Marian Țuțui: Big money corrupts everything in Romania. The hope could be new people with more scruples

Vladimir Mitev

Marian Țuțui is a historian of Romanian and Balkan film, researcher at the Institute of Art History “George Oprescu” of the Romanian Academy and professor of film at Hyperion University. As a private citizen he agreed to talk to The Bridge of Friendship about the state of Romanian society today, about the power of big money in it, about social change and the significance of the press in it. This interview is the first part of a longer discussion to be published by The Bridge of Friendship.

Mr Țuțui, thank you for accepting this discussion. You know that Romania is entering a super election year and a lot of people are watching and trying to find out what is going on. Already there are articles about increasing sovereignism, which is already a big problem for part of the European Union. But Romania has many faces and is always changing and I try to catch the developments in Romania through our discussion. So maybe let’s start like this. You are a witness of the transition and the last 30-40 years of life in Romania. What has changed during this period? What has stayed the same? What do you expect to evolve in the election year?

Frankly, I haven’t voted in about 25 years. Not because I’m not interested in political events, political life in general, but because I have no hopes from any political party. I have simply often felt that it is too crowded at elections and there is no point in wasting time as my vote counts for far too little. Frankly, as in other countries I see that political parties have disappointed and always disappoint. Maybe I am exaggerating, but maybe it is worse than ever, in the sense that I look at the members, the leadership of the parties and I see a decline in the quality of people in all aspects. And I expect what happened in Italy, Bulgaria or other countries to happen, that parties that have a certain tradition, let’s say, like in Romania, the National Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, will decrease and people will be attracted by new parties, like AUR or USR. But they have already shown their limits and sometimes their leadership is even worse than the old parties. 

What changed after 1989? Yes, we have more political freedom, we have multiparty politics. It’s clear that at least I personally live better. But it’s hard for me to put myself in the position of a pensioner, who may be living harder and probably has reasons to reject communism. Older people find it hard to adjust and accept the uncertainty of tomorrow and the hardships they have now. 

If you live better, why don’t you vote and why are you disappointed?

If I think about every single area of Romanian life, I see that there is a certain disappointment in absolutely all areas and that perhaps Romania has never been a country with a democratic tradition and great achievements. I even notice that Romania is disappointing in all areas. Perhaps the only area in which Romania is in an acceptable situation is cinema itself – the thing I deal with. Otherwise – the army is compromised, the church, education, industry, politics, everything is at the breaking point. We are indeed living better, but I don’t see a very good outlook. In fact, we are witnessing this desertion of the country by young people, by those who can make a difference and who are currently the main productive force, if we speak in Marxist terms. That is why we have ended up with a lot of pensioners. In previous decades, the parties wanted to reduce the number of unemployed people by taking many people out of work early. 

On the other hand, many emigrated. There is talk of a loss of fresh blood. 3-4 million Romanians left. The effects will be seen in the future. And the number of old people, those who have to receive a pension already, is a brake, which makes taxes high in order to pay these pensions. Romania is not a favourable environment for investment either, because of perhaps excessive taxation. Nor is it good for young people, who again give part of their salary to projects that have not been carried out for many years. In Romania, fuel prices have been higher even though we have our own gas and oil reserves, and it was said that petrol taxes were higher in order to build motorways, but in fact Romania has built the fewest kilometres of motorway in the European Union and this money has simply been wasted. On the other hand, I understand many people are very disappointed because they don’t see a clear perspective for the future. I don’t know if I need to say anything else or refer to 1989…

First of all, I am still from the party of those who do not vote in Bulgaria. And my main argument is that it’s too visible how big money buys politicians. So now, for example, I spoke in Ruse, with one of the leading candidates for mayor, who was the lawyer of an influential businessman, active in courier services. But another candidate won, behind whom were more powerful businessmen. 

My thesis is that if you have no business, you don’t know who to vote for. It seems to me that Bulgarian politics at the moment is reduced to a choice or some sort of temporary balancing act between all the money types that exist in society.  Maybe I’m thinking in Marxist terms too, but it seems very obvious to me that those who have economic influence reproduce themselves in political power. And I, not having a business, being employed simply don’t vote and thus claim to be an “angry” or “disillusioned” intellectual. We don’t have parties of intellectual workers, or state employees. We don’t have a party that specifically promotes relations with Romania or the countries in the region. Our parties are amorphous on many issues and mutually replaceable.

