Romania at a Crossroads: The Election Crisis

Romania has found itself amid a political crisis. The Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the presidential election results is a shocking political event, and a significant reflection of the deepening divides in Romania’s political landscape and its strained democratic institutions. This decision made just two days before the final round of voting, has sparked heated debates about the role of the judiciary, the influence of foreign powers, and the integrity of Romania’s electoral process. The surreal irony of watching voters in the diaspora cast their ballots on live TV, even after learning of the Court’s decision, highlights the chaotic nature of the situation. In just two weeks, Romania has gone from a relatively calm and stable democracy—recently admitted into the Schengen Area—to a nation on the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Author: Rolland Madaras

When the votes from the first round were counted, many were surprised. Many electorates were unfamiliar with Călin Georgescu, and early reports suggested possible Russian interference. Mainstream media quickly launched a campaign to discredit Georgescu, focusing on his controversial statements about women, the EU, NATO, and his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Supreme Council of National Defense—comprising the president, prime minister, ministers, and intelligence service leaders—convened and partially confirmed claims of Russian interference in a brief, closed-door announcement. However, their findings remained classified for several days, when the Constitutional Court convened to address multiple requests and ordered a recount. Despite the recount not being completed, leaks suggested no significant changes, and after reviewing the partial results, the Court approved them unanimously. Amid growing pressure from NGOs and civil society, the Office of the President declassified the findings of the Supreme Defense Council, prompting new requests to the Court. Only after reviewing this newly available information did the Court revisit the results of the first round and annul its previous decision from just four days earlier. To understand why this happened, we must consider two key factors: the failure of the intelligence community and the paralysis of the state.

The Role of the Intelligence Community

The declassified findings make it clear that this sustained and sophisticated effort to delegitimize the election process could not have been carried out without the involvement of a foreign actor. Cyberattacks targeting Romania’s electoral authorities were traced to Russia, with over 85,000 separate attacks intercepted on the first voting day. These cyberattacks were not isolated; they are part of a broader Kremlin strategy to destabilize EU and NATO member states. This raises serious concerns about Romania’s cybersecurity infrastructure and intelligence services, which failed to prevent such incursions. How is it that the intelligence services were aware of these developments—but only after the fact? How is it that the tiny Republic of Moldova, with its undoubtedly much more fragile democracy, could signal Russian interference in its recent presidential election yet still manage to conclude the voting process without resorting to annulment? The most pressing issue lies in the role of Romania’s intelligence community. Since the country entered the democratic era, the intelligence services have been a source of controversy. Civilian oversight is often lacking, and the extent of their influence over political parties and institutions remains murky. The question now is whether Romania’s intelligence agencies truly serve the state’s interests—or are pursuing their own agendas.

The Paralysis of the Romanian State

According to the declassified material, the campaign and finance regulations were flagrantly ignored by influencers on the payroll of far-right candidate Georgescu on a popular Chinese social media platform. Despite Georgescu’s claims of not using campaign funds, hiring dozens of influencers and amplifying his campaign messages is estimated to cost millions of euros. Violations of campaign silence rules were also documented, yet state institutions only realized all this after the fact. Outgoing President Klaus Iohannis only addressed the issue after the Court decided to annul the votes, claiming that the findings of the Supreme Defense Council—of which he is a member—unequivocally showed foreign interference. Yet, he did nothing in response, even refusing to comment publicly when asked by the media. Election authorities made no public statements regarding these issues following the first round of voting. Romanian authorities, often perceived as negligent, nepotistic, and corrupt by the population, have once again faltered in fulfilling a critical responsibility.

Consequences and Future Implications

The reception of the Court’s decision is divided along party lines, reflecting the Court’s composition. The primary beneficiaries of the decision were the establishment parties—the Social Democrats and National Liberals—who dominated the court and were the biggest losers in the first round of voting. The National Liberals have already signaled their intention to change their candidate for the reorganized election. The events also sparked a minor constitutional debate regarding the timing of the current president’s mandate, as there would be no successor by the time his term was initially set to end. Given this context, it’s not hard to imagine that the Court could have been influenced by political pressure. Both Elena Lasconi, the second-place finisher representing the pro-European side, and far-right candidate Georgescu have criticized the Court for infringing on democracy. While civil society and media pressure forced the Romanian authorities to declassify critical intelligence, the broader implications of the annulment of the election results raise alarms about the resilience of Romania’s democratic institutions. The public’s mixed reaction to the Court’s decision reflects a more profound crisis of legitimacy, where interventions by unelected bodies in the electoral process undermine trust in the judiciary and the very foundations of Romanian democracy.

Romania is a NATO member and an EU state. Still, the erosion of trust in its electoral processes and the creeping authoritarian tendencies of some political figures may jeopardize its democratic credentials. The fact that foreign actors could so easily influence the outcome of a NATO member state’s elections highlights a troubling vulnerability. Romania’s path forward—whether reaffirming its commitment to EU values or sliding into the ranks of democratic backsliders in Eastern Europe—will depend heavily on how its political elites and civil society confront these deep-rooted challenges.

 

Cover photo credit: Unsplash