Few, if any political theme, was more fiercely debated and distorted, in post-communist Romania as that of the possible role of Constitutional Monarchy in the process of institutional and social reconstructions of a reborn European state. With the sole exception of the famous “Point 8” in the Declaration of Timisoara, no other subject has more violently split the political spectrum and the public opinion in Romania. Unfortunately, from the very first moment, both the supporters of the Monarchic ideas and its opponents dug themselves deep into the trenches of their own arguments and care less for anything else then throwing poisonous arrows upon enemy lines. If not for some major changes, very much unnoticed by politicians and the media, they’ve been on the same positions even today.

At the beginning, it was the unconditional commitment of the Royal House to promote and support Romania’s quest for two strategic objectives: NATO and EU integration. That became possible due to a radical change of attitude towards the Royal House, by State Institutions of high prestige and public support as “The President”. It all started with President Constantinescu’s mandate, and lately, continued in his second mandate, to the surprise of many! by President Iliescu, and his prime Minister, Adrian Nastase. This was a crux in our recent history, when responsible politicians, at the highest level, understood and accepted the notion of mobilizing all available resources of the Country, to credibly make the case of a crucial option: Romania was ready for reintegrating with its European family. This was no public relations game, nor the expression of a local political interest, but a fundamental commitment, across the political spectrum and well beyond, expressing at its best the National Interest.

The authority of the Royal House to speak for Romania was recognized again, for the very first time, in more then 45 years, both within and outside the country. This gave more weight to the arguments produced by His Majesty King Michael in front of NATO countries statesman and paved the way for Romania to becoming a full member of the two organizations structuring Europe today.

Second most important fact was the official return and permanent residence of the Royal House on Romanian soil. “Elisabeta” Palace became a focus point for events mapping a very different country, from the one starting its uphill journey into the History at the end of December 1989. Re-asserting control, by way of justice, over such symbols and identity markers of the Royal House, such as Savarsin, Peles and Elisabeta residences, even though by virtue of personal rights, was a clear sign of normality in a society approximating normality by very few other things. It also brought a new role for the Royal House in Romanian society. Decisions inside the Royal House on succession and maintaining its involvement in promoting the National Interest under the aegis and with the support of the Government produced a larger and more comprehensive impact.

All these changes, few would dare to anticipate, only two decades ago, are making for a totally new situation. The presence of the Royal House in the Romanian society is by now an accepted and appreciated fact, both by representatives in Government, irrespective of political affiliation – CDR, PSD, DA Alliance-, by local officials and by people from different professions, political opinions, religious beliefs or community identities.

Let it be no doubt, Romanian society and its politicians are still far from reaching a point of convergence on the role and place of the Royal House, in the process of Romania’s institutional and social reconstruction. On the other hand, a renewed debate on a Constitutional Project radically different from the one in place, not compromised by political arrangements bending the rules, more close to the ideal, fine tuning and precise equilibrium needed for a Constitutions to provide functionality and normality to the Government and social life of a country, able to take us out from the dead end, is an opportunity that can’t be missed. For the very first time, since December 1989, the role and place of the Royal House in Romania could be discussed with an open mind, sine ira et studio, irrespective of personal considerations and historic circumstances, looking ahead with hope, not behind in anger.

To be sure, we are not living in a perfect world. But that, precisely, is the best of reasons for taking into account all possibilities and the whole potential of change brought about by reintegrating the Royal House in the process of institutional building of Romania.

Romanian version published in “Bursa”, July 23, 2008.

The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player,
and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a
different principle from the players. It lessens the danger
that the referee might try to start playing.
Earl Russell, The Spectator, 11th January 1997.

If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation’s mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation’s needs.
Jan Christian Smuts,
Prime Minister of South Africa 1939-1948.

For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free.
Anatole France, First winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, 1921.

They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic?
Association Papers, London, 1793