Keywords

1 Introduction

Romania became a member of the EU, together with Bulgaria, in 2007, after long and complicated negotiations. The accession met practically no political opposition. Fifteen years after the accession, the image of the EU continued to remain positive and above the EU average, with 54% of the Romanians trusting the EU and 47% having a positive image of it (see pp. 10–12 in European Commission 2022a). Nevertheless, there is a clear decline in the positive perception of the EU when compared to 2007, when trust in the EU was as high as 68% among Romanians (see p. 36 in European Commission 2007). The turnout at the European elections in 2019 was slightly higher than the EU average (51.2% vs. 50.7%).

Young people between fifteen and twenty-four represent around 11% of the total population of Romania. There are ministries dedicated to them, such as the Ministry of Youth and Sports or, since January 2022, the Ministry of Family, Youth, and Equal Opportunities, and there was a national strategy regarding youth policy in place between 2015 and 2020. Yet, the Romanian state did not develop action plans or allocate budgets for youth policies, meaning that most of the youth policy remained on paper (European Commission 2022b). The younger part of Romanian society shows a lower interest in European elections, with a turnout of 43.2% in 2019 (see p. 3 in Consiliul Tineretului din România 2019). In the 2020 national parliamentary elections, turnout was only 25.9% (Consiliul Tineretului din România 2020). With regard to the political preferences of the youngsters, studies show that they are the main force behind the right-wing Alliance for the Unity of All Romanians, with 36% of the electorate between eighteen and thirty voting for them in 2020, way above the average country level of 9% (Sclavone 2022).

Emigration is a particular problem in Romania, affecting young people indirectly. The number of Romanians residing abroad was estimated at 3.6 million as of 2015/2016, representing around 17% of the total population, with 90% of them being of working age (OECD, 2019). Many high school pupils have parents or relatives working abroad. In rare cases, some of them lived and studied abroad for extensive periods of time before returning to Romania and reinserting themselves in the national education system.

Another peculiarity of Romania is the high share of people living in rural areas. With roughly 46% (Institutul Național de Statistică 2011), Romania has the highest share of rural population among the EU states. This is associated with strong socioeconomic disparities between the predominantly urban regions (such as the cities of Bucharest or Cluj) and the more rural ones. These differences affect the quality of education, the poverty level, and the tendency to immigrate in different areas of Romania.

2 The Background: Towns, Schools, and Students

Group discussions were conducted in high schools in Moreni, a town situated in Dâmbovița county in the Wallachia region, and in Caransebeș, a town in Caraș-Severin county, in Banat. While similar in size (18,000 vs. 21,000 inhabitants), the two towns are in fact very different.

Moreni is an old industrial town. Until 1990, it was known for its oil extraction activity, having been an important centre since the beginning of the twentieth century. At present, the oil industry has lost its importance and is only a small branch of activity for the inhabitants. While public transport is lacking, there is an inter-county road network that connects the town with the rest of the localities and one gas station where people can refuel their cars. The town lacks significant historical buildings associated with the urban areas. In the centre, there are a small number of restaurants and cafes. The only tourist attractions are the churches Schimbarea la față (1868) and Adormirea Maicii Domnului (1891–1895) in the Stavropoleos district. There are several supermarkets belonging to well-known national chains and a central market often used by citizens. Other points of interest and entertainment for the inhabitants are a tattoo studio, several beauty salons, the “Flacăra” Stadium (currently closed), and sports betting centres. Like in well-developed rural areas, citizens generally live in individual homes. The number of blocks of flats is small, and they are generally only four storeys high, having been built during the communist period. The two high schools where we conducted the group discussions are located at the centre of four boulevards.

