MIKE STEINMAN

Violent Overthrow of the Romanian

Government in 1989: Taking a Detour from the
Eastern European Transformation
Claremont Graduate University
Submitted for:
Western Political Science Association
Conference
March 22-24, 2012

Research Question

Why was the 1989 revolution in Romania violent contrasted with the peaceful revolutions in other
Eastern European countries during this same year or shortly before 1989?

-1-

Scope
Focus can be directed toward exploring why countries in Eastern Europe (also known as Eastern Bloc,
Soviet Satellites, or member States of the Warsaw Pact) abolished decades-old Communist regimes through
peaceful transition contrasted with the violent revolution of 1989 which overtook the Romanian government
headed by Nicolae Ceaucescu. Part and parcel with such discussion is how these Eastern Bloc States expedited
their adoption of democracy, welcomed more of its facets, and have maintained democratic reforms compared to
Romania, as well as underlying roots for welcoming democracy; this, though, will not be the scope of this
analysis, despite temptation. The scope will be Romania-centric or why that nations entry into a tepid
democracy (at least more hesitant to adopt democracy and less forcefully than the rest of the Eastern Bloc), or
at least a removal of its totalitarian rule, was achieved through bloodshed compared with the peaceful
introduction of reform by the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Nor will the focus, though it is difficult to divorce from
the 1989 Romanian revolution, be on why Romania has been less steadfast than its Eastern European
counterparts in perpetuating democracy with the same vigor.

While peaceful change can be, sometimes

erroneously, associated with reforms in economics, religion, education, and culture, these institutions (along
with others) will be stipulated as possible catalysts leading to and/or accompanying the removal of a
dictatorship, not products or effects of this removal, or the implementation, expedited or delayed, of democratic
reform--what drives the inquiry is what motivated a violent coup in Romania in 1989. In short, what factors
differed in Romania leading to violent revolution in 1989 which did not exist (or existed to a lesser degree) in
other Eastern European nations which peacefully adopted change?

Methodology of Compiling Research

Cursory review of literature in journals was prompted by the aforementioned research question along
with searching under the heading The Romanian Revolution of 1989. Once a list of resources was compiled,
this author sought themes or recurring patterns (i.e. economics, immigration, religion).

In this paper, the

literature is used more as a springboard for ideas than quotations or citations (though some quotations are
included).

Context
Leadership in the Soviet Union by its premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, opened new diplomatic channels
with the USSRs superpower adversary, the United States, as well as pivoted the Eastern European countries
under Soviet dominance since World War II to follow suit from Gorbachev and gradually ease toward erasing, if
not socialism, at least the dictatorial strong arm of Communism; in conjunction, this dispensation of
Communism allowed for an introduction of Democracy or something akin to democratic governance. What

-2followed was acceptance of democratic reforms as well as removal of dictators from ruling states (alphabetically
listed) in Bulgaria (not to a great extent), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and the crowning achievement of
bringing down the Berlin Wall and uniting Communist East Germany with Democratic West Germany, making
for one Berlin and one Germany; even the Soviet Union ultimately dissipated in 1991 into individual states
(Russia, Georgia, Armenia, etc.). This domino effect or avalanche toward democracy was also welcomed in the
Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Reluctant to follow this pattern was the totalitarian rule of

Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu, a man who ruthlessly dominated his land from 1965 through 1989.
Imitating the deadly crackdown in Chinas Tiananmen Square in June, 1989, Ceausescu ordered the shooting in
December, 1989 of demonstrators in Timisoara, Romania, killing 97; the death toll for the 1989 Romanian
revolution is tallied at approximately 5,000 people. 1

A mass protest demanding that Ceausescu vacate the

presidency ensued on December 16, 1989 and, on Christmas Day of 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife,
Elena, were executed following a one-hour pro forma trial (a kangaroo court serving as justification to kill the
dictator and his wife); their bullet ridden bodies were shown on television in Romania, the United States, and
other countries as well as adorning magazine covers.

The almost-spontaneous killing of Nicolae and Elena

Ceausescu might have been the retribution for what prosecutors estimated were roughly 64,000 people killed
under the Ceausescu regime over 20 years. 2
Romania differed from other Warsaw Pact nations in moving toward democracy, or at least in forcing
the removal of a dictator, in that only in Romania was there a bloody overthrow of the regime 3

Even in

contrast to how Romania approached democracy, however tepid compared with other Eastern Bloc nations, was
and remains the absence of durability of democratic reforms in Romania in light of those adopted elsewhere in
Eastern Europe: Romania presents something of a paradox, Jeff Goodwin reflected. He continued:
On the one hand, the process of change there was apparently the most revolutionary
among the Eastern European cases, characterized as it seemed to be by the brief but bloody
confrontation between the population, soon joined by the army, and the Ceausescu regime.
Indeed, in Romania for the first time in history a Communist party itself (unlike those
elsewhere in the region) was quickly outlawed. On the other hand, the immediate outcome
of the events of December 1989 was the least revolutionary among the Eastern European
cases, since these events produced a government dominated by people with more or less
strong ties to the Romanian Communist Party. Hence, the Romanian revolution did
not lead to an unambiguous break with the past. 4

1
2
3

www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.html
Russell Watson et al., The Last Days of a Dictator in Newsweek, January 8, 1990 (pp. 16-27)

Lavnia Betea, The History of the Fall of Communism: An Area of Inquiry for the Social and Human Sciences, in Crossroads of European Histories:
Multiple Outlooks on Five Key Moments in the History of Europe, edited by Robert Stradling
4
Jeff Goodwin, Old Regimes and Revolutions in the Second and Third Worlds, in Social Science History, Volume 18, Number 4, Winter 1994, pp.
575-604

-3-

Possible Causal Links of Measurement

How can this departure from peaceful introduction of democracy in Romania be explained in contrast
with her Eastern European neighbors? With the luxury of hindsight, we can venture as to possible causes
explaining this difference; this is entertaining questions of what if?, what would or could be or would or
could have been?, why didnt?, and but for as to hypothesizing why. Simply, if an explanation of
linkage is conceivable, then, tautologically, it is not inconceivable, and thus should not be ruled out (a
paraphrased tenet of falsification). What will be explored is pre-1989 factors contributing to the revolution
which differed from other Eastern European nations (independent variables) compared with the violence
exercised in Romania in 1989 (dependent variable). Can the theories of possible causality produce predictive
accuracy? As the word possible precedes causality, all we can hope for is not impossibility. Theories as to
possible contributing factors to the chasm of violent revolution in Romania versus peaceful change in other
Eastern European States will be presented alphabetically, so as not to place any one factor in a preeminent
position or give the appearance of doing so.

Possible Independent Variables

The Research Question stated at the top of this paper is the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. The
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES which follow possibly influence the dependent variable, solely or in some
combination.
Demographics & Population = Fundamental to any discussion of possible contributing factors to the
violent overthrow of the Ceausescu regime is collecting data on the demographics (i.e. age, gender, religion,
socioeconomic status) in Romania prior to 1989. To gain insight as to what contributed to violence in Romania,
yet allowed for peaceful transition elsewhere in the Warsaw Pact, demographic data also needs to be
collected from other Eastern European nations. Do differing population features in different countries foretell a
different result, be it peaceful or bloody?

