On December 6, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the first round of the presidential election and
ruled that the entire election process must be repeated.
In the first round of voting, independent Călin Georgescu won the most votes and would have run against
Elena Lasconi from the liberal USR party in the run-off.
This run-off election was already underway among Romanian citizens living abroad and, according to
polls, Georgescu had a good chance of winning it when it was surprisingly halted by the court.
This decision is highly controversial at home and abroad and, in the opinion of many observers, represents an
unlawful interference in the country's democratic processes.
Lasconi complained that democracy was being trampled underfoot.
Georgescu and AUR party candidate George Simion, who was defeated in the first round of voting, spoke of a coup d'état.
The German newspaper "Die Welt" also used the term "coup d'état" and wrote that for the first time in the
history of the EU, an election was being canceled "because the wrong result was imminent".
Are there sufficient grounds for this decision?
The annulment of an election is a far-reaching decision for which there must be weighty reasons.
Were the ballot boxes or voting machines tampered with?
Were votes counted more than once?
Were the results falsified?
Were ballot papers issued more than once?
Were people put under pressure to vote?
Nothing of the sort is known.
The counting process in Romania is very transparent.
Representatives of all parties observe the voting process and take part in the counting of the ballots.
Everything is recorded by cameras.
Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court, in which 8 out of 9 judges come from the established parties PSD and PNL,
ordered a recount after the election without justification.
The election was therefore even double-checked.
However, the recount did not produce any different results.
On December 3, just three days before the election was annulled, the Constitutional Court declared the election lawful.
There was no evidence of electoral fraud. So where did the court's sudden change of heart come from shortly afterwards?
The day after the legitimacy of the election result was established, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis released five
reports from intelligence agencies suggesting that a coordinated social media campaign by a highly
likely state actor had facilitated Georgescu's election.
Thousands of so-called sleeper accounts on the short video platform Tiktok and Telegram, which had been
created years ago but then not used, had been activated, supporting Georgescu and promoting him massively.
There are also said to have been paid in-fluencers who supported Georgescu.
In the meantime, raids have also been carried out on suspected supporters of Georgescu.
Georgescu himself denies having placed such orders. He also claims not to have spent any money on the election campaign.
Interference from abroad
Whether Călin Georgescu was really supported by the Russians cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of current knowledge.
But it is certainly conceivable - and a victory for Georgescu would certainly also have been in Russia's interests.
However, the question is whether favoring a candidate on a social media platform is really enough to cancel the election.
After all, it was clearly verified that the election itself was conducted lawfully.
Even if Georgescu really was heavily advertised, it is still up to the voters to decide where they want to put their cross.
In addition, although Georgescu had a strong presence on TikTok, he hardly took part in any TV debates.
Overall, it was mainly the candidates of the established parties who were present in the mass media.
This means that TikTok's supposed advantage is quickly balanced out.
Apart from that, there are certainly other players from abroad who have certainly interfered in the election campaign.
It is an open secret, for example, that the billionaire George Soros has been massively involved in political events in all
Eastern European countries for many years, has built up a network of NGOs and finances media, universities and much more
through donations and thus steers them in the desired direction.
In 2017, the Romanian social democrats tried to curb the influence of Soros NGOs by law, which led to bloody street protests.
Politicians such as the former leader of the Social Democrats, Liviu Dragnea, who publicly criticized Soros, were
hit with lawsuits, suffered intimidation attempts and were ridiculed as conspiracy theorists and morons.
Former Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta stated that there were indications that Soros
had played a role in the fall of his government.
In the meantime, Soros has brought the three major parties so far into line that the Romanian political
scientist Bogdan Duca said in 2020 that there were no longer any challenges for Soros in Romania.
With regard to the USR party, he even went so far as to say that Soros had his own party in Romania, the USR.
Soros, a foreigner, has thus dominated the political landscape for years.
However, this foreign interference has never caused the Constitutional Court to annul an election.
So why now?
One important explanation for this could be Georgescu's position on the Ukraine war,
which he advocated during his election campaign.
Georgescu has always spoken out against arms deliveries to Ukraine and in favor of peace negotiations.
He advocates a dialog with Russia and wants to keep the Romanian people out of the war and not finance it.
The money belongs to the Romanian people and should be used for them.
These statements must have set alarm bells ringing at NATO headquarters when Georgescu won the first round of the election.
This is because the president has a very strong position in Romania, particularly when it comes to security policy.
He is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and responsible for foreign policy.
He represents the country at NATO and EU summits.
It also has the right to initiate referendums on issues of national interest.
Georgescu emphasized that he did not want to leave NATO or the EU.
"What I want, however, is to take a stand, not to kneel there, not to accept everything."
A change of power to Georgescu could therefore cause major problems for the alliance,
especially as Romania is a key country for NATO:
The alliance has access to the Black Sea via Romania, where the Crimean peninsula, which is of
great strategic importance to Russia, is also located.
In the event of a conflict with Russia, Romania could form the southern flank due to its geographical location.
Romania's military spending exceeds NATO's 2% target and has supplied Ukraine with a Patriot missile defense system.
The largest NATO base in Europe is currently being built in Romania at a cost of 2.5 billion
euros and will provide space for 10,000 soldiers.
Deveselu in Romania is also home to one of two NATO missile shield sites.
Putin has repeatedly made it clear that he sees this as a threat, as Russia fears that nuclear-capable Tomahawk
cruise missiles and rockets could also be launched from there.
Georgescu has described these missiles as a national disgrace.
NATO certainly doesn't like to hear things like that.
Georgescu is not in line with the political establishment in other areas either.
He does not believe that CO2 is responsible for climate change and described the
coronavirus lockdowns as a crime against humanity.
As former president of the Club of Rome for Europe and as "UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Hazardous
Waste", Georgescu also had insights into the higher circles of global rulers and became a whistleblower.
He testified that there is a worldwide oligarchic system that controls the major global powerhouses and whose
members are connected through a system of pedophilia.
With these statements and positions, Georgescu has set himself on an open confrontation course with the global powers that be, who
obviously did not want to stand by and watch this man conquer the central position in one of the most important NATO states.
The question therefore arises as to whether certain circles have urged the Constitutional Court to reconsider
its decision to recognize the election of 3 December.
Whether the surprising lifting of Austria's long-term veto against Romania's full accession to the Schengen area a
week later was added as a "treat" can only be speculated on.
With the Constitutional Court's decision, the entire election process starts anew.
It will be a long time before the elections are held again; a date in mid to late March is being discussed, as no
government has yet been formed to organize these elections following the recent parliamentary elections.
The date for the new presidential election will only be set once a governing coalition has been formed.
This is when the deadlines for declaring candidacies and resubmitting supporting signatures begin to run.
It is questionable whether Georgescu will be able to run again, or whether sufficient charges will be found or
constructed by then to exclude him completely from the election.
The current President and WEF man Klaus Iohannis, who also ran for the office of NATO Secretary General this year, has already
declared his intention to remain in office until the election.
Following the court's decision, Iohannis had a detailed discussion with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Both then agreed that they wanted to "strengthen the security of social networks".
In plain language, this probably means using censorship or other methods to ensure that Georgescu cannot achieve a
large reach on social networks in the event of another election.
The rest of the media now have a few months to take aim at Călin Georgescu and make him impossible for the people.
The big question is whether the Romanian people will follow these efforts or whether they will opt for a major change of course.