In its centenary, the 1923 constitution embodies the paradoxes of the interwar era: more than any other text, it illustrates the successes and failures of Greater Romania’s system of government. Abolished in 1938 by the Carlist coup, partially restored in 1944, replaced by a communist totalitarian order that would be used later in the years after 1989, the 1923 constitution became, over time, an image of freedom that eliminated the new tyranny. it. In the future, the Constitution of 1923 is more eloquent and memorable than in the period of its specific application. In the struggle against the dictatorships of the 20th century, the basic law of 1923 is mobilized as a sign of moderation and the rule of law.

And perhaps such a perception in posterity forces us to take a critical view and avoid the hagiographic impulse. The Constitution of 1923, in the political order of its era, is a triumph of Bratian liberalism, which cultivates centralization and authoritarianism as tools aimed at consolidating the new state. The Constitution of 1923 bore the imprint of this trend, which would mark the evolution of the Romanian state in the decades leading up to 1940: the failure of Greater Romania was inseparable from the options adopted at that moment.

The apotheosis of Ionel Bretian’s authoritarian liberalism, the 1923 constitution did not correct the imperfections of the parliamentary regime, which guaranteed the primacy of the executive power. As in the empire of the 1866 constitution, elections did nothing but transcribe the already formulated option: assemblies were an emanation of cabinets, and the implementation of the national will was carried out by cadres controlled by the executive. The interwar regime never really fulfilled the aspirations of the Alba-Julia Proclamation: human dignity and political freedom were not truly guaranteed. Universal voting was emptied of its essence due to electoral corruption practices.

The 1923 Constitution had an institutional life marked by ruptures and ruptures. Its concrete relevance was undermined by the appeal to the state of siege and the decree-law. The Restoration of 1930 creates the preconditions for the birth of Carlism: a decade before the coup d’état, Charles II sought to eliminate customs that limited his capacity for arbitrariness. The appointment of Nikolay Yorga as Prime Minister, ignoring established constitutional practice, is a sign of this leadership, which proclaims a different future.

The Constitution of 1923 becomes in the era of Tatarescu a screen that clumsily masks the centralization of power at the level of the monarch: the government’s appeal to the state of exception and legislation reflects the erosion of imperfect democracy in Romania. The landscape of recent years of application of the 1923 constitution is dominated by the progress of autocracy. It is symbolic that the last cabinet appointed under the rule of law, under the chairmanship of Octavian Goga, adopts the first anti-Semitic legislation: equality before the law has ceased to exist in the name of the assumption of complete nationalism.

1938 – the Rubicon crossed by Romania. Imperfect democracy gives way to autocracy. Civil rights are sacrificed on the altar of submission to the state. Anti-Semitism is gradually taking shape as a doctrine and practice: the Antonesian regime is the genocidal end of the path that began decades ago. Hopes for the restoration of the constitution were dashed after August 23, 1944. Restored by abolishing the provisions that guaranteed the rule of law, the 1923 constitution became the instrument used by Romanian communism to seize power. The Constitution of 1923 is the image of this Romania, which is being transformed in a totalitarian sense. Read the rest on Contributors.ro