Also, what can be gleaned when more than one demographic

category is mixed? Furthermore, how does a particular point in time affect manifestations emanating from
different demographic features?
Economy = Under the umbrella Economy are commerce/business (including agriculture and
manufacturing), inflation, unemployment, tourism, technology, and trade (trade alliances which could carry over
politically). A treatise could well be written on linking economics to the propelling or repelling of democracy,
both in its speed, scope, and durability; neither this paper nor this author are equipped to undertake such a
quantitative study. Economic remedies could include price liberalization, privatization, decollectivization of
agriculture, establishment of legal frameworks for economic and commercial activity, exposure of domestic
economy to international competition, and, of course, striking a trade balance with partners for imports and

-4-

exports. Did the lack of a market-oriented economy, as in Romania (as well as other countries in Eastern
Europe) inevitably entail violent revolution? Though this economic apparatus was (and is) lacking in Romania,
it also was absent throughout the Eastern Bloc. As such, could this similar framework have made a difference
between peaceful overthrow in some countries and violent overthrow in Romania? Did a successful labor-union
movement such as Solidarity [Solidarnosc] in Poland (led by Lech Walesa) nurture a climate more inclined
for peaceful change than the lack of such labor movement in Romania? In crudest terms, deficiency in any one
of these areas, let alone most or all of these economic indicators, could (a) bring to the helm a brute like
Ceausescu, (b) impede the emergence of democracy, (c) stultify the operations of an efficient economic
machine, and (d) plant the seeds for violent overthrow of the government; note that the operative word is
could.

Further, such economic distress (particularly a scarcity of food in Romania) could easily nurture a

dictatorial ego like Ceausescus; history shows this is a convenient demagogic motivator, as Hitlers initial
argument was fighting economic distress. Economic blight could contribute to violent revolution; Romania,
with the exception of personal wealth Ceausescu accumulated and hid, was a country ravaged by poverty. At
question is if Romanias economy was more dire than that of its Eastern European neighbors and, if so, how
much did such economic blight contribute to violence in removing the dictatorship in Romania? More than a
parenthetical note, was this economic blight brought to light in Romania?
Education = Elementary and secondary education (K-12), along with higher education, might have
lagged behind counterparts in Eastern Europe pre-1989. If the leap is made that an educated citizenry is more
likely to welcome dissent and embrace democracy over dictatorship, and democracy is a peaceful ideology and
system, then was the state of Romanias educational system, compared to that of other Eastern European States,
somewhat responsible for its bloody entry into a lukewarm democracy?
Foreign Aid = How much foreign aid, particularly humanitarian aid, was offered to Romania (from the
U.S., U.N, IMF) prior to the 1989 Romanian revolution? If substantially less aid was provided to Romanians
compared to other Eastern European lands, then could this have possibly fomented less of an acceptance for
democracy, including the approach toward democracy via bloody revolution? As the George W. Bush
Administration helped set up a government in Iraq (nation building), was such policy assistance offered to
Romania or other Eastern European States prior to 1989?
Geography = Is Romania more of an urban or rural country? How does its landscape compare with its
Eastern European counterparts? Does the proportion of a rural to urban populous, or vice-versa, portend for
violence in seeking reform? If so, one would need to measure if democracy, certainly as an approach of peace
instead of violent overthrow, thrives in urban or rural settings. Is a landlocked country like Romania less likely
to invite democracy than a coastal state? Is there greater cosmopolitanism in states sitting on a body of water?

-5Is the opportunity for a country to be democratized absent bloodshed more or less likely when it is landlocked?
Presuming immigration is not barred, is a greater barrier to peaceful reform in place for a state which is
landlocked or on the sea?
Human Rights = It is an understatement to claim that Romania under Ceausescus rule was not a
champion of human rights. Amnesty International would cringe at the human rights abuses during Ceausescus
violent reign--a reign that, since 1966, denied many rights to women, including perhaps the strictest limits in the
world on abortion and use of contraception. This ban on reproductive choice led to a growth in the birth rate
and ironically, some of the young people who took to the streets in 1989 to depose Ceausescu were probably
the fruits of this campaign. 5

The correlation between outlawing abortion and criminal behavior is not a huge

leap. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner note that when a woman is denied an abortion, she often resented
her baby and failed to provide it with a good home. Even when controlling for the income, age, education, and
health of the motherthese childrenwere more likely to become criminals. 6 Though revolting against
Ceausescus tyranny might be morally laudable, such an act is nonetheless legally criminal. The point being
that individuals who were initially unwanted by their mothers or if this resentment lasted through a childs
lifetime, are less likely to develop high self esteem and consequently more prone toward aberrant behavior. In
addition to children who were the product of unwanted births, were women in Romania, many denied
reproductive choice, more inclined to seek violent governmental revolution in that country than women in other
parts of Eastern Europe. As to the more general violation of human rights, when Romanians became aware
through media of atrocities in Romania, were seeds planted for a bloody revolution?

Independence from the USSR = As Romania was more independent of the Soviet Union (being antiSoviet endeared Romania to the U.S. more than other Warsaw Pact States to the U.S.) than its Eastern Bloc
counterparts, was she less inclined to follow Gorbachevs guidance and thus progress toward democratic
reform less peacefully than the remainder of Eastern Europe? A striking contradiction might be that Romanias
distance from the USSR, thus creating more support from the U.S. for Romania than toward other States in
Eastern Europe, should have cultivated, if minimally not more foreign aid (Romania was granted Most Favored
Nation trading status during the Ford Administration), a flirtation with democracy. 7

5
6
7

Peter Siani-Davies, The Romanian Revolution of 1989

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, pg. 136

Romania was granted Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status with the U.S. during the Ford Administration following President Nixons establishing
of stronger diplomatic ties with Romania. MFN status granted by the U.S. was revoked for Romania in February, 1988 due to human rights abuses in that
country--see http://www.soviet-empire.com/USSP/viewtopic.php?f=130dt=49598

-6-

Tension between Romania and the Soviet Union under Ceaucescus rule took dips and turns through different
avenues; of course, these deviations from Soviet command endeared Romania to the U.S. as (a) Romania was
the lesser of two evils the U.S. perceived between Romania and the USSR and (2) there was truth to the proverb
that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.8

One historical example of the tumultuous relationship between

Ceaucescu and the Soviet Union (particularly heightened under Brezhnevs rule and reignited under the helm of
Gorbachev) is as follows: Ceaucescu antagonized the Soviet Union by establishing diplomatic relations with
the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1967 and by refusing to follow the Soviet lead in breaking
relations with Israel in the wake of the June, 1967 war [Six-Day War in the Middle East]. 9 Additionally,
Ceaucescu denounced the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Further exacerbating the rift between
Romania and the USSR, Ceaucescu distanced himself from the USSR by opposing the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan.
When the reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet President, Ceaucescu further shied away
from any endorsement, let alone affiliation, with the Soviet Union; the democratically-tilted policies of
Perestroika and Glasnost which Gorbachev championed were anathema Ceaucescu. During Gorbachevs helm,
Ceaucescu criticized Soviet-U.S. dialogue in which Romania increasingly adopted a more hawkish position
than the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Pact members on a number of East-West issues. 10
Romania remained at odds with the USSR but was now also not on less-than-cordial terms with its onetime ally, the United States. Without really a friend in either of the two superpowers, it was not unfathomable
that Romanias government would change through violence.

