The vulgar Moldovenism born in the former Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (MASSR) on the left bank of the Nistru continues to influence the realities of the Republic of Moldova. This is because during the 33 years of independence, the governments have not seriously addressed the issue of national identity in this space. The concept of the Moldovan people, distinct from the Romanian one, which appeared in the Transnistrian region in the interwar period, has evolved in the contemporary period into the idea of a Transnistrian people, different from the people from the right bank of the Nistru, Anatol Țăranu, doctor of history and political commentator, stated during IPN’s public debate “100 years under the sign of the MASSR”.
Anatol Țăranu said that the uniqueness of the Moldovan autonomous republic on the left bank of the Nistru in relation to other autonomous entities of the vast Soviet Union consisted in the fact that a unique experiment of deconstruction of identity was undertaken in this area, which practically did not exist in other places. “At the moment when it became clear that the Moldovan autonomous republic did not predominantly serve the cause of the world revolution, its extension over Romania, over the Balkans, then everything that was here in the autonomous republic, from a conceptual point of view, focused on the idea of recapturing Bessarabia and reintroducing Bessarabia into the composition of the Soviet Union. For the purpose, it was necessary to create an ideological basis, including an identity basis, which would have allowed the Soviet Union’s claims on Bessarabia to be justified. In this context, this concept of Moldovenism appeared, which later received the name of primitive Moldovenism or vulgar Moldovenism, which imposes a difference between what is called the Romanian ethnicity and the Moldovan ethnicity. That is the Moldovans were a distinct ethnicity in relation to the Romanians, and the continuation of this concept reached the absurdity of finding substantial differences between the Moldovan language and the Romanian language. But this thing worked here and was put to good use,” said the doctor of history.
He noted that before and after 1924, the Romanian group of Romanian emigrants in the Soviet Union, even if they were under very strong pressure from the Comintern and, first of all, from the Bolshevik leadership in Ukraine, nevertheless sought, in one way or another, to promote the idea that Romanians and Moldovans are not two distinct nations, that they are the same ethnicity, but their voice was less and less heard. “The “Moldovenist” concept that promoted the idea that Moldovans and Romanians are different and the Moldovan language and the Romanian language are two different languages, and Bessarabia is completely different from Romania, was the one that determined the further development of the autonomous republic located on the left bank of the Nistru, even if there were ebbs and flows in this regard. The entire Moldovenist policy in the autonomous republic was focused on the need to delimit the Moldovan language from the Romanian language, first of all,” stated Anatol Țăranu.
According to the political commentator, the Bolshevik leadership in Moscow was oriented not towards the interests of the nationalities on the territory of the Soviet Union, but exclusively towards geopolitical considerations and, for these interests, the national development interests of the peoples of the Soviet Union were sacrificed. “The Moldovan autonomous entity was the only place on the territory of the Soviet Union where the national policy of the Soviet government, of the Bolshevik party was focused on the need of deconstructing the identity of the natives of this territory, which is for the Moldovan Romanians. It is regrettable that this practice of deconstruction of identity was not only passed through the territory of Bessarabia after 1940 already, but its remnants continue to exist and are felt even in the life of the Republic of Moldova after it gained its independence in 1991,” he said.
“As long as we are not able to give a proper grade, an objective grade of what is called primitive Moldovenism or vulgar Moldovenism that was born in the interwar period in the Moldovan autonomous republic and that perpetuates today in the Republic of Moldova, we will not be able to achieve internal cohesion in Moldovan society,” concluded the doctor of history.
The public debate entitled “100 years under the sign of the MASSR” was the 42nd installment of the series “Impact of the past on confidence- and peace-building processes”. IPN News Agency implements this project with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”.