During the parliamentary elections in December 2020, the turnout in Moreni was 29.8%. The Social Democrat Party (PSD) gained 35.44% of the votes, followed by the National Liberal Party (PNL) with 19.77%, the pro-European Union Coalition of Save Romania Union and Party of Liberty, Unity, and Solidarity (USR-PLUS) with 13.12%, and the Pro Romania Party (PRP), which did not manage to pass the electoral threshold at the national level, with 9.35% (Code for Romania 2020). In 2019, at the European Parliamentary Elections, the results were: PNL - 24.61%, PSD - 23.74%, and URS - 21.84% (Code for Romania 2019b).

In contrast to Moreni, Caransebeș is a medieval town with architecture specific to the area, being an urban gathering place designed around the Orthodox Cathedral Învierea Domnului. During the communist period, the town was hastily industrialised, with an emphasis on car construction. After the 1990s, local industry developed by the communist regime largely disappeared. Currently, there exists only one medium-sized factory, TMD Friction Romania, which produces brake pads. In general, the inhabitants are engaged in relatively modest economic activities, with most of them working in public institutions, providing services, or being involved in trade. The town centre has a promenade area, and the adjoining buildings are in a good condition. The locality is compact, the streets are laid out on the banks of the Timiș River. The architecture of the town is a testament to its old membership in the Habsburg Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire, with buildings from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but also Art-Nouveau buildings from the beginning of the twentieth century. The town centre has remained predominantly historic in character. However, there are also buildings built during the communist period, with four floors. Dwellings are generally in good condition, they are normal and small in size. The town is well developed in terms of its infrastructure, and it is connected to the national railway network and important national roads, which facilitate transport between Caransebeș and major towns in the area, but also with rising tourist areas such as Muntele Mic.

During the national elections of December 6, 2020, most of the inhabitants voted in favor of PSD – 33.19%, followed by PNL with 27.59%, USR with 11.78%, and the right-wing AUR with 10.29%. Turnout reached 24.5% (Code for Romania 2020). The 2019 European Parliamentary Elections were won by PNL with a 36.2%, followed by PSD with 20.2%, PRP with 14.2%, and pro-European USR with 13.98%, with a total turnout of 41.1% (Code for Romania 2019a).

In the case of Moreni, the selected high schools are the only ones there are: the technological “oil” high-schoolFootnote 1 and the national college “Ion Luca Caragiale”.Footnote 2 They are located very close to each other (roughly 500 meters), in grey, anonymous buildings with functional architecture. The number of students is higher for the theoretical high school (650) than for the technological school (453). The group discussions took place in the classrooms of 11th grade students with a technological specialisation (the protection of the environment) at the “oil” lyceum and a theoretical one (computer science) at the “Ion Luca Caragiale”. In both cases, the teacher was present. In the case of the technological high school, she tended to interfere in the discussions, even suggesting answers. The students at this high school were generally less communicative than their counterparts.

In Caransebeș, we managed to gain access to two of the four high schools: the “Traian Doda” national college and the “Decebal” technological high school. Unlike in Moreni, the two high schools were very different. The “Traian Doda” national college was established in 1880 and functions in a historical building placed in the centre of the town. The “Decebal” technological high school, established in 1973, functions in an industrial-looking building located on the periphery.Footnote 3 As in the case of Moreni, the number of students enlisted at the theoretical school (146) is significantly higher at the technological high school (192). The 11th grade students participating in the group discussions had a theoretical specialisation in computer science at the “Traian Doda” college and a technological one in mechanics at “Decebal”. In both cases, the discussions took place without any teacher being present.

3 Young People and their Self-Image

There were noticeable differences regarding the projections of their future among the students at the theoretical and technological high schools. The first students expressed the desire to leave their birth towns and study at prestigious Romanian universities (Bucharest for Moreni and Timișoara for Caransebeș), with a significant number of them searching for an education abroad. The second group of students did not really have any future plans, not even to work in their technological study fields. They seemed to regard high school education merely as a way of gaining a diploma. Those desiring to study abroad and eventually to live there mentioned the larger wages, but also the possibility of better developing their professional skills.