However, I want to ask this big question. Where do you think change can come from in this society that is based on big money? I mean, for example, in Romania and Bulgaria, money prevails. And where can this centre or power or resources be found to bring about a change, a positive social evolution? Perhaps we need to define what change means in a society where money is everywhere and dominates.

Oh dear, that makes me stop questioning myself whether from somewhere in certain moneyed circles change might come. I think somewhere we’re a lot like Russia. I don’t know, maybe Romania does have institutions. Romania and Bulgaria have democratic institutions, but they don’t work properly and maybe the change came from somewhere else a bit forced and we were not really ripe, mature for genuine democracy.  

Even now, recently an USR (Union Save Romania) politician said that when he was in government he was influenced by the secret services, that the government was decisively influenced by the secret services. It seems to me a huge mistake what this politician did. Why? If it is true, it is horrible and awful and it means that he admits that he was once, how shall I put it, pushed around, he was a puppet. And he sounds as if now, you see God, he is somewhere in opposition and no longer dependent on the secret service. But that doesn’t make him totally off the hook, he’s still a bastard. 

And if that’s not true, again it’s a terrible thing to look for that excuse and accuse others of it. And in any case, such allegations are extraordinarily serious for a man who would want to vote. It seems to me that if Romania and Bulgaria do not collapse, it would not be because there is less corruption than we think or hear about. Nor would it be because of external pressure from the big powers. I currently believe that, for example, in the Romanian government it is possible, I am not saying it is certain, that there are agents of several foreign powers. There is no need for spies, but only for these agents of several powers, who not only send secret information, but even make decisions for the interests of others. The fact that this government, however, to a certain extent, responds to the needs of the Romanian state is because there is a balance. Some are militating for American interests, others for Hungarian interests, others for German interests. And a balance is created, and somewhere this makes Romania continue to exist but not to prosper… 

On the other hand, speaking of corruption, I think that the Romanian state has indeed become quite corrupt and, even more than in the 90s, it can be observed that this corruption is becoming widespread despite the victories of the justice system trumpeted by the press, and the arrests of former ministers. There are people, like me, who work in areas where you can’t steal, you can’t really be bought. And then this country, for better or worse, works, works. That’s how I see it. 

Where could change come from in the context of this corrupt society? 

What can I say, it seems the offspring of thieves don’t steal. Unlike most of our children, the sons of newly rich Romanians with grey biographies have access to the best schools, have ended up studying at Oxford or Cambridge. So these children will be a different kind of men. They will be even better than our children… 

There’s another thing. For example, I am no longer interested, and I hope that many Romanians are no longer interested, that the great profiteers, the great corrupt are caught and put in prison. I would be more interested if more of the stolen money or the money that disappeared through tax evasion were recovered. 

If the majority of things, the majority of companies or capital belongs to foreign banks and foreign citizens, it means that Romania has become, let’s say, a kind of dormitory state (like Palestine or the Bantustans in South Africa), where we all work for others. And the surplus goes somewhere abroad and is spent elsewhere. The bosses are foreigners. But the Romanian bosses, too, if they make a lot of money, they already spend their holidays or have residences on the Côte d’Azur or wherever. So, at some point, I don’t care anymore, let’s say, if I don’t know which network of shops belongs to Elena Udrea or to a foreign company, because Elena Udrea and foreigners spend their money in Paris or somewhere else abroad. So the Romanian liberals’ old idea of the Romanian bourgeoisie often becomes ridiculous. 

The change will be another generation, let’s say, that will have more scruples… The money of the thieves will end up in the hands of the spenders. So the sons of these people will not have so much rascality in them and energy to steal and willingly or unwillingly they will become better. On the other hand, there is pressure from the European Union. It is a self-regulating mechanism to a certain extent. For example, European funds are harder to access and harder to steal. 

Romania and Bulgaria’s membership of the European Union makes the two countries more and more like those in the West, which in theory means less corruption over time. This does not mean that there is no corruption in the West, let’s get over this naivety. But for the time being, how shall I put it, this period of transition, this savage capitalism, let’s say, again, I’m using terms that are perhaps outdated, has made Romania and Bulgaria champions in this area of corruption and, if I may say so, the last in many respects, at the bottom of the European Union.

