---

Romania has experienced a dramatic shift in its political landscape following the presidential election rerun held on 4 May. The Constitutional Court ordered a new election after it annulled the December 2024 vote and disqualified far-right frontrunner Călin Georgescu due to electoral violations and alleged foreign interference. A new far-right candidate, George Simion, took first place in the first round of the rerun election, sending further shockwaves through Romania’s political establishment. A runoff vote between Simion and centrist Bucharest Mayor Nicușor Dan is scheduled for 18 May.

What factors led to the decision to annul the first election?

Romania’s weak and corrupt institutions acted too late to address manipulation that destabilised our democracy. The court pointed to three main reasons for annulment: foreign interference in political campaigns, authorities failing to act on available information and the risky, short-sighted strategies employed by political parties seeking to undermine their opponents.

Judges found that illegal digital campaigning, foreign interference and campaign finance violations compromised the integrity of the election and decided a full rerun was necessary. Unlike other countries facing similar challenges, Romania’s response has been notably inadequate. While France, Moldova and the USA have tackled similar problems and some steps have been taken at the European level, Romania took far too long to act. In typical Romanian political and bureaucratic fashion, once information came out, politicians did nothing right away. Instead of following clear steps to act quickly, officials waited and tried to see how they could use it to their advantage.

How did this affect public trust in Romania’s democratic institutions?

This crisis exists within a broader context of eroding democratic norms. Trust was already low before the annulment, and with good reason. The government increasingly uses emergency ordinances to legislate, Bucharest’s city hall opens less than three per cent of its proposals for public debate and local authorities systematically ignore civic input. This comes on top of a poorly managed pandemic and a war in Ukraine across our border, with the aggressor’s voice amplified in social media.

Authorities have done nothing to reverse this trend. On the contrary, they have increasingly tried to restrict civic space and human rights. So when the election was suddenly annulled, it became the spark that ignited an already volatile situation. This ongoing institutional failure has had a profound impact on the credibility of the entire electoral process.

The aftermath of the court’s decision further damaged public confidence. Distrust intensified because authorities acted too slowly and inadequately. No senior official was held accountable. Without a public, transparent review, many people didn’t see this annulment as a real defence of democracy.

What role have established political parties played in the crisis?

The current situation stems partly from cynical political calculations by mainstream parties. The Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the National Liberal Party believed they could ride the wave of far-right and sovereigntist sentiment, represented by Georgescu, without serious consequences. They’ve maintained power for over 35 years. They assumed they could face him in a runoff and easily defeat him. But his support proved much stronger than they expected.

This miscalculation has now transformed the political landscape. Georgescu’s disqualification turned him into an anti-system symbol, despite being an insider and having held public jobs. Every candidate tried to claim the anti-system role, some more aggressively than others.

The resulting polarisation is unprecedented. Some Georgescu backers hoped to repeat a situation similar to the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. We’ve seen some insurrectionary slogans, such as ‘second round back’, fuelled by both real supporters and bots seeking to erode trust in the process.

Who were the leading candidates in the rerun first round?

Although the ballot looked very different from December, the ideological spectrum remained largely conservative. Most candidates appealed to the same pool of Christian-Orthodox voters. The biggest dividing line was foreign policy: some were pro-European Union (EU), others pro-USA, particularly pro-Trump, and a few pushed anti-Ukrainian, pro-Russian narratives.

The race effectively narrowed to five significant contenders. George Simion of the Alliance of Union of Romanians (AUR) emerged as Georgescu’s political heir. No one was able to fully capture Georgescu’s support base, but Simion came closest by copying his style and behaviour. He skipped all three official presidential debates, in one case staging a dramatic walkout with supporters, just as Georgescu did in 2024. While this showed a lack of respect for voters, Simion may have felt he had nothing to gain and only votes to lose. This strategy won him first place with 40.96 per cent of the vote.

Simion and AUR represent a clear threat to Romania’s European orientation. They are conservative on family and immigration, oppose human rights advances and are pro-Russian in foreign policy. The EU is under pressure from many fronts, and Simion’s rise adds to that strain.

The other candidates positioned themselves within this disrupted landscape. Bucharest’s mayor, Nicușor Dan, ran as an independent with the Save Romania Union’s support. He cast himself as the ‘lone wolf’ anti-system figure. During his mayoral term, he built coalitions in the city council for reforms. He received 20.99 per cent of the vote and will now compete with Simion in the runoff.

The three other candidates were Elena Lasconi, Crin Antonescu and Victor Ponta. Lasconi maintained that she should have been the rightful challenger to Georgescu in the previous runoff. She targeted Dan’s voters, accusing him of ‘stealing’ them. Antonescu, in contrast, represented continuity with the governing coalition. He relied on his rhetorical skills to fill the ‘calm statesman’ role Georgescu once sought. He showed a lot of pragmatism, expressing willingness to form any coalition – even with the far right – to stay in power. And Ponta emerged as a troubling surprise. He staged a political comeback with provocative proposals, adopting a Romanian version of Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ discourse.

How has disinformation shaped the electoral environment?

Online disinformation is moving at a scale we’ve never seen. In every election, parties try to shape the agenda, but when legions of bots flood social media to do it too, the rules change. Even if all parties use such tactics, it ends up being a matter of who has most resources to spread disinformation.

Media manipulation isn’t new, but its scale is unprecedented. We are constantly analysing campaign visuals and debating images of one candidate shared by another, while armies of trolls are flooding social media with copy-pasted comments on political and non-political posts alike.

Fortunately, civil society is fighting back against these information threats. CSOs are working with teachers to incorporate media literacy in schools, running workshops that equip young people to spot fake news and operating fact-checking services to debunk viral lies. As part of the NGOs for Citizens coalition, CERE launched an offline civic forum focused on TikTok’s role in this campaign to give voters the tools they need to navigate this flood of disinformation.

What are the prospects for the runoff?

Dan now battles for the support of first-round non-voters. Even if he manages to secure most of the votes received by all the other candidates, his electoral prospects appear limited unless he can attract a significant influx of new supporters. The key questions are how many of the 38 per cent who rejected Simeon Dan can persuade to participate and support him, and how effectively an anti-Simeon campaign can mobilise those who previously abstained.

A particularly notable development involves the PSD, Romania’s largest party, which has withdrawn from government and declared neutrality in the runoff, endorsing neither candidate. One optimistic interpretation suggests Dan asked political parties to keep a distance, believing them responsible for the substantial anti-system vote, and perhaps PSD agreed. We must also consider that anti-PSD sentiment has persisted for over a decade, particularly among diaspora voters, making the impact of its potential endorsement uncertain. More likely, however, a weakened PSD is simply distancing itself from the turmoil it helped create, hoping to return strengthened in eight to 10 months. Meanwhile, its loyal voting base now lacks direction, raising questions about whether they will gravitate toward Dan or Simion.

What remains unquestionably clear is that Romania’s continued alignment with Europe hinges entirely on achieving substantial voter participation in this pivotal runoff election.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook

SEE ALSO
Romania: ‘People saw this election as an opportunity for change and expressed their dissatisfaction with the status quo’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Luliana Lliescu 28.Dec.2024
Romania: Protests erupt after court annuls presidential elections results CIVICUS Monitor 10.Jan.2025
Romania: Protests in Bucharest over election irregularities; government workers go on strike CIVICUS Monitor 30.Jul.2024

  Source