All of them complained about the life in a small town, without any possibilities to enjoy themselves and with few prospects for reasonably paid jobs. Some of them declared that they travelled to larger cities in search of fun whenever they had the opportunity. Although both towns had mountain regions nearby, most of the discussants agreed that they do not go hiking and rather prefer to have fun in the towns.

The level of knowledge regarding EU policies was low, and none of the students had heard about the Conference on the Future of Europe. They complained about the lack of information regarding the EU, since there was neither an information office in their towns nor specific classes to teach them about it. The group discussions showed that the “theoretical” and “technological” students relate themselves differently to the European Union. The former have more theoretical knowledge regarding the EU, which they acquired mostly by themselves from the internet. The latter had direct knowledge, gained from visiting their emigrated relatives and, in at least one case in Caransebeș, from living and studying in an EU country for a long period of time together with the emigrated family.

Two aspects of the EU were mentioned by all pupils: the funds provided for the development of their regions and the liberty to freely travel in Western countries. In the first case, they accused directly, at least in the case of Moreni Technological High School, local politicians of stealing EU money, while the teacher, who was present during the discussions, tried to change the subject. In the second case, most of them defined the EU as a representative of Western countries, seen as desirable targets for travel and work.

All four groups mentioned feeling a certain distress regarding the EU, in that it could erase their identity, but gave no clear examples in this regard. The students of technological schools, especially the ones who had lived abroad together with their families, were most vocal and revealed instances in which they were discriminated against. Nevertheless, they were also the most vocal critics of Romania, citing the corruption and indifference of local politicians, the difficulty in finding jobs, and the generally poor living conditions. During the group discussion at the theoretical school in Moreni, they mentioned the cleavage between Eastern and Western Europe, mentioning some kind of Eastern identity.

4 Perception of the EU and EU Rights and Achievements

Initially, the students were reluctant to discuss EU issues. They did not have much knowledge about the European Union, only a few general references. However, they were interested in ranking the rights, freedoms, and notions connected to EU citizenship. They collaborated well and justified their choices, showing an interest in seeing what their rights were.

In all four groups, we observed a number of clear similarities in terms of establishing the most important rights. All agreed that the right to peace and justice are important pillars for the proper functioning of a modern society. Their interest was closely linked to the conflict in Ukraine. However, the group discussions revealed that the students did not know exactly what role the European Union plays in ensuring peace and justice.

Another right that the majority considered important is the right to health insurance within the European Union. The interest in health insurance comes against the background of the international social situation, deeply marked by the SARS-Covid pandemics. To this, one may add the problems of the Romanian health care system, plagued by corruption, and unequal access to treatment.

As for the least important rights, three out of four groups decided that a single currency could be abandoned, as could the rules on common internet access. In the two high schools in Caransebeș, students rated the rights governing telephony and roaming charges as less important.

The rights, freedoms, and notions of EU citizenship were initially seen by students as abstract and hardly applicable to them personally. They said that they felt more Romanian than European and that they did not really feel close to European values and symbols. Some students, especially from technical high schools, reported that they felt different from the rest of Europeans. This did not prevent them from expressing an interest in the professional development opportunities offered in the European area. They expressed vocal interest in learning more about the possibility of emigrating and about the Erasmus+ programme, about which they had only general information.

In the “Ioan Luca Caragiale” National High School in Moreni, some of the students who took part in the discussions had been involved in the Erasmus+ programme and studied for a period of time in countries such as Spain and Greece. Although they have been part of this project, they did not know everything it includes and which targeted categories and groups could benefit from Erasmus+. Among the students in this high school, there was a considerable part that saw the European Union as a real opportunity for professional development.

The discussions on EU competencies and citizens’ rights revealed that among the topics less known by the young people were the functioning of the European Parliament, the election procedures, and the European Citizens’ Initiative. In addition, students were not fully aware of the real impact of each right and how it can impact their daily lives.

