
‘We don't know what to hope for': Romanians torn after barring of far-right hopeful
There have been four presidents of Romania since the 1989 revolution that terminated the brutal 20-year rule – and, indeed, the life – of the communist dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu. Constantin listed them all.
'Iliescu, Constantinescu, Iliescu again,' the retired security guard said, counting on his fingers. 'Băsescu, then Iohannis. And for what, exactly? Nothing has changed. Nothing, in 35 years. Pay and pensions are too low. Food and fuel cost too much. Something's got to give.'
Nursing a beer outside a hole-in-the-wall bar in rural Drăgănești, an hour's drive north of Bucharest, Constantin said one man might have been able to change things. 'And now they've banned him,' he said. 'So they can keep on robbing us.'
Constantin's view is not unusual in this village. In November's presidential elections, nearly 600 people here (37.2% of the electorate) voted for Călin Georgescu, an anti-EU, Moscow-friendly, Covid-denying ultranationalist who won the first round.
Since then, the election has been annulled over suspected Russian interference, and Georgescu has been placed under criminal investigation. Last week, Romania's top court upheld a decision barring him from standing in the re-run of the vote in May.
Now even those who did not back Georgescu are disgusted.
'Millions voted for him; he should have been allowed to stand,' said Elena Preda, 64, a retired legal officer, outside the minimarket. 'Nothing's proven against him. The injustice makes me weep. Look at me, I'm buying candles. We're mourning democracy.'
Beside his roadside greengrocer's stand, Ionut, 55, was seething. 'This isn't normal,' he said. 'It's a corrupt, thieving dictatorship. A smart guy looked like winning, so they cancel the vote. Then they cancel him.'
Hours after the constitutional court confirmed Georgescu's disqualification, saying his violation of electoral rules was 'conduct contrary to the Romanian constitution', Romania's prime minister, the Social Democrat Marcel Ciolacu, posted on his Facebook page.
He said that he hoped the ruling would 'restore social tranquility in Romania'. He added that the judges' decision closed 'an extremely tense and dangerous episode' in the country, which could now return to 'a normal social climate' and 'civilised public debate'.
Listening to the voters of Drăgănești, that seems a tad optimistic. Legally, the decisions to annul the vote and pursue Georgescu may be sound. Politically – in a society feeling as fed up and as let down by its political class as Romania's – they could be explosive.
The first-round ballot was annulled after the far-right candidate surged from less than 5% in the polls days before the vote to a triumphant 23%, and declassified intelligence documents revealed a campaign with the hallmarks of a Russian influence operation.
The documents, from Romania's intelligence service and interior ministry, listed 85,000-odd cyber-attacks on the country's election computer system and identified 25,000 largely dormant TikTok accounts that had suddenly begun amplifying Georgescu's messages.
What has emerged so far strongly suggests a Russian campaign, but does not prove it. The files suggested social media influencers had been hired by intermediaries and paid to share videos promoting Georgescu's campaign, and that some of his campaign workers were linked to organised crime gangs and neo-fascist groups.
The former soil scientist – who declared zero campaign spending - is now under investigation on six counts, including misreporting campaign finances, illegal use of digital technology and promoting fascist groups. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
Prosecutors are also investigating 21 others linked to Georgescu. They include Horaţiu Potra, a military contractor, who has called for insurrection 'with scythes, pitchforks and axes'. Police raids on their homes have uncovered weapons and millions in cash, according to prosecutors.
Adina Marincea is a researcher at the Elie Wiesel Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania. In her office in Bucharest, she said clean-cut 62-year-old Georgescu may have 'an aura of legitimacy', but there was little doubt he was 'a very dangerous figure'.
Georgescu has hailed Romania's 1930s fascist leaders as heroes. He recently gave an apparent Nazi-style salute. 'We have enough evidence to place him in that tradition,' Marincea said. 'Look at the ideology he promotes. The people he surrounds himself with.'
