au reacţionat violent în legătură cu caricaturizarea lui Mahomed, dar o atare atitudine este – cred eu – mai bună decât îngăduinţa faţă de impietăţi de ge­nul celei aruncată în lume de către Alina Mungiu-Pipppidi.

S-ar putea obiecta că religia creştină este – prin esenţa ei – una a toleranţei. Şi islamismul este, însă. Desigur că e la îndemână contraexemplul actelor teroriste din prezent, dar cred că e înţelept să pri­vim în ansamblu. Ştim foarte bine că turcii au îngăduit în Ţările Române continuitatea religiei stră­moşeşti, ceea ce se încadrează într-o tendinţă generală a credinţei lor. Am aflat chiar de la un mu­sulman că, după ei, creştinii pot ajunge până în cerul al treilea al lui Mahomed, dintre cele nouă. Totodată, recunosc 5 mari profeţi – pe care îi voi enumera în ordine cronologică: Moise, Zara­thustra, Buddha, Iisus şi Mahomed. Nu mai trebuie să spun că asemenea concepţii nu se bucură de re­ciprocitate din partea creştinilor – şi nici să dau detalii.

Rămânând la raportul cu mahomedanismul, e clar că religia noastră n-ar fi atât de expusă dacă s-ar fundamenta pe o formulă de genul „Allah este Dumnezeu, şi Mahomed – profetul său“. (De alt­fel, existenţa acestui personaj istoric nu are cum să fie pusă la îndoială.) Ca şi cum contestarea lui Hristos nu ar fi suficientă, mai nou asistăm la discuţii – tot în interiorul creştinismului ­– chiar asupra na­turii Crea­torului. Mai auzisem eu de secte care vorbeau de Dumnezeu-Mama, dar erau minore, a­şa că le-am acordat atenţia corespunzătoare. Acum, însă, am aflat că o traducere a Bibliei are ten­din­ţa de a se adapta la atmosfera modernă de emancipare (greşit înţeleasă – fie-mi permisă remarca) a feme­ii. Se poate că această nuanţă a versiunii a fost imprimată de coordonatoare, însă mi se pare mai im­por­tant să nu se bucure de influenţă – mai ales că nu are bază, cel puţin din punctul meu de ve­dere. Nu am căderea să vin cu argumente teologice detaliate, însă pentru mine e destul că Iisus vor­beşte doar despre Tatăl – de unde şi rugăciunea noastră fundamentală, tot de către El dată ome­ni­rii.

Nu-mi este dat – fireşte – să ştiu ce va mai fi. Am, însă, credinţa fermă că religia întemeiată de Hristos îşi va urma existenţa fără mari tulburări. E clar că structura unora îi împiedică să accepte fă­ră rezerve cele cuprinse în Noul Testament – în frunte cu Învierea. Totuşi, baze raţionale are şi con­sta­tarea că religia creştină nu mai poate fi subminată serios, fie şi pentru că s-a impus şi se impune de aproape 2000 de ani. Cu atât mai mult se cere o atitudine cel puţin decentă – dacă nu pătrunsă de pi­oşenie – în faţa acestei componente cu totul remarcabile a existenţei umanităţii.