A Case Study of the 2024/2025 Romanian Presidential Election 

What happens when the clear frontrunner in a presidential election is prevented from running when the election is abruptly cancelled just days before the second round of the vote?

This isn’t a scene from a political thriller. It’s the reality unfolding in Romania, a member of the European Union (EU). The 2024/25 Romanian presidential election presents a sobering case study that raises questions not only for Romania’s democratic health but also about some broader, troubling trends affecting the state of democracy across the EU.  While European nations continue to promote democratic values abroad, events like these raise serious concerns about the democratic integrity at home. Let’s look into it.

A Changing Democratic Landscape

For much of the modern era, the liberal Western democratic system of government that first flourished in Europe and the USA has been celebrated as the gold standard of governance that countries from all around the world should aspire to replicate. With its promises of individual freedom, protected rights,  economic prosperity and political stability supported by freedom of speech and free elections with clean and accountable governments, it was seen as the ideological framework that would guide all the nations of the world toward a better and brighter future. For many decades, especially after World War II, this model expanded steadily across the globe, often accompanied by economic development and the rise of middle classes that reinforced its legitimacy. 

But in recent years, deep cracks have begun to show on this shiny surface. Across the West and beyond, democratic principles are being challenged by many opposing forces including populism, elites entrenchment, censorship, economic inequality, and increasing polarization. 

The Backgroung Story: A Rising Political Outsider

In December 2024, Calin  Georgescu, a right wing nationalist candidate, emerged as the surprise ‘winner’ of the first round of Romania’s presidential elections securing 23% of the vote. His sudden and unexpected popularity was largely fueled by a successful campaign using social media plaforms, especially TikTok, that went viral by-passing the filters of the traditional mainstream media. This victory was a seismic shock for the Romanian and European political establishment given Georgescu’s reputation for being  “pro-Russia” due to his criticism of Romania’s alignment with NATO’s military posture in Ukraine. The shock was amplified by polls suggesting that, he had a very strong chance of winning the second round and hence secure the presidency. 

But then, just two days before the run-off, the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) abruptly cancelled the election citing supposed “irregularities” and “distortions” caused by alleged Russian interference via social media and potentially illegal campaign financing  aimed at “manipulating the vote” in favor of Georgescu.

Considering the seriousness of the accusations and resulting actions by the CCR, we would have expected that a diligent investigation would quickly provide evidences to support the CCR’s decision. However it is troubling to note that four months later, the Romanian security services and authorities have yet to present any concrete conclusive evidences of this “Russian interference”. Strangely, in an ironical twist, preliminary investigations even revealed that some of Georgescu’s campaign funding came from sources linked to his political rivals in the pro-Western National Liberal Party (NLP) raising suspicions about manipulation from within the establishment.  Why was Georgescu’s rise aided by opponents? Perhaps they were hoping to use him as a foil in the final round, a tactic reminiscent of recent French presidential elections where ‘far right ‘ candidate, Marine Le Pen, has been promoted during the the first round by the mainstream media under the assumption that she would not be able to muster a majority for the second round hence ensuring the victory of the establishment candidate facing her. What worked well in France proved to be more difficult in Romania when Georgescu became unpredictably far more popular than expected and was actually on his way to win the second round, that’s when the constitutional court intervened andcancelled the election.

Many Romanians were upset by this turn of event and rallied in even greater numbers behind the ostracised candidate. Hence, Georgescu was, if anything, even more popular and likely to win the postponed elections now scheduled for May 2025, and the latest polls clearly indicated that he was leading with over 41% far ahead of his nearest rival who had less than 19%. 

Escalation and Exclusion

In panic, authorities escalated their actions moving swiftly to neutralise Georgescu. He was briefly arrested for questioning and indicted on on a range of vague charges, including alleged “anti-constitutional acts,” “voter bribery,” and “promoting fascist, racist, or xenophobic ideologies.” Shortly after, the electoral commission banned him from participating in the forthcoming election again invoking the same vague claims of Russian interference, online manipulation, and campaign financing opacity. The Constitutional Court upheld the ban. For Georgescu, the door to the presidency has effectively been slammed shut. 

Protests immediately erupted across the country, driven by a sense that the democratic process had been hijacked. But these demonstrations risked triggering further repression tightening the trap for his support base who feel disillusioned and powerless. For now, the political establishment appears to have maintained control and won the day! But at what cost?

But what about Democracy? Has Democracy Won?

The Romanian case raises deeply troubling questions:

• Is democracy still meaningful if legal and institutional tools can be used to eliminate unwanted candidates before elections take place?
• Can political dissent be equated with extremism and silenced under vague accusations?
• Are European institutions defending democracy or defending their own ideological and political monopoly?

This is not merely a Romanian problem. It is symptomatic of a deeper crisis in the democratic system of the European Union as across Europe, similar trends are emerging. In France, media suppression and information ‘massaging’ is common, and mainstream media often inflate fringe candidates only to discredit them later. In Germany, opposition parties such as AfD face legal pressure and surveillance under accusations of extremism. In Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia, the EU has intervened in domestic politics, often to “defend democracy” against elected governments.