For this reason, some decisions during the discussion were made by intuition and based on preconceived notions. In the technological high schools of Moreni and Caransebeș, students looked at rights in a more practical, instinctive way, based on their personal experiences. One of the pupils involved lived for several years in Spain with his parents, who had gone to work there. He felt unwelcome and faced discrimination. His experience was perceived by his peers as the norm for Romanians working in the European Union. All these preconceptions certainly influenced the way young people related to the European Union.

The theoretical high school students were more reflective and more careful in weighing decisions, maybe due to a higher level of knowledge on politics. However, it also seemed that the composition of the local population influenced their perceptions. For example, it was more difficult for the pupils in the “Traian Doda” National College in Caransebeș to agree on the most important/unimportant rights, because they had conflicting opinions. It should be noted that the students in Caransebeș are part of an ethnically and religiously diverse environment with a considerable ethnic Hungarian and German community. The right to the protection of minorities was debated in depth by the students of this high school, who decided in a group vote that this right is not important. However, the decision was made in particular in relation to sexual minorities.

5 Voting Right and EU Elections

In general, the students were not very interested in the right to vote, and it was not one of the topics they spoke about easily. They did not have the necessary information to express a concrete opinion. They were not sure how the election process works, how candidates are chosen, or what their functions are. They felt closer to local or national elections, which they consider more important and more relevant to their daily lives.

However, some of the students (namely, the two groups of students in Caransebeș) considered the right to vote essential and extremely important in a democratic system, where citizens’ voices must be heard and represented at the highest level. Beyond this awareness, albeit at a theoretical level, there were also groups of students, such as those from the technological high school in Moreni, who considered the right to vote unimportant. They argued that a simple vote cannot change anything and that politicians in key positions do not fulfil their roles. Moreover, they blamed politicians’ carelessness and corruption as the main reasons why they are not interested in elections. Obviously, this attitude was influenced by the context of young people’s experiences with and information about national and local elections in Romania. More specifically, they related to the EU elections through the information and stereotypes they already had assimilated with regard to the national election.

Although the students of the “Oil” Technological High School in Moreni could give up the right to vote, they could not give up the right to protest, which was ranked among the most important rights. The young people in question were not interested in expressing their wishes and ideological beliefs through direct voting, but they are ready to make their voices heard by protesting. At the opposite end of the spectrum are both groups of students in Caransebeș, who ranked the right to protest as one of the most unimportant rights.

6 Conclusion

This chapter has shown that the young people who participated in the group discussions in Romania viewed the debated issues in broadly the same way. Although the economic, cultural, and social profiles of the two towns are different, the way pupils related to the EU did not vary considerably. In both towns, we observed differences between students in theoretical and technical high schools with regard to the way they perceive themselves as part of the European Union. Students in the technical high schools had a more direct experience with the EU. While they felt discriminated against or knew Romanians who felt discriminated against in other member countries, they did not consider that the defence of minority rights should be a priority on the political agenda. Students in theoretical high schools had a much better and more complex picture of what the European Union represents and who they are as individuals in the European space.

In conclusion, the pupils felt little attachment to European values, not considering themselves part of the “European family”. They identified primarily with their national identity and found it difficult to relate fully to the European identity. Some of them felt that this was due to the notable differences between Romania and the rest of the EU member states. Young people perceive socio-economic differences between Romania and other member states, which amplifies the feeling of incongruity.

Moreover, students felt that they were not well informed about the European Union. They expressed an interest in learning more about EU rights and freedoms and noted the lack of information about this subject. Young people claimed that they hardly receive any information about the European Union in school and even less about their rights. The majority said that they would be more involved if they had access to more official information in an organised way, as they had not thought to inform themselves until there was a group discussion.

Students in both towns concluded that a clear, organised, and effective communication strategy is needed to increase the sense of EU citizenship. It is worth mentioning that there were voices among the students, such as a student from “Ioan Luca Caragiale” National High School, who pointed out that he wants elements of Romanian identity and culture to be protected and even enhanced in the European context.