We will never know whether Calin Georgescu was an ultra-Romanian nationalist in rhetoric only, or would have also been one in deeds as president of the Republic. The Romanian Constitutional Court has decided to annul the results of the first round of the presidential elections in Romania on the basis of operational, that is non-legalized, intelligence information. Consequently, the second round was not even held, and a completely new electoral procedure was ordered, including the selection of candidates, and a renewed campaign period lasting until the next election date, potentially in March 2025 at the earliest.
What preceded this was that Calin Georgescu won the first round by receiving the most votes, despite not being supported by any political party, as opposed to Elena Lasconi, who was still in the running and backed by a coalition of several parties. After the stunned silence, help arrived, as Washington seemed to have known that the Romanian constitution allows for such cases.
In what cases? Well, when the result of a democratic vote is not acceptable to those who would prefer to live with an American flag in their buttonholes, despite being Romanian politicians?
The formal charge is that, according to intelligence information, Moscow-directed foreign influence had interfered in Romanian democracy. The actual problem with Georgescu, apart from his nationalist views, is that his program included a vision of withdrawal from NATO and Romania's complete non-participation, even indirectly, in the military conflict in Ukraine. Obviously, these remarks irritated US politicians. Which is, of course, not interference in Romanian internal affairs, is it? In hindsight, we'll never know what made him so popular in the eyes of the the electorate- what if it wasn't his nationalism but rather his foreign policy concept that was more compelling.
In addition to serving America, the reference to the secret service is especially infuriating. Whenever the powers that be cannot prove their point with facts, they often cite intelligence information that does not actually exist. There are two fundamental reasons substantiating the non-existence of such intelligence information. The first is political: the secret service in any country must be politically neutral and cannot support party interests. It does, of course, have a role to play in helping to guarantee foreign interference-free elections, through its operational capabilities, regardless of the foreign power in question!
The technical justification is equally clear: intelligence information is confidential and as such cannot be openly referenced. In order for legal action to be taken on the basis of operationally gained suspicions, such information would have to be handed over to bodies such as the police or the prosecution's office, who are authorized to conduct an open investigation. They would then investigate in an open procedure whether or not foreign influence/attacks from any direction had actually occurred. If there had been, say, manipulation from Moscow, and it was technical, it could have been eliminated by operational means without public knowledge. Then in the second round of elections, Romanian voters could have decided between the two candidates without "external" support. Instead, what remained was a circus: accusations without evidence and manipulation of the political process.
Georgescu's statements questioning NATO membership and calling for an end to the war in Ukraine caused major panic among Romania's political elite. This has led to the desire to replace the truly independent Georgescu with a parties-backed "independent" candidate, namely Nicusor Dan, the mayor of Bucharest. The new replacement candidate would then face off against the parties-backed candidate, Elena Lasconi.
So, what's this? A player who no one has voted for before would come in at the behest of the political parties to compete with the candidate of the parties?! And if that weren't bizarre enough, it has become absolutely clear that Western influence is considered less harmful than Eastern. Even though modern technology enables virtually anyone, anywhere to influence anything.
It is the politicians, themselves who have contributed to the emergent confusion by having neglected to introduce any meaningful controls regulating social media platforms. But how could they have through political means when these structures - like the Fed, the US central bank - are in private hands. That the hands of the owners are being held from behind the scenes reaches far beyond the anomalies of a presidential election in Romania.
The situation in Romania also highlights the vulnerability of democracy when political games are based on intimidation and vague accusations citing the secret services. The US-backed press, for example, refers to the event as a "historic decision", but is this really what the democracy of the future looks like - where the vision of world government is so glaringly conspicuous? It cannot be ruled out that in Romania a well-developed technique - in addition to military coups - is being tried out whose slogan is: keep voting until "my desired result" is achieved.
This is foremost why the Georgescu case deserves special attention and primary reflection, with the caveat that in the event someone advocates for exclusionary extremist politics, they should, of course, not be supported.
The take away from this is that a similar challenge could arise here, as well.
Are we prepared in our country to ward off external influence and any kind of technical attack? In part yes, because there are competent institutions and we can learn a lot from the mistakes of others. But are we fully aware of exactly what the real intentions of the political actors are, their backgrounds, what their hidden agendas may be?
The 21st century is proving to be a tough round. It does not allow politicians or us, the citizens who have the right to vote, even a single minute's rest. In our own interest, it demands more attention and clarity than ever before to identify and properly localize the increasingly extreme political solutions being put forth.
The author is a security policy expert and president of the board of trustees of the Safe Society Foundation