I understand everything you say very well. Speaking of big money, I can’t avoid the fact that there is a press that calls itself an independent press in our countries, which probably means that it can independently choose who to depend on. 

Recently we had a case where the gambling industry intervened in the editorial policy of the newspaper Libertatea and some big names of the Romanian press were fired from the newspaper. Several people in the independent press, i.e. detached from big money or political interests are trying to offer something new or be on the side of change – people in this area always complain that the big parties have subsidies that they use to gain influence in the press. And we also have examples, like with PNL or PSD, sponsoring certain TV stations with huge amounts of money and so on. 

I suppose Romanian society is looking for a change that somehow means generations or people who are less corrupt in themselves, maybe more upright, maybe more scrupulous, how can this change be communicated if the media is taken over by the parties and big money? Where can this truly independent press come from? Are you willing to give money to media outlets that you think are honest or that you think are doing a good job? And how could the press be emancipated from hegemonic influences in society, especially in Romania?

I actually worked in the press about 20 years ago myself. I worked at Realitatea TV, at Television Romania de Mâine (Tomorrow’s Romania). I worked in radio, at the first independent radio station, Unifan Radio which became UniPlus Radio, at ProCinema. But at the moment I’m only collaborating on film magazines. So I have an idea, obviously, of what’s going on. For example, I notice on the one hand, the decrease in the level of the press, the disappearance of newspapers on paper. And the ones that are left have reached a terrible level. For example, I was looking at foreign news that is translated with Google without being corrected, as I recently discovered even at Euronews Romania. Sometimes external news is put in just to fill the page. There’s half a news story left simply or the statement is unfinished. Why? It’s a vicious circle. If you don’t provide quality, you won’t be read. 

On the other hand, people, in Romania at least, still have the illusion that they can read the press for free on the internet. I’ve noticed that in the West, serious newspapers can’t be read for free. In our country this has not yet caught on, although there are attempts. So in our case, there is inherently too much advertising inserted among the news and comments. Paid messages are also inserted. We don’t have surveys, only speculative commentary and many foreign policy articles are sloppily translated and without author attribution. We no longer have press correspondents even though we have Romanian students everywhere who could send articles about what is happening, especially in the surrounding countries. 

The worst thing in Romania is that the press has ended up being paid directly and indirectly by the parties. And this alliance that now exists between the left and the right, the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, practically makes this hegemony claim that everything is wonderful. Before, when either the PSD was in power or the PNL, the others in opposition revealed the affairs of the others. Now everything is brotherly, everything is wonderful. There is hardly any more news that is inconvenient for the two parties. On the other hand, I have noticed that there is actually a rather ugly tradition in Romania. For example, I read recently that in the interwar period King Charles II had love problems and left the throne for a while and then returned to it. He eventually married a woman who was not acceptable to the Crown. Then Charles II around the time of the war imposed a personal dictatorship and even paid off the foreign press to make himself look good. This has also happened recently. It was probably also done during Ceaușescu’s time and it’s terrible. Recently, the figures that the Romanian Presidency paid abroad were hardly published. So the press in the country, but even the foreign press would be paid not to show some things or to underline, see-God, some positive aspects of Romania. 

Do you think it could be different, better, when it comes to today’s press?

It seems to me that it can’t get any worse than this. So we’ve reached a precipice. It seems to me that from this point on we can only evolve towards better things. 

I am thinking, for example, that another trend is for certain types of local publications to disappear or for these local periodicals to become part of foreign ones. And then, let’s say, instead of a Romanian or Bulgarian newspaper, we would actually have a local version of a newspaper, let’s say a British newspaper, a Times of Sofia or a Times of Bucharest. And under these conditions, such a newspaper with owners from outside the country should try to get the money in simply from the readers after a time in which it would operate at a loss until it became necessary and this newspaper should not be so involved in political life in Romania and Bulgaria that it tries to be an independent newspaper. Obviously, there are some, how shall I say, clear legislative problems here. I mean lobbying. 

