Inside the Mechanisms of Romanian Modernization: The Transformation of Public Sphere between Media and Political System

26 4.2. The developments of the political system It is now the moment to discuss the character of the political system throughout Romanian modern history. We can break the history of the political system up to 1944 in 6 periods: (1) Phanariot era (My note: started in 1711 for Wallachia and 1714 for Moldavia and ended in 1821), (2) Organic Statutes period (1829-1859) in which the first European influenced reforms were introduced, (3) the creation of modern state period (1859-1877), in Wallachia and Moldavia, united in 1859, and democratic reforms influenced by the ideals of 1848 Revolution began; the prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza, in fact the first “president” elected of Romania accomplished an agrarian reform in 1864; in 1866 is forced to step out and in his turn is brought a foreign prince, Carol, from the German family of Hohenzollern; under Carol reign Romania becomes independent in 1877; (4) the period of constitutional monarchy (1877-1919), characterized by corruption and fake democracy; the king used to alternate two parties on power and elections were staged; (5) the period of experimenting with democracy by introducing the universal suffrage (1919-1930); and finally (6) the dictatorship period (1930-1947), king Carol II dissolves Parliament; his dictatorship is replaced with General Antonescu’ dictatorship in the wake of the war, and with a Russian controlled government after the war, when constitutional monarchy as systems returns briefly in 1944 with the king Mihai I. But soon he is obliged to leave its duties, and the country is ruled “de facto” by the communist party and Russian commissars until 1948. Looking over the entire modern period, from the very creation of the state, until 1989, we will only see tendencies for a greater centralization. As Gallagher presents, this tendency is linked with the modern crisis of lack of legitimacy for both pre-war and post war, and even post-revolution governments. We argue here that the Romanian political system is more a result of 100 years of Phanariot rule than a successful implant of western institutions. Despite the fact that Romania owes its existence to France’s Napoleon III, who wanted to consolidate the French influence at the Black Sea, the modern state known under this name since 1866 could not import from the west, besides the institutions of government, the political culture necessary in the work of these institutions. “There is no doubt that the legacy of vertical dependence and exploitation inherited from foreign rule, particularly in the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, cast a long shadow over the independent Romanian state” (Gallagher, 2005:1) advances Gallagher on this topic. He blames on these low political standards the exploitative relations between the ruling elites and the large masses of people, presenting Romania