Hate speech revisited in Romanian political discourse: from the Legion of the Archangel Michael (1927–1941) to AUR (2020–present day)

The paper investigates whether contemporary discourse by AUR (Alliance for the Unity of Romanians), an ultra-conservative, nationalist and Orthodoxist party that surged in Romania’s 2020 elections, echoes and repurposes the extremist discourse of the interwar fascist Legion of the Archangel Michael (Iron Guard). Framed within Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), the study positions political language as a medium of power, manipulation and legitimation. It underscores the re-emergence of aggressive, ultranationalist narratives in post-1989 Romania—especially post-EU accession—through intertextuality, interdiscursivity and recontextualization. The central aim is to compare core ideological and rhetorical features of AUR’s public discourse—exemplified by ideologist Sorin Lavric—with the Legionary movement’s discourse, to assess continuities, shifts, and their societal implications.

The study is anchored in DHA and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), drawing on Habermas, Fairclough, and particularly Wodak and Richardson’s frameworks for intertextuality, interdiscursivity, and contextual (micro–meso–macro) analysis. It situates AUR within broader European right-wing populist and fascist discourses (Reisigl; Wodak & Richardson). Romanian-specific fascist traits are synthesized from Mădroane (2013): xenophobia, ultranationalism conjoined with religious beliefs, self-victimisation, Holocaust minimisation, and anti-Westernism. Contemporary assessments debate AUR as populist/stealth populist (Stoica, Krouwel & Cristea; Guşă) versus neo-legionary/fascist (Ban; Pîrvulescu; Buti & Constantin). Foundational fascism definitions (Paxton; Gentile; Mann; Griffin) inform the criteria used to compare AUR’s programmatic claims to fascist models. Social-historical scholarship (Clark; Schmitt) provides context for the Legion’s rural mobilisation strategies through religiosity and cultural participation, while Rusu examines Legionary gender ideology. The Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania and related historiography (Lobonţ; Ionescu) document memory manipulation and Holocaust denial/minimisation that condition contemporary narratives.

The authors employ the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to conduct a qualitative, contextualised analysis of political discourse. The method integrates: (1) succinct historical contextualisation of the interwar Legion (ideology, mobilisation practices, religious framing, gender roles, anti-Semitism) and of post-1989 Romanian ultranationalism; (2) intertextual and interdiscursive comparison of selected contemporary discourse by AUR with Legionary discourse. The primary contemporary corpus comprises a televised interview given by AUR ideologist and senator Sorin Lavric (Digi24, December 2019), supplemented by public statements and party materials (AUR statute). The analysis focuses on macro-level discursive strategies rather than fine-grained linguistic features, examining thematic patterns: construction of self/other, mythologised past and memory politics, Christian-Orthodox moralization, anti-EU and anti-‘political correctness’ rhetoric, ethnocentrism/xenophobia (especially toward Roma and Hungarians), and gender ideology/misogyny. The DHA’s multi-level context model is applied: co-text, intertextual/interdiscursive links, institutional/situational frames, and broader socio-political-historical contexts. Comparative exemplars from Legionary texts/songs/organizational directives (e.g., Clark, Schmitt, Codreanu) are mobilised to identify continuities and recontextualizations.

- AUR’s discourse exhibits strong intertextual continuities with Legionary discourse: militant ultranationalism, Orthodoxist moralization, self-victimisation of the majority, and antagonistic construction of an ‘Other’. - The analysis of Sorin Lavric’s statements (Samples 1–7) reveals recurrent strategies: denial/relabeling of extremism while affirming a nation–church pairing as identity core; explicit linkage of Romanian conservatism to the Legionary ‘episode’; anti-EU framing of Brussels as a ‘malefic’ bureaucratic super-state advancing ‘destructive socialism’ under ‘political correctness’; ethnonational exclusion targeting parties formed on ethnic criteria (Hungarians) and derogatory generalisations about Roma; overt misogyny asserting women’s inferiority in logic/philosophy and objectifying them. - Compared to the interwar Legion, contemporary AUR discourse de-emphasises anti-Semitism (contextually linked to the current near-absence of a sizable Jewish minority) while intensifying anti-minority politics toward Roma and Hungarians and hostility toward LGBTQ+ and gender diversity. - Mobilisation logics echo Legionary strategies: heavy reliance on religiosity, traditionalism, mythicised past, and rural outreach; current digital-era adaptation via social media–centric campaigning. - The study documents memory manipulation and ‘purification of history’ as integral to populist legitimation, resonating with post-communist historiographical trends. It cites that the Hungarian minority represents roughly 6% of the population, a recurring focus of nationalist contention. - Overall, AUR’s rhetoric aligns with core fascist indicators identified in comparative literature (ultranationalism, theocratic overtones, anti-liberalism/anti-pluralism), supporting characterisations of AUR as neo-legionary/extreme-right rather than merely populist.

By systematically comparing Lavric’s discourse with Legionary templates, the study shows how AUR recontextualizes interwar extremist narratives to the present: Christian-Orthodox identity as national essence; glorification of a ‘pure’ past and self-victimisation; identification of internal/external enemies (EU bureaucracy, ethnic minorities, ‘gender ideology’); and the moral delegitimation of opponents through ‘political correctness’ as a pejorative. These findings advance the central question by evidencing ideological continuity and rhetorical mimicry rather than isolated populist posturing. The significance lies in demonstrating how hate speech and exclusionary nationalism, historically linked to violence in Romania, resurface through contemporary channels, normalizing intolerance under the guise of conservatism and national authenticity. The results underscore risks to democratic pluralism, minority rights, and gender equality, and highlight the role of discourse in enabling policy trajectories (anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+, isolationism) aligned with a European network of radical right actors.

The paper contributes a historically grounded DHA analysis that traces clear intertextual links between AUR’s contemporary discourse and the interwar Legionary movement, showing how themes of militant ultranationalism, Orthodoxist moralization, misogyny, and anti-minority rhetoric are repackaged for today’s political environment. It cautions that these narratives, often dismissed as exotic or harmless, can shape public consciousness and policy. Future research could extend the corpus beyond a single interview to include longitudinal analyses of AUR speeches, parliamentary interventions, and social media content; conduct comparative cross-party and cross-national DHA studies within the European radical right; and integrate quantitative approaches (e.g., computational discourse analysis) to map the diffusion and resonance of hate speech themes across audiences and media ecosystems.

- Empirical focus on a single, emblematic interview (Sorin Lavric, Dec 2019) limits breadth; broader sampling across time, speakers, and platforms would enhance generalizability. - The analysis privileges macro-level thematic/discursive strategies over micro-linguistic features, potentially overlooking fine-grained rhetorical devices. - Contextual differences between the interwar period and the present constrain direct equivalence; parallels are intertextual and recontextualized rather than identical. - Limited quantitative evidence; findings are qualitative and interpretive. - Diminished contemporary Jewish presence affects direct comparisons of anti-Semitism between eras, shifting target groups and requiring cautious extrapolation.