Category Archives: Victor Ponta

Klaus Iohannis, Romania’s new president-elect, viewed from abroad


A victory for Iohannis, a step forward for democracy and minority rights in Romania: Klaus Iohannis viewed from abroad

by  Claudia Moscovici

I have not seen the Romanian public so enthusiastic and optimistic about a political event since the anti-Communist revolution of 1989. On November 16, 2014 the Romanian center-right candidate, Klaus Iohannis, an ethnic German, won the presidential election. His victory over Victor Ponta came as a welcome surprise for many Romanian voters. Ponta was ahead during most of the presidential campaign and had won the first round, on the November 2nd election. Many Romanians view Iohannis’ victory as a step forward for democracy. What are some of the factors that led to Iohannis’ unexpected victory and how is it perceived by the press abroad?

Reuters recently briefly covered the Romanian election with some ambivalence. In an article published on November 16, Matthias Williams claims, “Analysts had said that victory for Ponta might have helped make Romania a more stable nation, with the main levers of power held by one bloc. By contrast, Iohannis’ win could trigger renewed political tensions in one of Europe’s poorest states.” Despite these misgivings, in next sentence the author expresses the other side of the coin, which coincides with what I’ve been reading in the Romanian press: namely, that Romanians had grown increasingly critical of the Ponta regime and were ready for a change: “Thousands of people took to the streets of Bucharest to voice their anger at Ponta’s government on Sunday night and demand his resignation.” Williams brings up one of the main issues at stake, which is the country’s growing disenchantment with political corruption: “Growth rebounded to more than 3 percent in the third quarter of 2014, but corruption and tax evasion are rife, and progress to implement reforms and overhaul a bloated state sector is mixed.” (see

Young voters, the educated elite and Romanian citizens abroad (the diaspora) voted, overwhelmingly, in favor of Klaus Iohannis. Romanians would like to build a country with less political corruption, more transparency in the government, a thriving economy and a more democratic voting process in the country and especially for Romanians living abroad. In fact, the difficulties in voting for oversea Romanian citizens, which got international media coverage, drew widespread sympathy for Iohannis, both within and outside Romania. “Overseas voters, “ Williams notes, “played a key role in swinging the vote at the last presidential election in 2009. Romania’s large and growing diaspora is widely seen as anti-Ponta, and many voiced their anger when long queues and bureaucratic hurdles prevented them from voting in the first round. The uproar triggered the foreign minister’s resignation, sparked protests in cities across Romania and may have helped galvanize the anti-Ponta vote.” In Paris and Munich people lined up for hours on end, waiting for the opportunity to vote. In Munich, some people showed the cameras their toothbrushes, to indicate they’d be willing to spend the night there if that’s what it took.

For many Romanians, Klaus Iohannis represents a change for the better. Although much of his political platform remains to be seen, in the eyes of his supporters he stands for political accessibility, honesty and good character. A former physics teacher and current mayor (of Sibiu) of German origin, Iohannis also represents a victory for ethnic Romanians. Ethnic Germans living in Romania were brought into the international limelight a few years ago, when novelist Herta Müller won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2009. Despite the fact that ethnic Germans have been living in Romania for hundreds of years, they still face some prejudice and obstacles. In fact, As Alison Mutler points out in The Associated Press article of November 17, Victor Ponta tried to play the nationalist card by depicting Iohannis as a cultural outsider. This strategy backfired. Mutler notes, “His win was also the failure of the nationalist card played by Ponta, who mocked his rival’s minority German ethnicity and the fact that he is a Lutheran and not a member of the powerful Orthodox Church.” Iohannis supporters, The Economist reports on November 17th, 2014, “greeted the mayor of Sibiu with cries of ‘Danke Schön’. He will become the first member of an ethnic minority, and the first non-Orthodox Christian, to serve as president in Romania’s post-communist history.” (see