The tools may differ, but the outcomes are similar: a narrowing of legitimate political space, particularly for candidates who challenge the establishments and their narratives.

The Romanian case may signal a critical further slide from subtle manipulation to overt suppression. What once occurred behind the scene through media control, editorial spin and targeted lawfare now happens in plain sight with open election and civic participation suppression. All this with the active support from EU institutions, which seem more concerned with maintaining ideological purity and cohesion than defending true democratic pluralism. 

This raises a fundamental question:

Can democracy survive if dissenting voices, that do not meet the ideal EU ideological format as determined by EU elites, are systematically excluded under the pretext of defending democratic values?

“No Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom”? 

Georgescu has been branded as “far-right”, “Pro-Russia” and “Anti-EU” by many European media outlets. Is he? So what? Does that justify his exclusion? 

In a genuine democracy, ideological diversity, going from far left to far right is not only tolerated but essential. Democracy is not meant to guarantee specific outcomes. It guarantees a fair process by which citizens can make their voices heard and influence public policies. Ideological confrontations are to be resolved through public debates and at the ballot box, not through legal and institutional maneuvering.

If the majority of Romanian citizens wanted to elect Georgescu, that should have been their right, even if his opinions and proposed policies are unpopular with the Romanian and EU elite. 

By sidelining Georgescu, Romanian authorities and EU elites have sent a clear and disturbing message: some political choices will not be allowed. Is this democracy?

Why Was Georgescu Really banned ?

Georgescu was likely banned because he became a threat to the establishment for at least, three main reasons: 

• First, he is a populist outsider, very critical of entrenched elites in Romania and Brussels. They obviously don’t like it. 
• Secondly, to make things worse, he is highly skeptical about the current direction of EU integration. This is a red line in Brussels where nobody can challenge the idea that deeper union is both inevitable and beneficial.
• And finally, he dared to question Romania’s deepening military role in NATO supporting the war effort in Ukraine. A taboo topic in today’s geopolitical climate.

These positions may indeed be controversial, but they should not be illegal. The attempt to remove him through legal and bureaucratic means instead of democratic ones undermines the very democratic system the EU claims to defend.

Democracy means accepting the risk of losing. It means tolerating views you disagree with. It means trusting citizens to make decisions, even when you think they might choose the “wrong” candidate. This is apparently too much for the EU bureaucracy and political elites. They do not want anymore to take the risk of losing the power in a free and fair election.  The Georgescu option had to be removed from the table at all cost!

Are We Still Living in Democracies in Europe?

What the Romanian case makes clear is this:

Many western countries today are not well functioning democracies anymore, but rather ‘managed’ democracies, where elections still happen for political expediency, but meaningful choices are gradually and quietly narrowed to insignificance. At the same time, political power is increasingly concentrated in economic and technocratic elites, shielded by media monopolies, information censorship, judicial protection tools, and very opaque institutions.

The appearance of democracy remains on the surface, but the substance is shrinking fast. The mask, however, is now slipping exposing the reality for everyone who cares to see.

Reclaiming Democracy: A Path Forward!

Despite these worrying developments, the story doesn’t have to end here. Crises often by exposing the cracks offer more clarity and hence the opportunity to do something. To reinvigorate democracy, reforms must target the root causes of the decay:

• Break Elites Control: Limit campaign and any political donations to small amounts, ban backroom corporate lobbying, and establish tighter oversight and transparency of political financing.
• Free and Empower Citizens: Protect free speech, ensure uncensored access to diverse information, implement more direct democracy tools like citizen-initiated referendums, recalls and consider voting innovations like ranked-choice or secure online voting.
• Ensure Free Media: Break up elite media ownership, protect independent journalism and decentralised media platforms, and ensure ideological diversity and transparency in media reporting.
• Serve the Common Public Good: Prioritize real societal needs over elite agendas and narrow divisive issues: Invest in health, food quality, education, public infrastructure, and ensuring economic equity. Reduce wealth inequality that fuels political alienation and extremism.

A Call to Renew Democracy: The Time to Act Is Now 

Democracy is not self-sustaining! it requires vigilance, courage, and a willingness to protect it even when it is messy, uncomfortable, or inconvenient. The Romanian case provides a timely and troubling window into how democratic systems and mechanisms can be manipulated, often under the guise of protecting democracy itself.

This crisis is not a glitch in the democratic system, it may very well be a preview of what’s to come if we don’t act now. Democracy must be more than a mere slogan. It must be a practice rooted in openness, accountability, and real political choice. If we want to live in truly democratic societies, we must commit not just to the form of democracy, but to its spirit: One that embraces pluralism, protects dissent, and allows the people, not the powerful, to choose their leaders and policies.

The challenge ahead is clear:
Will we allow democracy to become a shell of its former self or will we rise to defend and renew it?

The answer begins with awareness. And it continues with action!