Presidential Elections in Romania with Georgiana Gheorghe [PODCAST]

Why were the presidential elections in Romania annulled? Who was behind the TikTok campaign of Călin Georgescu? And what is the state of democracy in Romania ahead of the repeated elections? Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Georgiana Gheorghe, the Executive Director of APADOR-CH, a leading human rights organization based in Bucharest, Romania.

Leszek Jazdzewski (LJ): Could you walk us through the Romanian presidential election, starting from the one from December 2024, which was cancelled? What has happened so far?

Georgiana Gheorghe (GG): It is a political thriller, which started actually much earlier than the presidential elections. Romania had four rounds of elections last year: the local, the parliamentary, the European, and the presidential elections. Our democracy took very severe blow at the end of 2024 when the Constitutional Court of Romania decided to become a political player and annul the presidential elections.

We are currently still having a discussion in Romania whether the annulment of the presidential elections by the Constitutional Court was justified or not – whether it saved democracy or rather broke it to a level from which it would be extremely difficult to recover. My organization and I think that we are, indeed, facing the second scenario, in which democracy took a very severe blow.

The civil society in Romania is pretty much split about the decision, just as the society in general is split, but our take on it is very much in line with the opinion of the Venice Commission on what happened in Romania. This opinion basically says that the annulment of the elections in Romania was done by breaching fundamental democratic principles.

The Constitutional Court decided to annul the elections ex officio, although in Romania there is no law saying that the Constitutional Court can annul elections. Therefore, the decision was made basically based on its own will.

In general, the Constitutional Court in Romania rules on the constitutionality of various issues, but it also has some attribution when it comes to presidential elections – and presidential elections only, not any other type of elections – as well as the referendum. However, nowhere in the law does it say that they can annul elections – they can only look at some formal criteria of validating or invalidating candidates.

The Constitutional Court had already done this before the first round of the elections, in the case of Diana Șoșoacă, the representative of the extreme-right party. The Constitutional Court invalidated her candidacy, saying that her discourse is not sufficiently attached to the rule of law and the constitution of Romania. This decision is also very debatable, and it was very highly criticized, because, again, the Constitutional Court went beyond its attributions when it comes to validating or invalidating candidacies. This was the first sign that the Constitutional Court is starting to become a political actor.

Going back to the annulment of the presidential election, it had no legal basis, as the manner in which it was done clearly breaches democratic standards. For example, this decision cannot be appealed, there was no public and fair hearing, there was no procedural rights guaranteed during this electoral process, and it was done very late in the process. The Constitutional Court made this decision in the end in a very weird and bizarre way, because they first called for the recounting of all the votes. They validated the first round of elections, and two days later, they decided to invalidate the election based on some information notes coming from the secret services.

What we criticized at that time, which the Venice Commission also pointed out, is that if you decide to annul the elections, you need to base your decision on evidence, and the information notes coming from the secret services can only provide context, which is not enough evidence. This was another democratic standard that was breached. In this light, the Constitutional Court did act as a political actor. The reality is that there was no legal basis for what they did.

Moreover, according to our legislation, decisions of Constitutional Court are final, so they cannot be challenged.  Here, however, we are entering technicalities, because according to the Constitution, what you cannot challenge are the decisions of the Constitutional Court that have to do with constitutionality matters, not those relating to electoral matters. Therefore, in theory, it was possible to change the legislation to have this appeal remedy, which could have applied for the first round of the May elections, but no politician were interested in doing that. The subject was thus just dropped, and right now, you cannot appeal decisions of the Constitutional Court.

At the same time, candidates have the right to freedom of expression. They can say they do not like the European Union, or that they want the Constitution to be changed. It is not a matter of extremism to be able to state those opinions. However, for a Constitutional Court to invalidate the candidate merely because they are exercising their freedom of expression, that is not very democratic.

LJ: What evidence was revealed that led to the Constitutional Court’s decision? And why do you think this evidence was insufficient?

GG: I would have to go back to the notes made by the secret services, which were, according to us, very poorly drafted. The Constitutional Court’s decision was based on public information already available in the media on how TikTok operates and the correlation between manipulating voters via TikTok.

The whole argument revolved around the fact that the then president, Călin Georgescu, said that his political campaign was done with zero costs. Then, an entire investigation started about his campaigns on TikTok – how they had been financed, whether they had respected the regulation of political advertisement and so on, and so forth. The main idea which came across very thinly from the notes of the secret services was that there had been some influence of a foreign agent. They did not name which the foreign agent it was, obviously it was a hint to Russia, but that was never approved. The conclusion was that, basically, Călin Georgescu was supported by Russia, that he was the pro-Russian candidate, and that the voters on TikTok were heavily manipulated and influenced. But again, that was never proved – and it is something that also the then president of Romania said himself, that it will be very difficult to prove.

LJ: Some reports claim that it was actually the liberals, the National Liberal Party, who was behind it. What should we make of this argument?