This unprecedented win represents not only a victory for democracy in Romania, but also a step forward for ethnic minorities. Ethnic Germans, or Rumaniendeutsche, were numerous in the country before the end of WWII, numbering almost eight hundred thousand. Most of them immigrated to Germany (or were evicted from the country) shortly after WWII, when Romania became Communist. By 2011, their numbers fell to less than 40,000. A second wave, over 100,000 ethnic Germans, immigrated to Germany following the anti-Communist revolution of 1989. Although still perceived as “foreigners” by some native Romanians, ethnic Germans have lived in Romania—mostly in the region Transylvania—for centuries. The majority belong to the ‘Saxons’, who are descendants of Germans who settled in Transylvania during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Iohannis, who states that his family has lived in Romania for over 700 years, is most likely a descendent of this ethnic group. The second group, the Swabians, are descended from Southern Germans who settled in the Banat region during the eighteenth-century. The third group, the “Lander” Germans, came to Northern Transylvania during the eighteenth century. While ethnic minorities may still face some prejudice in Romania, the country has made great strides over the past ten years in representing ethnic minorities.

“Conditions for minorities in Romania today have been significantly improved through reforms pushed through in the run-up to the country’s accession to the EU. An accession treaty signed in early 2005 resulted in Romania’s full membership in 2007. … Minorities are currently represented in both chambers of parliament.” (for more information on Minorities in Romania, see Minority Rights, (


Romanians have a lot of hope for the country under the new government. They hope for a healthier economy and more job opportunities. They would like to see the continuing integration of Romania into the European community, less political corruption, and a more democratic—and easier–process of voting, especially for the diaspora. Iohannis has expressed his commitment to fulfilling these hopes, so the country has reason for optimism. He has also shown his accessibility to the public—and graciousness–during a recent book signing of his autobiography, Pas cu Pas (Step by Step), published by Curtea Veche Publishing, where he spent hours with fans, signing over 3000 autographs. This presidency wouldn’t be the first time a member of a minority group has paved the way for the majority. After all, as Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.”

Claudia Moscovici, Literature Salon

Comments Off on Klaus Iohannis, Romania’s new president-elect, viewed from abroad

Filed under Claudia Moscovici, ethnic Germans in Romania, Klaus Iohannis, literature salon, Pas cu Pas Editura Curtea Veche, presidential election in Romania, Romania, Romanian diaspora, Victor Ponta, viewed from abroad

Interview with Dr. Andrew Rowan, CEO of Humane Society International, about the dog killings in Romania



