Revista Analele Banatului S.N. Arheologie-Istorie

Vasile Rămneanţu

Reflectarea în judeţul Timiş a hotărârii Plenarei Comitetului Central al Partidului Comunist Roman din aprilie 1968 privind reabilitarea unor activişti de partid / The Reflexion of the Plenary Sitting of the Central Committee of Romanian Communist Party from April 1968 Decisions in Timiș County Concerning the Rehabilitation of Some Party Activists

1 Ianuarie 2016

Abstract

In the present study we will analyze the way the decisions of the Plenary Sitting of the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party from April 1968 – regarding the rehabilitation of some activists like Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu and Ștefan Foriș – reflected among the members of the party organizations from Timiș County. The Plenary Sitting of the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party from the spring of 1968 (one of the outstanding political moments of that year) took place in a period of liberalization of the communist polity in Romania. The Plenary Sitting decided the political rehabilitation of Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu and Ștefan Foriș the main culprits of their killing being the former leader of the party, Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej (whose merits in the „construction of the socialism” were however recognized) and the former Minister of the Interior Alexandru Drăghici. There is a similar situation in the U.S.S.R., where Nikita Hrușciov considered Stalin and Beria responsible of the mighty Stalinist terror. Through these rehabilitations, the party leadership, Nicolae Ceaușescu himself, intended to create the image of a communist party which aimed to definitely enthrone the socialist legality, the development of the party and state democracy, the observance of the collective work principle, its development in all fields, the rehabilitation of the historical truth. At the same time it was stated that the new party government didn’t want to assume and to be the accomplice of the political crimes from the 50s of the 20th century. On the other hand, Nicolae Ceaușescu wanted through the rehabilitation of the former leaders of the party and the conviction of Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej and Alexandru Drăghici to consolidate his own political power. Thus, the new leader of the party came off the Dej epoch and removed from power one of his main political rivals: Alexandru Drăghici. Concomitantly, other eminent communists (possible competitors for Ceaușescu), with years of service, like Emil Bodnăraș, Gheorghe Apostol, Chivu Stoica, who belonged to the ruling factors of the party and who didn’t stand out against Pătrășcanu’s conviction, were warned. Nor security either was exonerated of critics on this occasion, the general secretary of the party diminishing its merits in defeating the anti-communist resistance movement from Romania (allegation assumed also by other collaborators of the communist leader). Certainly, the assertion of the leader – that “the punitive activity” was not decisive in defeating the anti-communist opposition – was not true, as only through terror the resistence towards the Bolshevik regim could be defeated. Untrue was also the charge brought to the Security according to which the murders and the abuses of the 1950’s were possible because the security forces backed out of the control of the party. But at that time at the head of the secutity were two eminent activists of the Romanian Communist Party: Teohari Georgescu and Alexandru Drăghici. The killing of Ștefan Foriș and of Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu was decided by the party leadership and not by Security. Even from the record of the Plenary Sitting, but also from the assertions of some speakers results the state of suspiciousness existing inside the party during Dej epoch and also the fact that those having different oppinions from the leader of the party were investigated by the security agents. Of course, through these accusations against Security they aimed to totally subordinate it to the party, in fact to its leadership. The fact that the rehabilitation of the two falsely convicted in the past was political and not juridical has to be kept in mind. On the other hand, there were brought into the open the murders perpetrated by the party and by the Security only towards some of the party members, the violent suppression of the Romanian political, cultural, economical elite being not a concern for the Roamnian Communist Party leadership in 1968. Thus, the Romanian communist leaders continued to approve the way their political opponents were eliminated. At the meeting of the Timiș County Party activists, the speakers appreciated that the murders “were done in the name of the party”, demanding also the penal conviction for the guilty ones. It has to be pointed out also the fact that the leaders of the Security Inspectorate, the Militia, the Magistracy, the County Court of Justice generally informed the participants at the meeting about the illegitimacies committed in Banat by their employees. Paul Niculescu Mizil, one of the close collaborators of Nicolae Ceaușescu at that date, brought into discussion the necessity of increasing the role of the Great National Assembly and of the Council of Ministers in the economical and political life of the country. Within the meetings of the local party committees of the county, the participants unanimously agreed with the decisions of the Plenary Sitting, some of the speakers referring to the abuses perpetrated in their localities by the militia and security forces. On the other hand some of the party members were afraid to accuse Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej and Alexandru Drăghici directly, fact that shows the fear and the uncertainty caused by the evolution of the reactions at the level of the party leadership. At the level of Timiș County Committeee of the Romanian Communist Party they observed that many of the local organisations party meetings were not well prepared, the discussed problems were superficially handled, the speakers scarcely expressed their own oppinions, preferring to lay out whole passages from the press published materials. As a consequence, they advised the speakers to state their own oppinions about the decisions of the plenary, positive fact that encouraged the democratization of the party. Thereby, we can assess that through the decisions of the Plenary Sitting of the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party from April 1968 occurred a partial political rehabilitation, which aimed, besides the improvement of the image of the party, at the consolidation of Nicolae Ceaușescu’s political power.