GG: It is a very complicated story of how the National Liberal Party designed an online campaign which backfired because of the way the algorithms work. My understanding is that they designed the campaign for the National Liberal Party candidate, and they were working with some companies and the hashtags. Therefore, the whole campaign was meant to benefit the National Liberal Party’s campaign, but for some reason, it benefited, in fact, the campaign of Călin Georgescu.

All of this shows how the lack of knowledge of how algorithms on social media work, or how political advertisement works backfires in ways that we have no control over. Because I do not think anybody expected Călin Georgescu to win in the first round of the elections, otherwise they would have just applied the same formula they applied for the other extreme candidate. However, the Constitutional Court never went into questioning the discourse of other candidates, except the ones who were the runners-up in the presidential race.

LJ: This would mean that the presidential election was annulled because of the way in which the campaign was being run – is that a fair assessment? So, what happens if there is illegal financing of the campaign or some illegal ways in which the campaign is being conducted? Let us say that foreign agents really finance the campaign of a certain candidate, what should happen according to the Romanian law?

GG: Of course, we have extensive legislation when it comes to non-compliance of electoral legislation. I must admit I am not an expert, but there certainly are contraventions and even criminal files if there are investigations showing that political campaigns are not run correctly.

In relation to TikTok, for example, the fact that there was no marking of the political advertisement as such is a contravention. Therefore, Călin Georgescu not marking his political advertisement constitutes a contravention. Nevertheless, we could ask whether one would really want to annul elections just because a candidate in breach of the current legislation did not mark their campaign as political advertisement. Of course, this does not only apply to him, but to other candidates as well.

We do have legislation and there are fines and sanctions, but you need to apply it prior or during the electoral campaign. You cannot start investigating how the campaign took place after you annul the elections and try to justify the annulment of the election.

Romania is a classic example of how all institutions have failed in this case, starting from the Prosecutor’s Office – which suddenly decided to investigate the allegation of fascism (which can be, of course, very valid and justified, but you need to do it in due time), how the rules of transparency of political campaigns are being carried out and how those who have to take action and impose sanctions have acted, – and ending with the Constitutional Court.

LJ: There are some theories (bordering on conspiracy theories) that it was the deep state of Romania that interfered, and that the main party candidates actually wanted Călin Georgescu in the second round, so they could win against him, but that something went wrong, so they had to correct it. What to make of it?

GG: It is very difficult to make any assessment because we do not have access to the political calculation and maneuvers of the political parties. But yes, some information present in the public media does indeed point to the fact that Călin Georgescu was used by the ruling parties in their desire to win.

Basically, they were suggesting their voters voting for Georgescu, so that their political calculations would match up and they would be the winners in any case. However, I do not think that they had predicted the outcome of their suggestions, and certainly TikTok and social media was an additional element that had contributed to the actual outcome. We can say that there were some political maneuvers happening prior, during, and after the elections, as we all can see. However, we have no idea what their extent was, but we can definitely see the results.

LJ: What is the current state of democracy in Romania after this major crisis and ahead of the repeated elections, which will take place on May 4?

GG: The state of democracy in Romania is very fragile. Călin Georgescu’s second candidacy has already been invalidated by the Constitutional Court – not only his, but also of other candidates. This created a lot of tension in society, especially among the supporters of Călin Georgescu, which led to violent protests.

The democracy in Romania is very much compromised. The legitimacy of the May 4^th elections is already under question, given this invalidation of candidacies. It will be very difficult to restore the faith in democracy. We have to work hard on changing the legislation, which is the easiest thing to do. But that requires political will. And I do not think we have political will.

Apart from changing the legislation, the electoral process must be more equitable and fair, even for the candidates that we do not like. We need to have fundamental discussions about what democracy is, and how we should go about it, as well as about what extremism is and how do we solve the problem of all those people who voted for an extremist right candidate and who are very dissatisfied with the current political class. Their needs are not met.

We need to learn to talk to each other, because right now we are very divided. We do not know how to talk to each other – we do not even listen to each other.

Finally, we need to reimagine what democracy is and where everybody fits. Because right now, democracy is just a word in Romania – I am just being very honest. We do not have credible institutions in the eyes of the people. And it is going to be a long road to build the trust between the citizens and these institutions – regardless of who wins this electoral race.

LJ: If George Simion wins (the founder and chairman of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians, the second largest party in both houses of parliament since 2024) will this mean that it is the decision of the people? Should it be accepted? Or do you think that, in that case, the Constitutional Court will need to intervene to prevent radical far-right candidates from winning?

GG: George Simion’s candidacy, the candidate representing the extreme right party, has already been validated by the Constitutional Court, so he will run in the presidential elections. He has quite good chances to at least end up in the second round of elections. We shall see how everything plays out, but it is quite safe to say that a lot of the votes which went to Călin Georgescu will go to George Simion.

Therefore, there is a high likelihood that George Simion will become the next president of Romania, and we will have to deal with that. I hope the Constitutional Court does not invalidate the outcome of the forthcoming presidential election, regardless of who wins it – even if it is a candidate that the Constitutional Court does not like. This would be another political circus.

This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.