Media, Culture, & History = What exposure did pre-1989 Romanians have to mainstream news (i.e.
CNN) broadcast internationally or domestically within Romania? Was the message censored? Were there
restrictions on a free press? How persuasive was anti-democracy and pro-Ceausescu propaganda and how often
was it preached and in what arenas and by what means? How was history presented, if not revised, to make
Ceausescu sacred? Was there a brainwashing to produce a cult mentality (cult of personality) that was not
present in other Eastern European nations (or present to a lesser degree) and which extinguished ones
temptation to dissent or rebel and welcome democracy? Ceausescu manipulated history, national symbols,
collective memories, and sentimentsCeausescu demanded he be referred to as Genius of the Carpathians,
Romanias Most Beloved Son, a Luminous Beacon, The Helmsman Who Guides, The Thinking Polar Star,
and The First Thinker of the Earth.11 Through restricted exposure to an outside world of progress (as
Internet

8
9

This proverb is attributed to the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu; attribution is also made to Arabian proverbs

Library of Congress Country Studies, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi=bin/querylr?frdlcstdy:@field(DOCID+ro0181)

10
ibid

11

John Ely and Catalin Stoica, Remembering Romania, in Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics, and Society

-7-

access today might be limited in anti-democratic States), what kind of cultural mores could Romanians, pre- and
post-1989, adopt that would not make them fearful of democracy? Was the generational-cultural divide greater
in Romania than in other Eastern Bloc States?

In short, was a social psyche produced in the Romanian

populous which ordained that its only escape from the brutality of Ceausescus rule would be through bloody
revolution (and execution of Ceausescu), as the citizenry might have been dumbfounded how to peacefully
effect change? Were these cultural-historical seeds sown differently than elsewhere in Eastern Europe?
Membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) = Were other countries, such as
todays Germany (and then-West Germany), more likely to have support of democratic states in Europe due to
NATO membership? Was the absence of Romania from NATO (though as of 2012 Romania is a NATO
member) a factor contributing to less support by European neighbors and developing alliances with other
European countries? If so, was Romania isolated from many of its democratic European neighbors and other
actors on the global stage? Would Romanian membership in NATO have minimized, if not precluded, the
violence which overtook Romania in 1989, as such NATO presence and cooperation might have served as an
incentive for that nation to peacefully adopt change?
Politics & Social Structure = How much did Ceausescus ruthless rule, plus firing on demonstrators in
Timisoara, contribute to his execution (and the execution of his wife)? Was there, prior to December 1989, less
people power than elsewhere in Eastern Europe? Was suppression of dissenting political parties more severe
in Romania than in other Eastern Bloc lands and, if so, what role did that play in signaling violence? Would a
structure-based meritocracy and non-discrimination (certainly not nepotism in government) and equal
opportunity have boded well for peaceful change in Romania in 1989 rather than the autocratic social structure
of the Ceausescu regime? Were other Eastern European nations quicker to usher in meritocracy? What kind of
election irregularities and possible corruption did Romania encounter compared with its Eastern Bloc
neighbors?

Was violence inevitable as there was no heir-apparent to Ceausescu (unlike Lech Walesas

ascendancy to power in Poland replacing Wojciech Jaruzelski). Also, political parties lacked organization,
resources, ties to interest groups and grass root constituencies, as well as lacking political skill and experience to
effectively govern. Perhaps a call for nation-building should have been considered.
Religion = Logic behind the atheism propagated under Communism is to remove factious distractions
from the power of the state and the temptations people might give to faith in religion or a God than in an
unflinching faith or allegiance to the Communist state (inherent in Marxs formulation of Communism and
Lenins implementation of this ideology); essentially, a theistic deity is substituted, under Communism, with a
governmental deity--religion in a secular form. Was denial of religious freedom in Romania more severe than in
the rest of the Eastern Bloc? If so, did this trump the emergence of peaceful reform in Romania, perhaps
through peaceful moral or religious means (assuming that morality and religion are inseparable--a huge

-8-

assumption)? Quoting a minister, Earl Pope recalled that The churches became guardians of evangelical,
historical, traditional, and human values. Struggling with internal and external circumstances and drawing
strength from their faith, the churches kept alive in the people the hope of liberation, becoming in this way the
repository of a better and more just future.12

Was there less hope of [and for] liberation in Romania--

liberation from the Ceausescu government--than in other parts of Eastern Europe?

Social Cohesion & Immigration = Was a unifying nationalism deficient in Romania (certainly starkly
contrasted to the dangerous nationalism which overtook 1930s Germany)? Were there factions in Romania,
akin to that of Greeks and Turks in Cyprus or Christians and Muslims in Lebanon or Catholics and Protestants
in Northern Ireland, that were lacking in other Eastern European nations? If so, did factionalism prove fertile
ground for Ceausescus iron rule? Was there a lack of social cohesion, until December 1989, dissenting against
Ceausescu or at least not willing to confront him? How much does a transient population, such as gypsies in
Romania, contribute to a dilution of social cohesion? Does the gypsy population have such impact, as a large
gypsy demographic in Hungary did not lead to violent revolution? If there was a greater influx of immigrants
to Romania and emigrants from Romania, compared to other Eastern European States, could this have led to
less of a Romanian identity and warned as a precursor toward less social cohesion? While questions of class
warfare could be grouped under economy, without doubt such divisiveness disintegrates social cohesion; the
extent to which class warfare played a role in the very poor country of Romania compared with her neighbors in
Eastern Europe needs to be recognized as a factor which potentially contributed to violent revolution. Of
course, these questions presuppose that it is not a spurious connection that social cohesion helps peacefully erect
and maintain democratic reforms.
Expectations = Though this is out of alphabetical order, the role of expectations cannot be overstated.
If expectations of the Romanian government providing a good life (erasing poverty, making institutions
democratic) to its people were too high prior to December 1989 and were not met, the only direction for reform
might have been to resort to violence. At a minimum, we can infer that those revolutionaries who sought
democracy (perhaps even those who died in doing so) were acting to maximize rational choice--the assumption
that individuals choose their actions in order to maximize some valued object and minimize the cost expended in
achieving it.13

12
13

Earl Pope, The Role of Religion in the Romanian Revolution, in Religion in Eastern Europe

W. Phillips Shively, The Craft of Political Research (8th Edition); this is central to Anthony Downs thesis of an Economic Theory of Democracy and
game theory in general

-9Dynamics existed which may have determined the approach toward change in Romania which differed
from that in other parts of Eastern Europe. Goodwin notes that the opposition to Ceausescu was remarkably
weak in terms of brewing a grand plan; the protests in Timisoara against the ruler were highly spontaneous:
There was no preexisting oppositional network in Romania, like Solidarity [Poland] or Charter 77
[Czechoslovakia], that could place itself at the head of the popular unrest. Ironicallythe most revolutionary
events of 1989 thrust into power the least revolutionary and most compromised leadership.14