Interview with Dr. Andrew Rowan, CEO of Humane Society International, about the dog killings in Romania
By Claudia Moscovici
CM: Dr. Rowan, how did you find out about the new “euthanasia” law, mandating the mass killing of  stray dogs, recently adopted in Romania?
AR: HSI was contacted by many of our supporters and other international animal welfare organizations when word got out about the new law.
CM:  There are varying estimates of the number of stray dogs in the country and of how many of them have already been killed. Based on HSI sources, could you please give us these estimates?
AR: HSI has also heard varying statistics of dogs killed in Romania since the passage of the law but we have not seen any estimates based on either rudimentary or properly done surveys. In other words, it is not clear how many dogs there are. Our main concern is that this misguided and cruel program will not solve the street dog issue in the country.
CM: Stiri ProTV has recently announced that some individuals are taking the law into their own hands and killing stray dogs themselves. Some beat them to death, some stab them, others strew about poisoned food. Is there any way to stop these cruel actions?
AR: The passage of the law has now offered a free license to kill dogs, and with this, cruelty will be inherent. The easiest dogs to kill are also the friendliest dogs, and the least likely to actually harm people. “Innocent” dogs will fall victim to a thoughtless program created and sanctioned by the government, which has so far ignored alternative suggestions.
CM: Although President Basescu signed the law mandating the killing of stray dogs (“euthanasia”), the Prime Minister of Romania, Victor Ponta, has declared in a recent interview with Cotidianul that he’s against “euthanasia” of stray dogs and pro-sterilization. If the Humane Society International were to communicate with him or with members of his staff directly, what suggestions would you have for working together to address the stray dog problem in a more humane fashion?
AR: Street dog eradication programs have been in effect for centuries in countless countries around the world. Despite such programs, there are now 300 million or more street dogs living in towns and communities around the globe.  The World Health Organization states, “There is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has ever had a significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies.” Mass sterilization, vaccination and community education are established components of an effective solution to large numbers of street dogs, and there are a number of model examples to look to worldwide.
CM: No doubt the Humane Society has encountered this problem in other countries as well. Which countries have faced a similar problem–namely, a large population of stray dogs–and, among them, which ones (and how) have they dealt with it in a more efficient and humane manner?
AR: In the last decade, we have seen an increasing willingness among municipal and city authorities to look for more effective and humane programs for managing street dogs. HSI is currently working with national and local governments in Bhutan, the Philippines, India and Mauritius in implementing mass sterilization and vaccination programs to address dog overpopulation. In Bhutan, the program is countrywide, and more than 50,000 dogs have been sterilized and vaccinated against rabies.
CM: Since a four year old boy, Ionut Anghel, died as a result of bites from a stray dog, people are worried that the large stray dog population will place the safety of their children, and their own safety, at risk. Obviously placing dogs in animal shelters would reduce this risk to humans, since the majority of the dogs would be off the streets. But how would sterilization of the dogs, including of those that can’t be placed in shelters, reduce the risk of their aggression towards human beings?
AR: Countries with a large number of stray animals need to start their population control programs through mass sterilization campaigns before shelters can be considered. The indiscriminate removal of dogs from the streets only opens up territory and food sources for new dogs. As the friendliest dogs are the easiest dogs to catch, they are the first to be removed from the streets, often being replaced by less socialized, more aggressive dogs, creating a greater concern for public safety. Sterilizing street dogs and returning them to their territories on the streets allows for a natural reduction in their population numbers over time, and maintains the most socialized dogs on the streets with the public. In addition, we have found that the public views these sterilized and vaccinated dogs (identifiable via an ear notch) more favorably and the human-dog interaction improves (e.g. the number of dog bites declines).
CM: Euthanasia of stray dogs is usually adopted for economic rather than moral reasons: it’s considered to be the quickest and least costly manner of eliminating the stray dogs.  Are there humane methods of addressing this problem that are also cost-effective? What international animal welfare agencies are willing to help with this cost?
AR: Usually, municipal dog culls do not come close to qualifying as “euthanasia” – that is, providing a “good death” for the dogs.  Instead, the killing of the dogs is often brutal and involves a great deal of suffering.  It is also not a cheap solution and, as the WHO statement above indicates, it is not effective.  The number of dogs may be reduced in the short term but the remaining dogs will rapidly repopulate the community. If a government were to tally the true costs of killing programs and designate that same amount of funding to a strategic, long-term program, the problem would be solved. A long term, effective program may require more initial funding, but it’s an investment in a solution that allows for increased public safety, fewer street dogs and more livable communities.
CM: What kind of short-term and longer-term collaborations between Romanian animal shelters/animal welfare organizations and the Humane Society International do you envision, which would help with the stray dog population in the country in a way that protects public safety and saves the lives of the animals?
AR: HSI has offered to assist the Romanian government in developing a dog population management program that would be both effective and humane. The programs we help implement worldwide to address this issue show short term results (fewer puppies on the streets within the first year), but our objective is to create a long term, sustainable program that will truly solve the street dog overpopulation issue in Romania.

Comments Off on Interview with Dr. Andrew Rowan, CEO of Humane Society International, about the dog killings in Romania

Filed under about the dog killings in Romania, Andrew Rowan, Andrew Rowan CEO HSI, Andrew Rowan CEO Humane Society International, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary fiction, Dr. Andrew Rowan, HSI, Humane Society, Humane Society International, Humane Society U.S., interview with Dr. Andrew Rowan about stray dog problem in Romania, killing of stray dogs in Romania, killing stray dogs in Romania, Mass killings of stray dogs in Romania, protests against killing stray dogs in Romania, shelter for stray dogs in Romania, shelters for stray dogs, solving the problem of stray dogs in Romania, stray dog killing in Romania, stray dog mass killings in Romania, stray dogs, stray dogs in Romania, Victor Ponta, Vier Pfoten Romania

The Upside of Romania’s Culture Wars: When Culture is Politicized, it Matters


photo by Andreea Retinschi

With the recent change of regime in Romania, what ensued during the past few months could be described as a downright culture war. Rumors of corruption and accusations of plagiarism against political and cultural leaders in the country abound, while Romania’s leading intellectuals are taking sides.  Victor Ponta, the leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) since 2010, became the Prime Minister of Romania in May 2012.  The shift in political power became more pronounced when Traian Băsescu, the President of Romania since 2004, was suspended from office on July 6, 2012. These political changes affect not only Romanian society, but also the realm of culture in particular: writers, artists, movie directors, architects, musicians, professors etc. This is why Romanian intellectuals are reacting so strongly–on both sides–to these political changes. It is perfectly understandable. Many of the cultural leaders in the country are political appointees. When there’s a drastic change in government, there’s a corresponding change in their lives and livelihood. The New York Times recently printed an article about the repercussions of the change in government upon Romania’s cultural institutions, both in the country and abroad.

