THE ANNULMENT OF a second round of presidential elections by the Constitutional Court represented the end of two hectic weeks during which candidate, Calin Georgescu, won the first round of the presidential election.
Mr Georgescu was a largely unknown candidate for the vast majority of the electorate, but was able to sway a part of the electorate with an aggressive TikTok campaign.
Recently declassified intelligence reports and law enforcement investigations indicated the Mr Georgescu was backed by a highly capable and organised state actor (most likely Russia) in taking over the feeds of TikTok users.
The aggressive social media campaign mirrored the type of campaign Russia ran in Ukraine before its 2022 invasion. Moreover, Mr Georgescu’s lionisation of Romania’s former fascist political leaders and his connections with domestic neo-Nazi groups worried many, yet it has not affected his election prospects.
His ability to convince large parts of the electorate to give them their vote was made possible by the high levels of distrust in institutions and politicians in Romania. Voting for Mr Georgescu was a penalty vote by an aggrieved electorate for the lavish lifestyles of politicians, their lack of accountability for corruption, and the patronage networks they have built for their cronies in the past decade. More generally, this incumbent penalty vote is similar to the anti-incumbent sentiment that exists globally.
The outcome of the second round was largely a toss-up, which polarised society in a manner not seen recently in Romania. Mr Georgescu’s links with Russia and neo-Nazi groups were seen as a direct threat to national security and democracy, which largely drove the decision of the Constitutional Court to annul the presidential elections. Had the second round of the presidential elections taken place, Mr Georgescu would have faced Ms Elena Lasconi, a former journalist with an assumed pro-European political agenda, received mixed reactions domestically and internationally.
The annulment decision was unprecedented as it did not have much legal and constitutional basis. It was the most recent decision in a series of controversial decisions – such as ordering an unprecedented recount of votes for the first round of the presidential election — by a Constitutional Court lacking any legitimacy due to its opaque connections with political parties and lack of independence from political actors. While the decision to annul the election might have saved an democracy in the short term, its long-term implications are not as clear.
Put differently, this presidential election was a very important test of maturity for Romanian democracy and its citizens 35 years after its transition from communism. A win by Ms Lasconi, supported by a coalition of civil society organisations and political parties, would have sent a strong signal about Romania’s commitment to democracy and its pro-European path. This would have cemented in everyone’s understanding that Romania belongs to the democratic, European club of nations and it outright rejects any lesser political arrangement.
The annulment of the elections only put a time-out in the struggle between pro and anti-democratic actors within society, a struggle that will be restarted in the coming spring. The decision has further alienated the electorate as it extended the current’s president mandate – who is extremely unpopular – and is seen as one of the main culprits for the lack of institutional reform and weakening the anti-corruption fight – a hot button issue in an politics.
Whether the annulment will be a blessing in disguise (that saves democracy) or just the beginning of a process of democratic backsliding remains to be seen. This situation has galvanised all the pro-European political parties to form a governing coalition across the ideological spectrum to ensure a stays on its democratic path. A government appointed by a lame duck president will lack legitimacy, despite its majority in the Parliament, and will need to deliver the major reforms and infrastructure projects the electorate has been waiting on for so many years.
Moreover, the parties of this coalition are seen as part of the status quo and are being held responsible for the issues that drove the electorate to vote for anti-system, right-wing candidates and political parties.
The coalition partners have committed to a governing plan that includes reforms that would cut down bureaucracy, cut the budgetary deficit and complete the big infrastructure projects the country so desperately needs. They have also promised to support a single, pro-European and pro-democratic candidate in the rerun of the presidential election of next year.
The ability of the newly formed government coalition to deliver on these promises will make the difference in whether an anti-democratic decision, such as cancelling an election, was considered a necessary evil to save democracy or if was the first step on a long and tumultuous road of democracy backsliding.
The continuation of democracy in Romania also has implications for the larger security and stability of the European Union. The decision to allow a (and Bulgaria) to fully join the Schengen area means that Romania’s eastern borders become the frontline (even more than before) for combatting organised crime, drug trafficking and the flow of illegal immigration into Europe.
Moreover, the uncertain outcome of the Ukraine war and the strategic role that Romania has played in the region since the onset of the war add more significance to the survival of democracy in Romania.
Roman-Gabriel Olar is Assistant Professor in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say