Other Measurement Possibilities & Criterion

Conflicting Causes = Any of the aforementioned possible causes could have contributed to the
bloody revolution in Romania as well as that countrys insufficient success in moving toward democracy.
Causes could be all which are mentioned above, some combination, or none of the above. A desirable goal
would be to eliminate spurious causes and to isolate THE main cause or a few main causes (the simplicity
of an elegant theory); cause is in quotation marks to indicate that this term is liberally used, for it is really
correlation that the aforementioned factors represent (this will be explained later).
Gathering of Data = Compiling data on the possible (perhaps not even potential) causal links
mentioned thus far could be through surveys--carefully crafted surveys asking about economic standards and
satisfaction; education level attained; political ideology; religious preference, if any; expectations. Of course,
these survey questions serve as independent variables to test the dependent variable on how such answers to
these and other questions reflect support for democratic reforms in Romania. Ideally, such surveys should have
been issued prior to and shortly after the 1989 Romanian revolution. To compare why Romania adopted
change through violence rather than peacefully, as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the same questions should also
have been presented to citizens of other Eastern European nations prior to and shortly after their respective
revolutions; choosing the sample size and who constitutes the sample is as integral to achieving some level of
accuracy for these surveys as how the questions are worded and what questions are omitted.
History = Will the patterns demonstrated by Romania and other States in the Eastern Bloc be repeated?
If so, when and to what extent? As there is not a crystal ball, all we can rely upon is hindsight and retrospect to
hopefully add to future prediction. In searching for patterns, we need to acutely recognize similarities which
cannot be ruled out as causes and extraneous information that can deceive the historian. To do this, a survey-differing from one about conditions pre-1989--needs to be issued for conditions post-1989 and looking forward.
Language = Equivocation in terms must be erased in order to approach accuracy. We know that
Romania is a country in Eastern Europe. As for revolution and democracy, we accept common usage of
these terms (though some might say there is relativity in these concepts). In reviewing the independent variables
(i.e. foreign aid, media, social cohesion), a uniform definition for each, plus the terms describing these variables,

14

Goodwin, supra

-10must be established. Ambiguity in language, as being multi-dimensional, skews the measurement of these
independent variables and thus distorts any relation of these variables to the dependent variable.

Most

importantly, conceptual compatibility must be made in associating independent variables with the dependent
variable (violent revolution in Romania) being measured.
Quantitative Research vs. Qualitative Research = Observing if our independent variables influence
the dependent variable or question of research stated at the top of this paper may be facilitated by quantitative
and/or qualitative research.

To rule out either the quantitative use of statistical inference or qualitative

conclusions drawn through case studies would be confining. Both, when appropriate to a dependent variable as
being carefully defined as needing measurement in relation to independent variables, are valuable.
Qualitatively, it should be acknowledged that the larger the sample, the more representative are the results.
Quantitatively using measurements that are nominal or ordinal would be less predictably valuable than using
interval measurements, including assigning arbitrary interval lengths (i.e. for economy, education, foreign aid).
Marriage of these two methods can be demonstrated through surveys; the survey is qualitative, yet analyzing
data by translating it numerically is quantitative in producing a statistical inference.
Reliability & Validity = We must show if the concepts (independent variables) we are using to measure
our dependent variable of violent revolution in Romania compared to peaceful transition in her Eastern
European counterparts, are reliable--if there is consistency, repetition of results using the same independent
variables. Danger lies, though, in relying on these variables or possible causes as valid. The possible causes
listed might be reliably incorrect (some might say reliably unreliable). A logical connecting of the dots of
these variables, even if reliably reproduced over time (a time study would need to be commenced), must align
with reality to be valid. Intuitively, the best way to measure validity in the case of Romanian democracy (or its
lack thereof) is face validity--the use of the independent variables listed are valid on its face or produce a
logically inescapable linkage between these variables and the dependent variable at question. Simply finding a
counter-example of where any one of the independent variables exists, yet democracy in Romania thrives or
another case of an inconsistency between the independent variable and our question of democracy in Romania,
will disqualify that independent variable as validly contributing to the theory.

-11-

Research Design
SURVEY
Our dependent variable--Research Question--is falsifiable and thus open to testing. As such, testing will
be done in relation to the independent variables listed in this paper. Data will be collected from two surveys-one survey (Survey P) will be administered relating to events prior to the 1989 Romanian Revolution a few
post-1989 questions) and the other survey (Survey Q) will be confined to data following the 1989 Romanian
Revolution (Survey P = Pre-1989; Survey Q = Post-1989). These surveys, relating to the dependent variableresearch question, is a case study aimed at showing different results based on a time study (pre-1989 and post1989).

Survey Administration

Form of Administration = Mail (not by telephone, web survey, e-mail, or in person)

Mode for Choosing Mail Survey Participants = Certain demographic criteria must be met to
participate. This will be ascertained by checking records (i.e. voter registration, birth certificates,
tax returns) AND asking people at venues. This will be done in a 50/50 gender proportion.
A self-addressed, postage-paid envelope will be provided to participants.
Identity of participants will remain anonymous.
No monetary incentives or other remuneration will be provided, nor will any coaxing or coercion be done.

Survey Structure
The ranking of options in the final question will be listed alphabetically.
A Likert Scale will not be used. Mixed use of question format will include open-ended and multiple choice.
Two-Part or multi-part questions will be broken out.
Dichotomous questions (yes or no responses) will be used to cultivate follow-up, open-ended questions.
Terms will be clearly spelled out, even at the risk of redundancy.
There will not be leading questions nor indications molding a response, as terms will not be capitalized or
bold-typed for emphasis (avoidance of a push-poll).
Questions will solicit opinion, suggestions as prescription or proscription, contrasting, and seeking
knowledge of the respondent.
Pre-1989 questions (Survey P) will be phrased in the past tense (with some exceptions) and Post-1989
questions (Survey Q) will be phrased in present and future tenses.
The surveys will be comprehensive to better enable drawing conclusions, despite numerous data
permutations to sift through.

Survey Sample
Surveys P & Q given to residents in Romania (dependent variable) and for the independent variable
countries of Bulgaria, Czech Republic & Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia), Estonia, Germany (eastern
section--formerly East Germany) Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland.
3,000 persons in Romania
3,000 persons in each of the following countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic & Slovakia, Estonia,
Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland
Demographic criteria is required to qualify; this is to be faithful to the measurement goal.

-12

Demographics:
Geography per Country:
1/3 = Urban
1/3 = Suburban
1/3 = Rural/Agrarian
Gender per country:
Female = 50%
Male = 50%
Age per country:
Age for pre-1989 Survey = Born 1929-1969 (ages 42-82)
Age for post-1989 Survey = Born 1986-1991 (ages 21-25)
Participants found by age in each range will be proportionate (i.e. fifths, fourths)-ideally recruit, for pre-1989, enough respondents in the age groups to make equal
proportions for age groups 42-50, 51-60, 61-70, 71-82 and for the post-1989 survey,
enough equal proportions of ages 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.
Other:
Ethnicity, race, religion, and socioeconomic status will not be proportionally determined.
These demographics will fall under or be determined by, in descending order, the mix or
pool of geography, gender, and age. These other demographic groups, unlike geography,
gender, and age, will not be divided proportionally into fifths, fourths, thirds, etc.

Types of Sampling Methodology:

Confirming and Disconfirming Cases = Ultimately the data collected should lead to
inference that certain criteria in the independent variables confirms or disconfirms why
certain countries achieve peaceful change while other countries change their government
through violence.
Convenience or Opportunistic Sampling = Recruiting the participants for the survey will be
done (a) by cooperation (as this is voluntary) and (b) by availability, either determined
through records review and subsequent contact or by recruiting people from the streets
who meet the demographic criteria.
Criterion Sampling = Cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance. That
criteria is being a country in Eastern Europe and changing from a Communist government
to a democracy (or at least abolishing totalitarian rule).
Critical Case = If it happens here, it happens anywhere or if it does not happen here, it
wont happen anywhere. Results from surveys for countries comprising the independent
variable and Romania (dependent variable) as well as two time frames (pre-1989 and post1989) could lead to inferences as to which country(ies), if any, are the critical case.
Stratified Purposeful Sampling = Variations can hopefully be captured through
demographic combinations meshed with independent variables.
Trend = Different samples from the general population, within the prescribed demographic
criteria, at different times (pre-1989 and post-1989).

