Proclamation of Timișoara

[3] Questioning the status of the governing National Salvation Front, the Proclamation argued that the latter primarily represented a small group of Communist dissidents who had opposed Nicolae Ceauşescu's authoritarian regime and had subsequently monopolized power.

[13] A similar call for solidarity was expressed in regard to ethnic relations (the document stated opposition to all forms of "chauvinism", depicting Timișoara as the paramount representative of "the spirit of tolerance and mutual respect, the sole principles reigning in the future European House"),[14] and a multi-party system based on free elections was endorsed, with the exclusion of "extremist [parties], be they leftist or rightist".

[15] In its 7th Point, the Proclamation indicated that activists of the Communist Party had displayed "cowardice" as early as 1979, by refusing to join Constantin Pîrvulescu in open disobedience to Ceaușescu.

[17] Neumann attributed several of the radical social and economic goals, as well as the moral discourse associated with the 8th Point requirements, to the authors' awareness of Marxist theories[18] (for a certain period, George Şerban had taught Marxism at the Timișoara Polytechnic University).

[19] While commending the document for thus identifying and radically condemning Communist practices,[19] he expressed his personal opposition to the 8th Point, which he believed to be rooted in "Marxist historicism"[19] and attempting to impose a "moral code" in "situations [that] call for a series of compromises".

Authors have attributed the limited success of the Proclamation movement to both resistance from surviving Communist structures[22] and the special characteristics of Timișoara in relation to the rest of the country.

[23] Victor Neumann mentioned contrasts observed during the Revolution itself, when "only a few cities rebelled [...] alongside Timișoara: Arad, Lugoj, Sibiu, Cluj, Braşov, Bucharest, Iaşi".

[33] The project remained to be analyzed by the Chamber's Judicial Committee over the following seven months, and many of its provisions were ultimately objected to, while it failed to win a parallel verdict from Prime Minister Mugur Isărescu;[34] it was outvoted by a new Social Democratic majority in February 2001, following the 2000 elections.

[36] The journal Evenimentul Zilei indicated the Social Democrat parliamentarian Dan Marţian, who served as president of the Commission and whose position was threatened by lustration, as one of those responsible for the alleged action.

[39] In parallel, British historian Dennis Deletant has argued that lustration was intrinsically connected with the necessity for publicizing Securitate files kept by the CNSAS and the Romanian Intelligence Service.