Valeriu Stoica, Dilemma: The Escape to Illusory Security and the Return Home

The phrase "I take my suitcase and leave" has been frequently uttered in recent years. When Russia attacked Ukraine, making bellicose statements against those who sided with the victim of aggression, when the threat loomed that the presidential elections might be won by one extremist or another, when dissatisfaction with the failures of governments grew, many voices were heard saying "I take my suitcase and leave." Ubi bene ibi patria. The myth of the ideal refuge, of complete safety, recurs in times of hardship. Fleeing from danger is more comfortable than confronting it. But fleeing is not without its dangers. The testimonies of those who fled communism confirm this statement. The dangers of exile are not few.

Even more disturbing are the testimonies of those who remained in the country and suffered torture in communist prisons and the humiliations of class struggle. The memorial literature of the concentration camp universe is rich and could be the source of a manual for pre-university education and, why not, a more comprehensive manual for students. Without diminishing the importance of exile, the national identity of Romanians is nonetheless strengthened by the sufferings of those who faced the red terror: politicians, intellectuals, students, officers, entrepreneurs, and numerous peasants. The testimonies from the memorial literature of exile are a restricted chapter in the tragic history of communism in Romania.

Continuity and the strength of the nation are ensured by the energy and resistance of those who assume the risks and dangers that threaten their existence. Only representation and the feeling of belonging underpin such an assumption.

Returning to an idea expressed in another article published earlier in this column, the bond of belonging is the result of two complementary processes. At the end of a path marked by the verbs to be, to know, to choose, to want, to do, and to have, the person builds their own belonging, a world that belongs to them, with which they identify and in which the spiritual and material sides coexist. This process of personal self-identification can only be fulfilled within the broader framework of community identification, of ascending integration into increasingly larger groups, from family, social, and professional ones to the national and European community.

It results that in the legal space each individual plays different roles; in private legal space, they manifest as a person, in public legal space, they are a citizen. The bond of citizenship is double, national and European. In these multiple manifestations, the bond of belonging sums up the answers to two essential questions: what does each individual belong to as a person and to whom do they belong as a citizen.

The representation of the bond of belonging, in its entirety, generates the feeling of being protected and of protecting. Any community is threatened by internal and external dangers. The bond of belonging binds the individual as a citizen to the community to which they belong and obliges the community, through the state and European institutions, to protect them as a person. The bilateral nature of the duties based on the bond of belonging is strengthened or weakened depending on the effectiveness of the protection that the community provides to each person and on the strength of each citizen's commitment to the community to which they belong. The safety of the person and the place considered home increases or decreases as this reciprocity is strengthened or weakened.

Romanians in Dubai, when Iran attacked the city with missiles and drones, directly experienced the precariousness of a place that is not considered home by most of its inhabitants. The diverse population of workers attracted by higher wages than in their countries, investors from all over the world – lured by a light tax regime, the absence of interest in the source of capital, and the promise of a generous profit rate – tourists who ignore the fascinating nearby destinations and want to check off another "shopping" experience, all fled in different directions, wherever they could catch a flight, after days of anxious waiting, with the desire to reach home, even with great detours. None of these "majorities" of the artificial metropolis that grew overnight on the edge of the desert and the sea had the desire to stay and fight for a foreign place, to which they had no bond of belonging.

Only for a place called home does the desire and need to stay and fight arise when it is threatened by internal or external dangers. The safety of other places towards which the flight from home is directed is illusory. The flight from new beginnings is illusory. Socrates fought as a hoplite for his country in the battles of Potidaea, Delium, and Amphipolis and, later, accepted the unjust judgment of his compatriots. Then, he refused the escape proposed by friends and preferred the cup of hemlock, because he assumed his maieutic mission until the end. Unlike Henryk Dabrowski, the Polish general who led a legion of compatriots in Napoleon's army and to whom the phrase "I am ready to die anytime for my country, but not to live in it" is attributed, Socrates was always ready to die not only in battle against the enemies of his country but also because of the hatred of his compatriots, always remaining at home.

https://www.dilema.ro/tilc-show/fuga-spre-iluzoria-siguranta-si-intoarcerea-acasa