What is advertising? There are some absolutely absurd things that are in Romania. For example, town halls advertise what they have to advertise, and even give money to football teams. Large billboards appear on stadiums and other places that are totally useless. I mean, it’s money wasted. How shall I put it, it’s money that masks horrible transactions. I see an advertisement for the City of Sibiu on a stadium. The Sibiu City Hall will never gain anything from a Bucharest man and even if I sympathize with the Sibiu City Hall, it can’t benefit from me and I won’t get anything from it. It is not so wonderful that it would make me sell everything I have in Bucharest and move to Sibiu. So advertising for town halls or county councils or all sorts of state institutions is simply money wasted. And it’s a lot of money. I hope these things will be regulated as soon as possible. It’s still through legislation that they have gotten so bad. Honestly, it frightens me when I see mayors who use taxpayers’ money to put up signs such as “Popești Leordeni Town Hall wishes you bon voyage” on their way out or “Welcome to Adunații Copăceni” on our money! 

So we are worse off than during Ceaușescu’s time. Then there was the cult of personality, excessive publicity for one person only. A great American author, Saul Bellow came to Bucharest in 1980 to visit his mother-in-law who was in hospital. In his autobiographical novel The Dean’s December he describes how that winter the Ceaușescu billboards were competing with Santa Claus. Now it’s worse. I see Gigi Becali on every channel. Poor Ceaușescu didn’t have so many channels! On the other hand, I remember how the former mayor of Bucharest, Traian Băsescu, spent money on billboards that read “Here is your money”. Why, instead of repairing a few more kilometres of road, was he bragging about our money? Before Băsescu there was the culture of the emperor, with him began the cult of satraps or local barons. I can’t forget the billboards on the Grant Bridge where it says “Started by Băsescu and finished by Oprescu”. And now I’m even noticing stuff in the communes. Mayors are simply bragging about their money to the locals. 

What other outliers of big money power have you noticed?

It’s a baron from Suceava – Flutur, who wrote with sheep “Long live PDL!” And now Flutur and his brother and cousin have hotels in the north of the country, four-star hotels, and it seems that a big stream of money is passing through their hands again. Probably related to smuggling from Ukraine, because we are being invaded by a lot of Ukrainian products that no longer pay taxes (see chocolate and potatoes). May God forgive me, but Ukraine is a corrupt state where things happen that don’t happen in Romania. And I’m really afraid that if this brotherly collaboration with Ukraine continues, we will end up with kidnappings, businessmen shot, blackmail, racketeers and other phenomena that Romania didn’t have. So, how shall I put it? The issue of big money, of large sums of money is extraordinarily topical.

I still can’t see my way out of here, I don’t know. I’m sorry. I can’t see a solution. I hope that somehow things will evolve for the better, but because the press is at a minimum, it’s gotten worse than that I don’t think it can, and the press is necessary. 

You probably know this stuff. We’re always comparing ourselves to the Bulgarians. Who’s last and so on. And it’s very tough stuff. When I saw that Gazeta Sporturilor is controlled by a rich Bulgarian character who wants to turn a sports newspaper into a kind of form of advertising of betting I was horrified. But frankly, we have to admit that in Romania these betting agencies have penetrated thanks to a recommendation of the European Union. Because in the past, until about 15 years ago, in Romania there was a betting monopoly – Lotopronosport Agency, the state lottery. And now these companies have entered and it’s hard to stop them, because, theoretically, now you can bet online and the money goes outside the country. And on the other hand, Bucharest, at least, is full of casinos. Even the headquarters of the Writers’ Union is a casino. I understand that the Writers’ Union gets money for writers’ awards from renting the headquarters. A nice building in the center for this casino. And on the other hand, part of Romania’s tourism is represented by those Israeli or Arab citizens who come only for weekends. They don’t look at the beautiful places in Romania at all, they come to Romania only to the casinos. Maybe they also want to have a hot night with a Romanian prostitute, because in their countries casinos and prostitution do not exist or are almost non-existent. So I have to accept that this form of tourism and this form of making money exists. 

If you pass through small towns in Romania you immediately see a pharmacy, a church and a betting agency. There are no bookshops or libraries in towns of 100,000 inhabitants! These are the three institutions: the bookmaker, the church and the pharmacy. Possibly also a bank. That town has these four modern institutions. Otherwise, the lifestyle is not much different from that of the Middle Ages, but we have these modern institutions in the countryside. This is the Romanian village. Ah, another institution has appeared, the former Cultural Centre, where in the old days they used to show films or, well, cultural activities or where someone could come on tour, now they have become the Wedding Hall. This is what Romania and especially the Romanian village offers.

Photo: Marian Țuțui (source: Marian Tuțui)

Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and Twitter. Its Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.

About Author