-13-

Survey Measurement--Units of Analysis

Two options exist for measuring data collected through these surveys. (I) List possible causes (independent
variables) as salient and ordinally rank them with assigned intervals (i.e. Economy = 5, Religion = 3, Foreign
Aid = 2, etc.) OR (II) take the collected data and then ordinally rank it (with assigned intervals) according to
themes or patterns found--most frequent patterns receives the highest numerical ranking (5), second highest
pattern receives the next numerical ranking (4), and so on. These rankings would then be compared from the
surveys taken by participants in the independent variable countries (i.e. Hungary, Latvia, Poland) and compared
to the data collected from survey respondents in the dependent variable country of Romania. Option II will be
used in this survey so as not to manipulate salience by assigning ordinal-interval rankings prior to data being
collected, but allowing the themes or patterns which emerge through the data collection to determine salience
via frequency of response (not intensity of response). Difficulty which could emerge is in interpreting and
applying permutations.

Potential Survey Problems

Some safeguards for measurement must be invoked to produce (or strive to produce) validity:
(1) Proper phrasing of the question.
(2) Recognition that there might be a response rate which is erroneous, either unintentional or intentional
(lying); unfortunately this is difficult to gauge.
(3) Attempts to solicit a high rate of response; this includes avoiding mailing of survey at certain times of year
(i.e. Christmas season) and not requiring participants to incur a survey cost.
(4) Quality control to rule out clerical errors in transcribing or entering responses into a data base.
(5) A test-retest check for reliability, a split-half check for reliability, and ruling out non-random error should
help increase the chances of measuring our independent variables for not only reliability, but optimally, validity,
as that which is reliable can be invalid, yet that which is valid must also be reliable.

Conclusions Sought by Survey

Finding outliers (or extreme cases) through comparing data produced in surveys for people in the
dependent variable country (Romania) and the independent variable countries (other States in Eastern Europe)
for both pre-1989 and post-1989 surveys is a goal. Identifying these extreme cases indicates that what is
thought of as a contributing factor might be an anomaly or spurious cause OR the outlier is a factor needing to
be accounted for which was previously overlooked.
If we accept causation, we must disqualify reverse causality--namely, the dependent variable, the 1989
Romanian revolution, cannot produce the independent variables (i.e. politics, social cohesion) which the
dependent variable or research question depends upon (hence, the terms dependent and independent
variables). If there is not causation, there might be correlation. Respectively, if it is not by necessity that the
violent 1989 Romanian revolution was the effect, product, or result of a specific or combination of independent
variables, then causation, or at least within the realm of drawing a linkage between an independent variable and
the dependent variable, does not exist.

Another possibility might be correlation--a likelihood or great

probability where X exists as an independent variable that Y, the dependent variable, also occurs. There might
be a correlation that in a country with a low level of education, governmental change comes about through

-14bloodshed. This is a linkage that could be shown through a repeated pattern, but it is correlative, not causal if it
is not by necessity that for every country in which a low educational level exists (a term needing to be
quantitatively and qualitatively defined), it must follow that there can be no other result but a bloody overthrow
of the government. A possibility is that the observed relationship is a result of outside factors that cause the
two phenomena at hand, and thus neither of these phenomena causes the other. 15 Perhaps the compromise is
to, as W. Phillips Shively asserts, measure how strongly the dependent variable is determined by the
independent variable relative to other things that also help determine it16 or striving for correlation.
Another possible conclusion which could be drawn from synthesizing our survey data OR not using the
independent variables and the dependent variable in our survey is to hold a variable constant or to control for the
variable: If we want to know whether a relationship between two variables can be accounted for by a third
variable that is related to both of them, we can hold the third variable constant to see whether the relationship
between the first two continues to exist when the third variable is not free to vary.17 For example, if we want
to know if there is a relationship between the independent variable of suppressing religious freedom and the
dependent variable of violent revolution--in this case for Romania--we can introduce a third variable to the mix,
namely age. What if we apply this situation to all people ages 18-25. We might see that whenever this age
group is religiously suppressed, it executes violent governmental revolution. But, what if there is a case--an
outlier--which reveals a country in which there is religious oppression, yet the age group of 18-25 which is
religiously oppressed with the remainder of the countrys populous, does NOT engage in violent revolution and
in fact denounces such violence. This example of controlling for the variable shows, at a minimum, that
conclusions of causation need to be abandoned and, at best, we can conclude some correlation between all
variables.
If censored data existed both from our survey results and as a source of information for survey
respondents, then what we are left with is drawing assumptions on what might have been in data which is not
available. Particularly, soliciting responses from survey participants in the pre-1989 survey (some as old as 82),
there is the possibility of loss of or diminished memory (this could be for any age participant). There could be
missing data which is gone and will not reappear, even when going back to retrieve information (documents,
media accounts, etc.) from 22 years ago at the time of the Romanian revolution and revolutions in other Eastern
European nations.
Use of ordinal data with numerical assignments for rankings in descending order will be used to
measure the strength of the relationship between two variables: (1) By how great a difference the independent
variable makes in the dependent variable, that is, how greatly values of the dependent variable differ, given

15
16
17

Shively, supra, pg .78

ibid, pg. 133
ibid, pg. 94

-15varying scores on the independent variable; or (2) by how completely the independent variable determines the
dependent variable, that is, how complete an explanation of the dependent variable is provided by the
independent variable. 18
Reflexive questions we need to ask are: (1) Can we make a uniform conclusion of the relationship of
the independent variables to the dependent variable for both surveys if numerous permutations are produced (as
they will be)? (2) Is our phenomena causal or correlative? It is the latter, as necessity can be ruled out in the
relationship between independent variables on the dependent variable (the linkage is not one of a law of
physics). (3) By eliminating the prospect of causality, is it moot to abandon alternative explanations of
causality? Can we, though, rule out alternative explanations of correlation? No, as any one of the independent
variables can correlate to the dependent variable. Drawing any conclusion prior to collecting and synthesizing
survey data for patterns would be premature and thus inconclusive; certainly inaccurate, even as an
approximation.
Bias and manipulation--can it be isolated from our study and implementation of surveys? Simply by
framing this study (or any study) as is, there is bias and manipulation--a selection by the researcher of what to
study and what to include and what to omit, let alone how to phrase questions and answers. To be scientific in
using data (some might say interpretation is manipulation), results will not be manipulated, but reported within
the safety parameters exercised in designing surveys, collecting survey data, and reporting that data.

SURVEYS
SYNTHESIZING THE DATA
See APPENDIX A [Survey P = Pre-1989]
GOAL OF SURVEY = What factors in Romania led to its bloody revolution that were present which were not
present in the other Eastern European countries which conducted peaceful revolutions?
See APPENDIX B [Survey Q = Post-1989]
GOAL OF SURVEY = What conclusions can be drawn from present or absent factors to predict if a revolution
is likely to be peaceful or violent in a country?

