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

The study investigates the alarming rise of the AUR party in Romania, a far-right, ultra-conservative, and nationalist group. The authors aim to deconstruct AUR's hate speech and highlight its historical connections to the fascist Legion of the Archangel Michael, which rose to power in the 1940s. The paper employs the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to analyze the speeches of AUR leaders, focusing on the intertextual and interdiscursive relationships between their rhetoric and that of the Legionaries. The researchers argue that understanding these historical links is crucial for policymakers and the public to effectively counter the spread of such dangerous ideologies. The communist regime minimized the Legion's significance in history. However, its ultranationalist discourse has re-emerged, especially since Romania's 2007 EU accession. The DHA framework allows for an examination of the historical context and the role of language in power structures, examining the ways in which discourse constructs identities and classifies individuals and groups. This involves analyzing the use of language to represent desires as facts, and to shape societal perceptions. The study acknowledges varying interpretations of AUR, ranging from viewing it as a populist offshoot of the Social Democratic Party to characterizing it as a direct heir to the Legionary movement. The authors, however, ultimately side with the latter interpretation, arguing that AUR's core ideology and hate speech are strongly reminiscent of the Legion's.

The paper reviews existing scholarship on Romanian fascism and right-wing extremism. It cites works describing the characteristics of Romanian right-wing extremism, including xenophobia, chauvinism, ultranationalism intertwined with religious beliefs, revisionism, self-victimization, and the denial or downplaying of the Holocaust. The authors note that while some scholars view AUR as primarily populist, others strongly link it to the Legionary movement. The study highlights the challenges of applying the term "fascism" to contemporary movements, acknowledging the need for context-specific analysis. Different definitions of fascism are considered, enabling a comparison across time periods and countries. The existing literature is contrasted, with some scholars emphasizing the economic aspects of AUR's platform and others focusing on its ultranationalist and religious components. The literature review also highlights the use of social media by AUR in disseminating its message and mobilizing support, particularly in rural areas, echoing the strategies of the Legionaries.

The study uses a qualitative approach rooted in the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). The DHA is framed within critical discourse analysis, focusing on the historical context, the role of language in power structures, and the construction of identities. The analysis focuses on speeches of Sorin Lavric, a key ideologist of AUR. The methodology includes: (1) Contextualization: providing background on the history and ideology of both the Legion of the Archangel Michael and AUR, including details on their core beliefs, targets of hatred, and methods of mobilization. (2) Speech Analysis: analyzing selected samples from Lavric's speeches, identifying recurring themes, discursive strategies, and linguistic features. The analysis examines how Lavric's rhetoric recontextualizes the past to justify the present, utilizing intertextuality and interdiscursivity. The key themes examined in Lavric's speeches include: (a) self-representation of AUR; (b) AUR's worldview and its relation to Europe; (c) AUR's perspective on minorities (Roma and Hungarians); (d) AUR's view on women; The researchers identify instances of manipulation, the use of pathos, and the construction of narratives of victimhood.

The analysis of Lavric's speeches reveals striking similarities between AUR's discourse and that of the Legion of the Archangel Michael. Key findings include: (1) Ultranationalism: both groups exhibit a strong sense of national identity and a rejection of outside influences. (2) Orthodox Mysticism: both groups utilize religious rhetoric and imagery to justify their ideology and actions. (3) Targeting of Minorities: while the Legion's antisemitism was more explicit, AUR targets Roma and Hungarian minorities, along with the LGBTQ+ community. (4) Misogyny: Lavric's statements demonstrate a deep-seated misogyny, echoing the Legionaries' patriarchal views of women's roles in society. (5) Rewriting History: AUR utilizes a selective and manipulative interpretation of history to create a narrative that justifies its current actions. (6) Social Media: the study highlights the effective use of social media by AUR, replicating past mobilization strategies. Lavric's discourse displays manipulative techniques, including self-laudatory narratives, victimhood claims, and the use of loaded language to dehumanize its targets. His comments reveal a rewriting of the past, omitting problematic aspects of the Legionary movement and presenting it as a source of conservative values. The analysis highlights how Lavric employs emotionally charged language, religious rhetoric, and stereotypes to appeal to and manipulate his audience. His references to traditional family values, combined with aggressive rhetoric against minority groups and women, reveal the continuation of a hateful and exclusionary ideology.

The study's findings strongly support the argument that AUR is a neo-legionary movement, carrying forward the hateful discourse and many of the core values of its predecessor. While the specific targets of hate speech have shifted, the underlying ideology of ultranationalism, religious extremism, and targeting minorities persists. The similarities between AUR's rhetoric and that of the Legionaries highlight the enduring nature of such ideologies and the need for sustained vigilance in combating them. The study’s focus on Lavric’s speeches provides a nuanced insight into the construction and dissemination of AUR's ideology and its appeal to certain segments of the Romanian population. The findings emphasize the importance of analyzing discourse in understanding the rise of extreme-right movements. The research also contributes to a broader understanding of the interplay between history, politics, and hate speech.

The paper concludes that AUR's discourse reveals a direct lineage to the hateful rhetoric of the Legion of the Archangel Michael. While the specific targets and methods have adapted to the contemporary context, the underlying ultranationalist, religious extremist, and anti-minority ideology remains. Future research could explore the long-term impact of AUR's ideology on Romanian society and the effectiveness of different strategies to counter the spread of such extremist movements. Further research is also needed to explore the broader pan-European context of similar far-right groups and their interconnectedness. The study underscores the importance of critically examining historical narratives and understanding the manipulative use of language in political discourse.

The study focuses primarily on the speeches of a single AUR ideologue. A broader analysis encompassing other party leaders and a wider range of media appearances would strengthen the findings. The study's reliance on publicly available data might not capture the full complexity of AUR's internal dynamics and communications. Finally, the study primarily uses a qualitative approach and further quantitative research might offer additional insights.