Some scholars have suggested a compatibility in Ceau§escu's authoritarian rule with Romanian tradition, arguing that his 'kind of regime was not entirely unfamiliar or alien to the experience and social composition of Romanian society'. They have gone on to maintain that the stability ofCeau§escu's regime was 'partially due to the congruence between the structure and ethos of his rule and the hisroric experience, social composition and notion of authority held by large sectors of Romanian society'. 1 There is some truth in this assertion but it overlooks the coercive, totalitarian nature of the rule exercised by both Gheorghiu-Dej and CeaU§escu. Nothmg in the Romanians' experience could have prepared them for the reign of terror that descended upon them after 1944. Only after the eradication of a large segment of the professional class and of the independent peasantry could the Communist Party count on the obedience of a cowed people in whom fear had become second nature.