18

ibid, pg. 114

Bibliography
Barany, Zoltan. Democratic Consolidation and the Military: The East European Experience.
Comparative Politics, Volume 30, Number 1, October 1997
Betea, Lavinia. The History of the Fall of Communism: An Area of Inquiry for the Social and
Human Sciences. Crossroads of European Histories: Multiple Outlooks on Five Key Moments
in the History of Europe, edited by Robert Straddling (2009) [Council of Europe Publishing,
Belgium]
Bunce, Valerie. Sequencing of Political and Economic Reforms. East-Central European
Economies in Transition, edited by John Hardt and Richard Kaufman (1995) [M.E. Sharpe,
Inc.; Armonk, New York]
Bunce, Valerie & Wolchik, Sharon. Favorable Conditions and Electoral Revolutions. Journal of
Democracy, Volume 17, Number 4, October 2006
Diamond, Larry. Promoting Democracy. Foreign Policy, Number 87, Summer 1992
Ely, John & Stoica, Catalin. Remembering Romania. Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics,
and Society, edited by Henry Carey (2004) [Lexington Books; Lanham, Maryland]
Gaddis, John. The Cold War: A New History (2005) [Penguin Books, New York & London]
Goodwin, Jeff. Old Regimes and Revolutions in the Second and Third Worlds. Social Science
History, Volume 18, Number 4, Winter 1994
Hall, Richard. Theories of Collective Action and Revolution: Evidence From the Romanian
Transition of December 1989. Europe-Asia Studies, Volume 52, Number 6, 2000
Hardt, John & Kaufman, Richard. Introduction. East-Central European Economies in
Transition, edited by John Hardt and Richard Kaufman (1995) [M.E. Sharpe, Inc.; Armonk,
New York]
Levitt, Steven & Dubner, Stephen. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden
Side of Everything (2005) [Harper Collins, New York]
Light, Duncan & Phinnemore, David. Post-Communist Romania: Coming to Terms With
Transition (2001) [Palgrave Publishers Ltd., New York]
Jackson, Marvin. Political Incredibility and Bureaucratic Transition in Romania. East-Central
European Economies in Transition, edited by John Hardt and Richard Kaufman.
Patton, Michael. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd Edition) (2002) [Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California]

Pope, Earl. The Role of Religion in the Romanian Revolution in Religion in Eastern Europe
(2003) [Evangel Press; Nappanee, Indiana]
Roberts, Adam. Civil Resistance in the East European and Soviet Revolutions. Monograph
Series, Number 4, The Albert Einstein Institute
Shin, Doh Chull. Democratization: Perspectives From Global Citizenries (2006) [Center for
Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine; Irvine, California]
Shively, W. Phillips. The Craft of Political Research (8th Edition) (2011) [Longman, an
imprint of Pearson Higher Education, Boston & New York]
Siani-Davies, Peter.
The Romanian Revolution of December 1989
University Press; Ithaca, New York]

(2005)

[Cornell

Tismancanu, Vladimir. Reinventing Politics: Eastern Europe From Stalin to Havel (1992)
[The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster; New York]
Watson, Russell; Meyer, Michael; Breslau, Karen; Nordland, Rod.
Dictator in Newsweek, January 8, 1990 (pp. 16-23)

The Last Days of a

Watts, Larry. Reform and Crisis in Romanian Civil-Military Relations, 1989-1999. Armed Forces
& Society, April 2011, 37(2)

Web Sites
www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Romania_and_the_Soviet_Union_1965-1989
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi=bin/querylr?frdlcstdy:@field(DOCID+ro0181)
www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.html
www.soviet-empire.com/USSP/viewtopic.php?f=130dt=49598

APPENDIX A

SURVEY P
Where choices are provided, circle ONLY ONE option
Questions should be answered based solely on your knowledge. If you
cannot answer a question, then leave it blank.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

What country do you live in?

What city or town do you live in?
How long have you lived in that city or town?
How long did you live in that city or town prior to 1989?
Gender:
Male Female
What is your age?
What part of the country do you live in? (a) Urban
(b) Suburban
(c) Rural
What part of the country did you live in before and through 1989? (a) Urban
(b) Suburban
(c) Rural
Socioeconomic Status--Do you consider yourself:
(a) Upper Class
(b) Upper Middle Class
(c) Middle Class
(d) Working Class
10. Employment--Prior to and through 1989, was your employment status?:
(a) Professional--White Collar
(b) Skilled Labor or Trade--Blue Collar
11. How would you describe the state of the economy of your country prior to and through 1989?
12. Do you think the economic state of your country prior to and through 1989 had any bearing on a revolution?
(a) Yes
(b) No
13. If Yes to question 12, what bearing did the economy prior to and through 1989 have on the revolution in
your country?
14. Was the economic state in your country prior to and through 1989 more likely to lead to?:
(a) peaceful change
(b) violent change
15. Were you employed in 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
16. If you were employed in 1989, what was your job?
17. Do you think capitalism existed in your country prior to 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
18. If Yes to question 17, how would you define capitalism in the time prior to 1989?
19. Did labor unions play a role toward political change in 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
20. If labor unions did not play a role toward political change in 1989, would you have liked labor unions to play
a role in helping generate political change? (a) Yes
(b) No
21. If Yes to question 20, what role would you have liked labor unions to play in helping achieve political
reform?
22. What is the highest level of education you attained prior to 1989?
23. If you were a college graduate prior to 1989, what was your major or area or concentration?
24. Do you think there was a connection between your countrys education level (for the majority of people) and
political change which took place in 1989?
25. Did your level of education influence your views on government change through revolution?
(a) Yes
(b) No
26. If Yes to question 25, how did your level of education influence your views on government change through
revolution?
27. Do you think your countrys level of education led to revolution through?:
(a) peaceful means
(b) violence
28. How do you think your countrys level of education led to revolution through peace or violence?
29. Do you think your country was given monetary aid (for food, infrastructure) and military aid by other
countries prior to 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
30. If Yes to question 29, what country or countries gave aid to your homeland?
31. If aid was not given to your country prior to 1989, should a country or countries have assisted your nation

32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.

prior to 1989? (a) Yes

(b) No
If there was not aid, what country or countries would you have liked to aid your homeland prior to 1989?
Why did you choose the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 32?
If aid was given to your nation prior to 1989, do you wish it was not provided? (a) Yes
(b) No
If aid was provided to your nation prior to 1989, which country or countries do you wish did not provide aid?
Why do you wish the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 35 did not provide aid?
Prior to 1989, did you consider your country more?: (a) agrarian-agricultural
(b) metropolitan-urban
Do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 made a difference in achieving revolution?:
(a) Peacefully
(b) Violently
Why do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 led to peaceful or violent revolution?
How do you define human rights?
Are human rights important? (a) Yes
(b) No
If human rights are important or are not important, why are they important or not important?
Do you think before 1989 your countrys government honored human rights? (a) Yes
(b) No
Do you think that prior to 1989 honoring human rights in your country had any connection toward peaceful
government change? (a) Yes
(b) No
Do you think that prior to 1989 if your countrys government did not honor human rights, that this could
have led to violent revolution? (a) Yes
(b) No
Are you worried answering questions 43, 44, and 45 about human rights? (a) Yes
(b) No
Do you think it was a duty, prior to 1989, for the governments of other countries to ensure that human rights
in your homeland were honored? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 47, why do you think the governments of other countries had a responsibility to ensure
that human rights in your homeland were honored?
Prior to 1989, how much guidance do you think your country took from the then-Soviet Union in conducting
your government?: (a) Too Much Guidance
(b) Some Guidance
(c) Little Guidance
(d) Not Enough Guidance
(e) No Guidance
Should your countrys government have, prior to 1989, followed the lead of then-Soviet Premier Mikhail
Gorbachev? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes for question 50, why should your countrys government have followed Gorbachevs lead?
If No for question 50, why should your countrys government not have followed Gorbachevs lead?
Did citizens in your country have access to all media prior to and through 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
What do you define as all media prior to and through 1989?
Should citizens in your country have had access to all media prior to and through 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
Did the government in your country censor the press? (a) Yes
(b) No
How do you define government censorship of the press?
Should the government prior to and through 1989 have had central control over the press, allowing for
censorship? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 58, why should the government have been allowed to censor the press prior to and
through 1989?
If No to question 58, why should the government have not been allowed to censor the press prior to and
through 1989?
If you think the government censored the press in your country prior to and through 1989, do you think such
censorship of the press took place in other countries in Eastern Europe? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 61, what other countries do you think, prior to and through 1989, the press was
censored by the government?
What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?
Prior to and through 1989, was your country a member of NATO? (a) Yes
(b) No
If your country was not a member of NATO prior to and through 1989, should it have been a member of
NATO? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 65, why should your country have been a NATO member?
If No to question 65, why should your country have not been a NATO member?
What benefits does NATO membership provide, if any?
What disadvantages does NATO membership provide, if any?
Was your country a member of the Warsaw Pact prior to and through 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
If your country was a member of the Warsaw Pact, what benefits did Warsaw Pact membership provide to
your country, if any?

