In his address to the 61st Munich Security Conference, held on February 14, the American Vice President, JD Vance, criticised Romania for cancelling the result of its presidential election on the ‘flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbours’. Vance, in referring to ‘flimsy suspicions’, focused on the alleged interference of Russia in the electoral process, which caused him to proclaim that, ‘If your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.’
The uncompromising language used by the American Vice President necessitates a closer look at the events surrounding the aborted presidential election in Romania. This is because the reasons adduced for the annulment, if replicated elsewhere in the European Union, could portend the demise of democracy as a viable form of government.
Romania has a long-standing, proud, and enviable history, dating to the Roman Empire. Late in the 14th Century, Romania became a dependency of the Ottoman Empire, which was a constant presence until Romania became independent in 1878. During the Middle Ages, Vlad Dracula (the Impaler), whose cruel punishments entered European folklore, ruled in the middle of the 15th Century as a voivode (military governor) of what is present-day Romania. Romania experienced real socialism under the firm control of Nicolae Ceauşescu, who ruled the country from 1965 to 1989. Romania became a member of the Nato alliance in 2004 and a member of the European Union in 2007. Although Romania experienced momentous political and social changes over its long history, it managed to preserve its Orthodox Christianity and cultural heritage.
With its 19 million people and modest economy, Romania is considered a developing country on the European continent. It experienced few political or economic scandals. In 2009, the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton praised Romania ‘as a strong democracy’, and as a friend and ally of America. But, 16 years later, as evidenced by JD Vance’s speech, the current White House Administration does not share this estimable view.
Vance’s claim that its continental neighbours pressured Romania to annul the first-round election result raised the question as to the nature of democracy in the European Union and its commitment to respect the will of the people.
What happened? In November 2024, an agronomist, Călin Georgescu won the first round of presidential elections. Georgescu ran as an independent candidate. Many viewed him as a pro-Russian, anti-Nato, and right-wing ultra-nationalist candidate. Regularly conducted opinion polls gave him approximately 5 per cent of votes, and the media and other candidates did not consider him as a credible threat. However, on election day, November 24, 2024, he received 22.94 per cent of the votes. In addition, there was an expectation that he would likely receive the votes of other candidates who did not make it to the second round of voting and, as a result, he would probably have won the presidential election, scheduled for December 8.
During the presidential campaign, the spotlight was on the two main political parties, the USR (Union for Saving Romania) represented by Elena Lasconi, and PSD (Social Democratic Party) represented by Marcei Ciolacu. They both received approximately 19 per cent of votes in the first round, the difference between them was only 2,740 votes in favour of Elena Lasconi.
Two days before the second round of the election, the Constitutional Court annulled the result of the first round, alleging that Russian influence had adversely affected the electoral outcome. Călin Georgescu, as an independent candidate with limited funds, used online media for his campaign, which increased his popularity with younger generations, farmers, and the working class. He was well-positioned to win the second round of voting.
His willingness to raise the issue of corruption in the country, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, LGBTQ+ rights, and Christianity concerns fuelled his popularity. He promoted the adoption of a policy of neutrality concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and he wanted to outlaw LGBTQ+ propaganda. The Romanian electorate rewarded him for his frankness, transparency, and openness. The Constitutional Court based its election annulment on the grounds of foreign country interference and on Georgescu’s alleged failure to declare campaign donations of one million Euros he had received from third parties.
In January, tens of thousands of people protested the Constitutional Court’s election annulment decision. However, this did not deter the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) from rejecting Georgescu’s appeal to reverse the Constitutional Court’s election annulment. Specifically, the ECHR rejected Georgescu’s argument that his right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated and that the annulment decision was illegal, disproportionate, and politically motivated. Article 3 stipulates that, ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.’ In its decision, the ECHR ruled that the free elections guarantee only applied to legislative elections, not presidential elections. The Court, commenting on Romania’s Constitution, stated:
It appears … that the President’s power accessory to the Parliament’s legislative power is not a competence pertaining to the proper act of lawmaking, but must be construed as being necessary and strictly limited to the system of the inter-institutional ‘checks and balances’, common to most European democracies.
And also that there is no indication:
…the powers of the President of Romania are such as to make that office part of the ‘legislature’ of the respondent State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Since Romania’s Constitution thus explicitly separated the presidency from the legislature, the ECHR rejected Georgescu’s claim. However, the Court’s decision, in making a distinction – not made in Article 3 of Protocol 1 – between ‘legislature’ and ‘presidency’ for election purposes, is disingenuous, result-oriented, and, frankly, condescending. This is because it defies the wishes of the electorate, thereby endangering the operation of democracy in Romania.
The police detained Călin Georgescu on February 26. He was accused of incitement against the established constitutional order. Ominously, he was barred from appearing before the media for 60 days, muzzling his free speech rights. Further, on March 9, the Central Electoral Bureau banned Georgescu from running in the upcoming presidential elections, although he was the leading contender.
What was Georgescu’s crime? Was his promotion of an independent and neutral Romania concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict a violation of the principle of sovereignty? Or did his LGBTQ+ views inflame the sensitivities of neo-liberals? Or was it simply his right-of-centre credentials that triggered his treatment? Whatever the reasons, the people of Romania entrusted their votes to him and subscribed to his policies. The interference of the European bureaucracy in the Romanian election usurped the direction the electorate wanted for their country, which was to carve out a more traditional path for their future. The people of Romania exercised their democratic right to determine the future of the country, but their right to vote has been rendered meaningless due to the spectacular ruling of the Romanian Constitutional Court, the ECHR, and the actions of the EU’s Brussels bureaucracy.
Hence, concerned commentators ask why one should bother about elections if the result, however unpalatable, is not respected by the ruling elites. Also, the annulment of a properly conducted election affects the assumed neutrality and independence of the Constitutional Court as the highest judicial body in Romania. Certainly, Romania has failed to uphold the ideals of democracy, and the European Union has failed too, by not respecting the electoral will of the Romanian people.
Several European countries will hold elections later this year, and perhaps a similar scenario, involving electoral success for a right-of-centre candidate, will occur in other countries. Will then the highest judicial body annul people’s choice too? If so, this would constitute a disturbing development, the precursor of totalitarianism, when the elites only agree to accept a result that conforms with their expectations and wishes.
The next round of presidential elections in Romania is now scheduled for May 4, sans Georgescu. We would not be surprised if the electorate were to remember the scathing assessment of JD Vance of Romania’s dysfunctional democracy and its shameful treatment of a legitimate presidential candidate.