As Larry Rohter states in this article, an emergency decree of the coalition government that was passed on June 14, posits that the Romanian Cultural Institutes, “a non-partisan entity that formerly reported directly to the president, now responds to a Senate driven by partisanship. Its new mandate: to direct its activities at the Romanian diaspora community. As a result, collaborations with American arts institutions – including Lincoln Center, co-sponsor of an annual Romanian film festival, and publishing houses specializing in translated literature — could be in jeopardy.”  Rohter continues to specify that Horia Patapievici, the leader of the Romanian Cultural Institutes, Cristian Mungiu, winner of the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 2007 for his movie 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, as well as several influential cultural institutions, “including the Museum of Modern Art, Film Forum and Melville House have sent letters to the new prime minister and other government authorities, urging them rescind the measure.”

The response of those supporting the Ponta regime has been equally vehement. I have been following the unfolding of these political and cultural events in Romanian newspapers and via Facebook, which, not surprisingly, have divided many of my Romanian friends. I have always been extremely proud of my cultural heritage and viewed part of my role as a writer and art critic to show the merits of Romanian culture abroad. In fact, I still do.  This is less from a perspective of hopeless naivete and nostalgia than from a sincere appreciation of my cultural heritage and sense of pride in a country where culture still matters.

The idealist in me believes that whatever happens in the realm of politics in Romania, the reality is that the country has produced great artists, writers and philosophers–Eminescu, Caragiale, Brancusi, Ionescu, Eliade, Cioran–and it will continue to do so. Simultaneously, the cynic in me believes that you can’t have it both ways: writers and artists being detached from politics and economics, as is largely the case in the U.S., and culture mattering to the general public. Where culture is politicized, it will be subject to the kinds of tensions, ruptures and battles that occur routinely in countries like Romania and France. Where culture is largely separate from economics and politics, it will be–as I believe it is in the U.S.–a pleasant, harmless diversion and not much more than that. Few will pay attention to it or care about it

In this country, while economics may govern books, it does not govern culture. Certainly in the U.S. there’s a large and profitable publishing industry. But the genres most associated with “culture”–literary fiction, art books and scholarship–are not the money-makers that receive most media attention or a large publicity budget. They are often relegated to specialized, academic or  smaller publishing houses that are either non-profit (university sponsored) or low profit. Most of the big publishers’ annual publicity budget–millions of dollars– goes to a very tiny percentage of their books, usually in the categories of self-help, celebrity biographies or genre fiction (fantasy, horror and mystery). All this to say that the realm of “culture” in the U.S., which is largely detached from politics and economics, receives very little attention from the  media and the general public.

Thus, from my perspective, as a Romanian-American writer who has a partly external and partly internal perspective on both societies–or Intre Doua Lumi (Between Two Worlds) as the title of my novel was aptly translated into Romanian–the current tumultuous situation in the realm of culture in Romania is on the one hand a tragedy–because the country is so deeply divided–and on the other hand a triumph–because intellectuals are taking sides in a country where culture still matters. Henry Kissinger is said to have stated that “Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.” I believe  this statement is absolutely true. In my estimation, the saddest fate for a culture is not strife, but irrelevance

Claudia Moscovici, literaturesalon

Comments Off on The Upside of Romania’s Culture Wars: When Culture is Politicized, it Matters

Filed under Claudia Moscovici, contemporary fiction, Cristian Mungiu, fiction, Horia Patapievici, Intre Doua Lumi, literary criticism, literary fiction, literature, literature salon, literaturesalon, publishing industry, Romania, Romania's culture wars, Traian Basescu, Velvet Totalitarianism, Victor Ponta