72. If your country was a member of the Warsaw Pact, what disadvantages did Warsaw Pact membership
provide to your country, if any?
73. Was dissent and protests by the citizens toward your countrys government allowed prior to and through
1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
74. If Yes to question 73, what kind of dissent was allowed?
75. If Yes to question 73, why do you think dissent by the citizens toward the government was allowed?
76. If No to question 73, why do you think dissent by the citizens toward the government was not allowed?
77. Should dissent by the citizens toward the countrys government have been allowed prior to and through
1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
78. If Yes to question 77, why should dissent by a countrys citizens toward the government have been
allowed?
79. If No to question 77, why should dissent by a countrys citizens toward the government not have been
allowed?
80. Are you religious? (a) Yes
(b) No
81. What does religious mean to you?
82. If you are religious, what is your religion or what religion do you identify-associate with?
83. Were you religious prior to 1989? (a) Yes
(b) No
84. Is religion important? (a) Yes
(b) No
85. Prior to and through 1989, did the government in your homeland ?: (a) allow for religious freedom
(b) persecute or punish people for religious freedom or not allow practice of ones religion
86. If you circled (b) for question 85, how was religious freedom not allowed?
87. What is religious freedom?
88. Is religious freedom important? (a) Yes
(b) No
89. If Yes to question 88, why is religious freedom important?
90. If No to question 88, why is religious freedom not important?
91. Did allowing for religious freedom contribute, prior to and through 1989, to revolution which was?:
(a) Peaceful
(b) Violent
(c) No Impact on Revolution
92. If religious freedom contributed to peaceful revolution of the government, how did such freedom produce
peaceful reform?
93. If religious freedom contributed to violent revolution of the government, how did such freedom produce
violence toward reform?
94. If religious freedom did not have any impact on changing the government, why did such freedom not have
any impact?
95. If there was religious freedom in your country prior to and through 1989, did it contribute in your country
toward?: (a) Unity
(b) Divisiveness
(c) No Impact
96. What race are you?
97. What ethnic group (ethnicity) do you identify with--name all that apply?
98. Prior to 1989, were there more than one or multiple ethnic groups in your country? (a) Yes
(b) No
99. Is it good to have multiple ethnic groups? (a) Yes
(b) No
100. Prior to 1989, were there any ethnic groups you disliked? (a) Yes
(b) No
101. If Yes to question 100, name all ethnic groups you disliked.
102. For the ethnic groups you listed in question 101 as disliking, why do you dislike each group named?
103. Do you think having different ethnic groups in your country prior to 1989 led to revolution?
(a) Yes
(b) No
104. If Yes to question 103, why do you think these different ethnic groups led to revolution in your country?
105. Do you think any ethnic group or groups in your country, prior to 1989, were responsible for revolution?
(a) Yes
(b) No
106. If you answered Yes to question 105, which ethnic group or groups do you think were responsible for
revolution?
107. If you answered Yes to question 105, why do you think the ethnic group or groups you list for question
106 were responsible for sparking revolution?
108. Should ethnic groups, other than the one you belong to, have been exiled from your country prior to 1989?
(a) Yes
(b) No
109. Do you think prior to 1989 immigration to your country was?: (a) Good
(b) Bad
(c) Neutral
110. Are there any ethnic groups you dislike today? (a) Yes
(b) No
111. Prior to 1989, what expectations did you have for government reform?

112. After the revolution in 1989, were your expectations met? (a) Yes
(b) No
113. If you answered Yes to question 112, how were your expectations met?
114. If you answered No to question 112, how were your expectations not met?

115. Rank from the alphabetical list below which factor most contributed to revolution in your country, be it
peaceful or violent revolution (Example: A ranking of 1 is the factor most responsible, a factor of 18 is
the least responsible, with other number rankings falling in between):
_____Age
_____Economy (employment, technology, trade)
_____Educational Level Attained (cumulatively for the country)
_____Ethnicity
_____Foreign Aid to Your Country
_____Gender
_____Geographic Composition (urban-metropolitan or rural-agricultural)
_____Human Rights (honored or violated)
_____Immigration to Your Country
_____Media--Access to Media and Freedom of the Press
_____Membership of Your Country in NATO
_____Membership of Your Country in the Warsaw Pact
_____Political Freedom (or lack thereof)
_____Race
_____Relation to then-Soviet Union
_____Religious Freedom (or lack thereof)
_____Social Cohesion (removal or reduction of special interests)
_____Socioeconomic Status

APPENDIX B

SURVEY Q
Where choices are provided, circle ONLY ONE option
Questions should be answered based solely on your knowledge. If you
cannot answer a question, then leave it blank.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

What country do you live in?

What city or town do you live in?
How long have you lived in that city or town?
Gender:
Male Female
What is your age?
What part of the country do you live in? (a) Urban
(b) Suburban
(c) Rural
Socioeconomic Status--Do you consider yourself:
(a) Upper Class
(b) Upper Middle Class
(c) Middle Class
(d) Working Class
8. Employment--Is your employment status?:
(a) Professional--White Collar
(b) Skilled Labor or Trade--Blue Collar
9. What do you expect your employment status to be in five years?
10. How would you describe the state of the economy of your country?
11. Do you think the economic state of your country could have any bearing on a future revolution in your
country? (a) Yes
(b) No
12. If Yes to question 11, how would the present economy have a bearing on a future revolution in your
country?
13. Is the economic state in your country more likely to lead to?: (a) peaceful change
(b) violent change
14. Are you employed? (a) Yes
(b) No
15. If you are employed, what is your job?
16. Do you think capitalism exists in your country? (a) Yes
(b) No
17. If Yes to question 16, how would you define capitalism?
18. Do labor unions play a role toward political change in your country? (a) Yes
(b) No
19. If labor unions do not play a role toward political change in your country, would you like labor unions to play
a role in helping generate political change? (a) Yes
(b) No
20. If Yes to question 19, what role would you like labor unions to play in helping achieve political reform?
21. What is your highest level of education?
22. Do you plan on pursuing a higher level of education? (a) Yes
(b) No
23. If you are a college graduate, what was your major or area or concentration?
24. Do you think there is a connection between your countrys education level (for the majority of people) and
political change, be it present or potential political change? (a) Yes
(b) No
25. Does your level of education influence your views on government change through revolution?
(a) Yes
(b) No
26. If Yes to question 25, how does your level of education influence your views on government change
through revolution?
27. Do you think your countrys level of education can lead to revolution through?:
(a) peaceful means
(b) violence
28. How do you think your countrys level of education can lead to revolution through peace or violence?
29. Is your country given monetary aid (for food, infrastructure) and military aid by other countries?
(a) Yes
(b) No
30. If Yes to question 29, what country or countries gives aid to your homeland?
31. If aid is not given to your country, should a country or countries assist your nation? (a) Yes
(b) No
32. If there is not aid, what country or countries would you like to aid your homeland?
33. Why did you choose the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 32?

