Only two weeks out from Presidential Elections, Romanian voters face a tough decision in deciding on the next leader of their country. The latest opinion polls show that nearly 40% of voters are still undecided on who to vote for. After all, most voters already cast their ballots for a now-banned candidate last December.
The first round of elections initially took place last year on November 24th, with results showing independent candidate Cǎlin Georgescu as the front-runner. Georgescu’s early lead came as a shock since he was relatively unknown prior to elections and trailed far behind in early polls. An agronomist with a limited political background, Georgescu was able to build a solid support base of young people via propaganda on the social media platform, TikTok. Georgescu holds controversial opinions including pro-Russian views and support for the fascist WWII leader of Romania who joined forces with Hitler.
In December, the results of the first round were annulled following intelligence reports of evidence indicating cyberattacks and Russian attempts to influence the election in Georgescu’s favor. The elections were then postponed until May. Georgescu calls the annulment of the first election an “attack on democracy.” Additionally, in March of 2025, Georgescu was officially banned from the election do-over and is under criminal investigations on six counts. Following the decision, violence erupted on the streets of Bucharest, with supporters declaring the result to be undemocratic. According to the Central Election Bureau, the ban of Georgescu was due to his not meeting the correct legal requirements. The decision fueled conspiracy claims by right-wing extremists in Romania that this is a scheme by the UN to prevent Georgescu from coming to power. While untrue, the Romanian right-wing is using this conspiracy theory to fuel paranoia and distrust in the government system in order to gain power.
While resisting Georgescu’s rise to power is arguably necessary, the radical action taken of banning him from the race has sparked concerns. Critics argue that the action threatens polarization, diminishes democratic norms and serves as a pretext for the threat of greater aggrandizements used by the opposition.
Claudiu Tiffs, a Political Science professor in Bucharest, notes that supporters of democracy in Romania are having two different reactions to the decision. On one hand, some feel critical of banning candidates without proper justification and without taking previous steps. Georgescu could have been stopped originally from running via regular judicial process due to his support for fascist groups. Tiffs claims these critics believe since this resource was not used initially, the late decision by the Constitutional Court weakens Romanian democracy. Additionally, it allows for Georgescu and the far right party to gain power through fueling paranoia. A second group of supporters of democracy feel that while it wasn’t necessarily a democratic decision, Georgescu’s election would have been disastrous for Romania. Democratic supporters have been effectively split due to these varying views on how the decision should have been made.
The decision to bar Georgescu from the election has deepened the divide in Romania and fueled discontent in the political state of the country, further polarizing Romanians. Political Scientist Milan Svolik states that the deeper a society’s political divisions, the easier it is for a populist leader to swoop in and exploit these divisions. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case for Romania as Georgescu’s far-right ally George Simion leads the opinion polls right ahead of the elections. The case in Romania serves as a cautionary tale for other democratic countries. It emphasizes the importance of using democratic tools to oust would-be authoritarians, even when doing so is slow and complex, rather than using undemocratic shortcuts that may backfire in the long run.
This case I believe that you discuss has great significance as it pertains to how democracies mitigate antidemocratic candidates, especially those with a populist following. The decision to bar Georgescu may well temporarily prevent an upheaval of Romanian democracy yet this ruling has in fact emboldened those aligned with him. The far-right George Simion with the support of other far-right partied has managed to turn Georgescu into some nationalist martyr victim of some liberal court. As this is the narrative that is driven to dismiss what problematic views a populist may hold, their silencing is seen as some infringement of free speech as you mentioned surrounding the controversy.
The US VP J.D. Vance has even expressed his disapproval of this decision by the Romanian Constitutional Court labelling it some antidemocratic method. In a recent wave of attacks on parties to avoid collaboration with the far-right, the case of Romania is no different in the posturing of populist apologists. The elites are not designated as those who hold financial or political prowess alone, they are paired with some idea that they are far from being representative of true nationalists. The failure and decline in popularity of the centrist parties of NLP and the PSD can certainly than be further determinants of the appeal of someone like Georgescu and Simion who generated such a movement behind them defined ultranationalism and traditionalist values.
Your post provides great insights into what is currently happening in Romania in regard to their presidential election redo. I think banning Georgescu from running is an interesting, almost paradoxical situation. He supports and is supported by undemocratic sentiments, such as far-right populism and fascism. So, banning him from running in the election redo will ultimately save Romania’s democracy, but at the same time, banning someone from running in an election redo after they already showed promising signs of winning in the first election is undemocratic too. It is undemocratic if they do, and it is undemocratic if they don’t. However, it seems as though they should have banned him from running before the election happened because now it looks like they are doing all of these actions because it looks like he will win. It is a lose-lose situation for the Romanian government whether or not the ban sticks because they will have hate in either situation. Ultimately, they have to do what is best for their state, and that looks like banning Georgescu from running.
It is very interesting to read about the election crisis in Romania. On one hand, I feel that banning Georgescu was wrong and could be a sign of democratic backsliding. The best way to keep Georgescu out of power is for Romanian citizens to get out and vote against him. Georgescu seems to be a controversial figure, just like U.S. President Donald Trump. Though he might be a controversial candidate, it does not make it better for Geogescu and the right wing to try to leverage the chaos. The controversy surrounding the Russian cyberattacks and the spread of disinformation does not help if Russia also publicly backs Georgescu. Major powers should be held accountable just like anyone else in the world. Could electing Georgescu be the domino that puts a future authoritarian figure in office? Romania has come a long way from its revolution in 1989 in the overthrow of Nicolae Ceaușescu. I’m sure the Romanians do not want history to repeat itself if there is a sign of a candidate who could bring authoritarianism back to the country.
Your post excellently illustrates Romania’s paradoxical predicament of banning Georgescu to preserve democracy, yet risking further backsliding by violating democratic norms to do so. While barring Cǎlin Georgescu may have been arguably necessary – as you pointed out – it is concerning to consider the ramifications of his arrest and political disqualification on the general electorate, nascent far-right movement, and the precedent established for future elections. Georgescu’s inflammatory rhetoric has ostensibly been given credence in the perspective of his supporters, who may simply rally around his far-right ally – potentially leaving Romania with a populist, pro-Russia president regardless of Georgescu’s ban and rendering the country in the same position it started in, this time with elevated polarization. Should George Simion win the upcoming election, it will be interesting to see if Romania attempts to rectify the situation by utilizing democratic instruments to remove him from power, or if they allow him to ascertain the presidency.