- The Romanian presidential election faced controversy as far-right nationalist candidate Călin Georgescu emerged as the frontrunner, prompting allegations of Russian interference and a Constitutional Court ruling halting the second round.
- Romania’s strategic importance as a NATO member and a logistical hub for military aid to Ukraine underscores tensions surrounding Georgescu’s anti-NATO stance.
- The situation highlights concerns about institutional impartiality and the feasibility of electing leaders with anti-NATO or anti-EU views in Romania’s political landscape.
An interesting series of events unfolded in the Eastern European country of Romania, a NATO member, as the nation witnessed its presidential elections. To the surprise of many, the far-right nationalist candidate, Călin Georgescu, emerged as the frontrunner in the first round of elections, outperforming the incumbent centre-left Prime Minister, Marcel Ciolacu, and the pro-European Union centrist, Dacian Lasconi. Georgescu secured 22% of the vote, falling short of the 50% required for an outright victory.
The second round of the presidential elections was scheduled to take place on December 8. However, it was called off following an intervention by Romania’s Constitutional Court. This decision was based on intelligence provided by the Romanian Intelligence Service, which alleged significant Russian interference in the elections that had favoured the nationalist candidate, Georgescu. Following the decision by Romania’s Constitutional Court, the far-right nationalist candidate Călin Georgescu rejected the ruling, calling it a “coup” orchestrated by the court. In contrast, the incumbent Prime Minister, Marcel Ciolacu, has endorsed the court’s decision as entirely legitimate.
It is important to understand that Romania is a strategically significant country for NATO. Romania hosts one of the largest NATO bases in Europe, and its importance has grown in light of the ongoing Ukraine crisis. Amid NATO’s expanding presence in European theatres, Romania plays a critical role. NATO aims to strengthen its visibility and accessibility in Europe to counter Russia’s influence, making Romania a pivotal ally.
Romania’s significance is further underscored by its unwavering support for Ukraine. Much of NATO’s military aid to Ukraine is routed through Romanian bases before being sent to Poland and, subsequently, to Ukraine. This logistical role enhances Romania’s strategic importance in the region, especially in the context of potential threats or attacks that may arise amid escalating tensions.
The far-right nationalist Călin Georgescu is not entirely a newcomer to politics, having served Romania in the Environmental Ministry and being nominated as a potential prime minister in 2020 and 2021. However, beyond these roles, very little is known about Georgescu in mainstream circles. He is, however, widely popular on social media, particularly TikTok, where he has amassed 3.4 million followers.
It is important to examine the manifesto of this far-right candidate. Georgescu has opposed Romania’s military support for Ukraine, arguing that aiding Ukraine does not align with Romania’s national interests. Additionally, he has questioned Romania’s role within NATO, casting doubt on NATO’s ability to protect Romania in the event of a wartime crisis. Notably, in 2022, during Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, Georgescu expressed views that could be interpreted as pragmatic or sympathetic to Russia’s position. This has led to his portrayal as a leader who prioritizes Romania’s sovereignty and national interests over alignment with Western alliances such as NATO and the EU.
The decision by Romania’s Constitutional Court raises concerns about interference and questions the impartiality of the judiciary. Did the court intervene simply because a leader with ideas different from the mainstream—one who supports a country considered an enemy by Romania’s institutions—was gaining prominence? This raises serious questions about the rule of law in Romania. Does the rule of law only apply when a pro-European Union or pro-NATO candidate wins, but not when an alternative leader emerges?
This situation highlights the need to challenge the unholy nexus between Romania’s institutions—the judiciary, executive, and legislature—which seem to align under a single ideology. Anyone who challenges this status quo appears to face unified opposition aimed at undermining them. In this case, it begs the question: is it even possible for an anti-NATO or anti-EU leader to win in Romania?
NATO is not the ultimate authority in Romania—it is merely a military bloc. Romania has its constitution, and a leader should be respected based on constitutional principles. NATO should come second to Romania’s national interests. The critical issue here is whether opposition to NATO or the European Union is such a significant concern that it prevents a candidate from even being elected as the head of state.
Reference:
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/far-right-pro-russian-populist-surprises-in-romanian-presidential-election-set-to-enter-runoff-against-pm/article68908483.ece
Aayush Pal is a freelance writer on contemporary geopolitical developments. The views expressed in his work are entirely his own.
Balaji Subramanian 
Dhruv Ashok 
Piyush Anand