34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.

If aid is given to your nation, do you wish it not be provided? (a) Yes
(b) No
If aid is provided to your nation, which country or countries do you wish not provide aid?
Why do you wish the country or countries, if any, you listed for question 35 not provide aid?
Do you consider your country more?: (a) agrarian-agricultural
(b) metropolitan-urban
Do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 makes a difference in achieving revolution?:
(a) Peacefully
(b) Violently
Why do you think the geographic nature you listed for question 37 can lead to peaceful or violent
revolution?
How do you define human rights?
Are human rights important? (a) Yes
(b) No
If human rights are important or are not important, why are they important or not important?
Do you think your countrys government honors human rights? (a) Yes
(b) No
Do you think honoring human rights in your country has any connection toward peaceful government
change? (a) Yes
(b) No
Do you think that if your countrys government does not honor human rights, this could lead to violent
revolution? (a) Yes
(b) No
Are you worried answering questions 43, 44, and 45 about human rights? (a) Yes
(b) No
Do you think it is a duty for the governments of other countries to ensure that human rights in your
homeland are honored? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 47, why do you think the governments of other countries have a responsibility to ensure
that human rights in your homeland be honored?
Do citizens in your country have access to all media? (a) Yes
(b) No
What do you define as all media?
Does new media--Internet, Facebook, Texting, Scype--play a role in your country? (a) Yes
(b) No
Should the new media listed in question 51 play a role in your country? (a) Yes
(b) No
If the new media listed in question 51 plays a role in your country, what is that role?
Does use of and access of the new media listed in question 51 play a role in maintaining democracy in your
country? (a) Yes
(b) No
If you answered Yes to question 54, what role does new media play in maintaining democracy in your
country?: (a) Advantageous
(b) Disadvantageous
If new media plays an advantageous role in maintaining democracy in your country, how so?
If new media plays a disadvantageous or detrimental role in maintaining democracy in your country, how so?
Should the new media listed in question 51 have a role in maintaining democracy? (a) Yes
(b) No
Should citizens in your country have access to all media--traditional and new? (a) Yes
(b) No
Does the government in your country censor the press? (a) Yes
(b) No
How do you define government censorship of the press?
Should the government have central control over the press, allowing for censorship? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 62, why should the government be allowed to censor the press?
If No to question 62, why should the government not be allowed to censor the press?
If you think the government censors the press in your country, do you think such censorship of the press
takes place in other countries in Eastern Europe? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 65, in what other countries do you think the press is censored by the government?
What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?
Is your country a member of NATO? (a) Yes
(b) No
If your country is not a member of NATO, should it be a member of NATO? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 69, why should your country be a NATO member?
If No to question 69, why should your country not be a NATO member?
What benefits does NATO membership provide, if any?
What disadvantages does NATO membership provide, if any?
Is your country a member of the Warsaw Pact? (a) Yes
(b) No
If your country is a member of the Warsaw Pact, what benefits does Warsaw Pact membership provide to
your country, if any?
If your country is a member of the Warsaw Pact, what disadvantages does Warsaw Pact membership
provide to your country, if any?
Is dissent and protests by the citizens toward your countrys government allowed? (a) Yes
(b) No
If Yes to question 77, what kind of dissent is allowed?

79. If Yes to question 77, why do you think dissent by the citizens toward the government is allowed?
80. If No to question 77, why do you think dissent by the citizens toward the government is not allowed?
81. Should dissent by the citizens toward the countrys government be allowed?
(a) Yes
(b) No
82. If Yes to question 81, why should dissent by a countrys citizens toward the government be allowed?
83. If No to question 81, why should dissent by a countrys citizens toward the government not be allowed?
84. Are you religious? (a) Yes
(b) No
85. What does religious mean to you?
86. If you are religious, what is your religion or what religion do you identify-associate with?
87. Is religion important? (a) Yes
(b) No
88. Does the government in your homeland?: (a) allow for religious freedom
(b) persecute or punish people for religious freedom or not allow practice of ones religion
89. If you circled (b) for question 88, how is religious freedom not allowed?
90. What is religious freedom?
91. Is religious freedom important? (a) Yes
(b) No
92. If Yes to question 91, why is religious freedom important?
93. If No to question 91, why is religious freedom not important?
94. Can allowing for religious freedom contribute to revolution which is?:
(a) Peaceful
(b) Violent
(c) No Impact on Revolution
95. If religious freedom can contribute to peaceful revolution of the government, how can such freedom
produce peaceful reform?
96. If religious freedom can contribute to violent revolution of the government, how can such freedom
produce violence toward reform?
97. If religious freedom does not have any impact on changing the government, why does such freedom not
have any impact?
98. If there is religious freedom in your country does it contribute in your country toward?:
(a) Unity
(b) Divisiveness
(c) No Impact
99. What race are you?
100. What ethnic group (ethnicity) do you identify with--name all that apply?
101. Is there more than one or multiple ethnic groups in your country?
102. Is it good to have multiple ethnic groups? (a) Yes
(b) No
103. Are there any ethnic groups you dislike? (a) Yes
(b) No
104. If Yes to question 103, name all ethnic groups you dislike.
105. For the ethnic groups you listed in question 104 as disliking, why do you dislike each group named?
106. Do you think having different ethnic groups in your country can lead to revolution?
(a) Yes
(b) No
107. If Yes to question 106, why do you think these different ethnic groups can lead to revolution in your
country?
108. Do you think any ethnic group or groups in your country can be responsible for revolution?
(a) Yes
(b) No
109. If you answered Yes to question 108, which ethnic group or groups do you think can be responsible for
revolution?
110. If you answered Yes to question 108, why do you think the ethnic group or groups you list for question
109 could be responsible for sparking revolution?
111. Should ethnic groups other than the one you belong to be exiled from your country?
(a) Yes
(b) No
112. Do you think immigration to your country is?: (a) Good
(b) Bad
(c) Neutral
113. What expectations do you have for government reform?

114. Rank from the alphabetical list below which factor most contributed to revolution in your country, be it
peaceful or violent revolution (Example: A ranking of 1 is the factor most responsible, a factor of 18 was
the least responsible, with other number rankings falling in between):
_____Age
_____Economy (employment, technology, trade)
_____Educational Level Attained (cumulatively for the country)
_____Ethnicity
_____Foreign Aid to Your Country
_____Gender
_____Geographic Composition (urban-metropolitan or rural-agricultural)
_____Human Rights (honored or violated)
_____Immigration to Your Country
_____Media--Access to Media and Freedom of the Press
_____Membership of Your Country in NATO
_____Membership of Your Country in the Warsaw Pact
_____Political Freedom (or lack thereof)
_____Race
_____Relation to then-Soviet Union
_____Religious Freedom (or lack thereof)
_____Social Cohesion (removal or reduction of special interests)
_____Socioeconomic Status