She added that Georgescu, who ran as an independent, 'plays a game of calculated ambivalence'. Through his use of 'dog whistles' he 'signals to the radical right, which has this ideology, but he can also say: 'I didn't mean that.' It's not enough to call him populist or opportunist.'
For his supporters – many of whom see him almost as a messiah, with his unrealisable populist promises of huge tax cuts and jobs for all – none of it justifies his ousting. 'I don't believe a word of it,' said Alexandru Ioniță, 25. 'They just made it all up.'
Watching one of his three children play in a park in Urziceni, half an hour east of Drăgănești, Ioniță said he had left home at 14 and, like millions of Romanians, worked abroad, on and off, ever since: France, Germany, Scotland; farms and factories.
'I don't want that for my kids,' he said. 'Georgescu was interested in this country, not in himself. He promised he'd put Romania back on its feet, rebuild what all the others broke, bring home the diaspora. If there's got to be another revolution, so be it.'
Mihaela Măcelaru, 43, said Georgescu had 'shown us how to fight for our our country, because we are all one people. He brought us all together. He was a good man for our country, a wise man. I believe he was sent by God. Now, who knows?'
Romania's democracy is fragile. The median household income is about a third of the EU average. Food is 50% more expensive than five years ago. Almost a third of the country's 19 million people are at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Over the past 10 or 15 years, nearly 20% of the workforce has sought better opportunities abroad.
Public services are poor, and the social safety-net lacking. There is a general perception, in the words of one centre-left politician, that: 'The state isn't there to help. Just to punish people, to create difficulties – while enriching its own.'
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
Inequality, meanwhile, is high: at twice the national average, the per capita GDP of Bucharest exceeds that of Paris, Berlin, Vienna and Stockholm. And a long history of corrupt and incompetent politicians has left public trust in MPs and ministers low.
Adding fuel to those flames is what many observers see as a calamitous lack of official or institutional transparency. 'It's simple: if the state leaves a void, people are only too eager to fill it,' said Ana Dragomir, communications director of the Romanian civic engagement NGO Funky Citizens.
'Our authorities are famous for not communicating or explaining their decisions,' she said. 'That leaves a big hole that instantly gets filled by deep-state conspiracy theories [and] allegations of a coup.'
Such claims are not confined to Romania. The Trump administration has presented the whole episode as an attack on free speech. The US vice-president, JD Vance, asked in a recent speech whether the country 'shares America's values'. Elon Musk wondered how a judge can 'end democracy in Romania'.
Dragomir cites the manner of Georgescu's detention for questioning by police last month as an example of the authorities needlessly fanning the flames of such discourse.
'They didn't make clear why,' she said. 'No specifics, no proper explanation, bad updates. It's about trust ... If we don't trust our authorities, it's because they don't talk to us.'
Likewise, the electoral bureau's decision to cancel the first round of the presidential ballot. 'It was unprecedented – yet still they failed to communicate or explain,' Dragomir said. 'It just fuels suspicions.'
A similar absence of clear, complete and – most importantly – public evidence surrounds the exclusion from May's presidential re-run of both Georgescu and another far-right candidate, Diana Șoșoacă. Șoșoacă, of the ultranationalist SOS Romania party, had already been barred from standing in the first round.
The constitutional court pronounced Șoșoacă's anti-EU, pro-Moscow diatribes 'contrary to democratic values'. She would not be able to keep the presidential oath to respect Romania's constitution and protect democracy if elected, it argued.
'Again, there's just nothing really specific there,' said Dragomir. 'No clear criteria, written in law … This may have been the right decision. But in this context, if it's not completely clear, it just creates more tension and polarisation. That's dangerous.'
The barrings left Romania's populist far-right parties, which hold more than a third of parliamentary seats and had united behind Georgescu, scrambling to find a replacement candidate.
In the end, they fielded two – George Simion of Romania's second-largest party, the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), and Anamaria Gavrilă, founder of the Party of Young People (POT) – before Gavrilă withdrew.
'We decided to support the one who has the most chance of winning,' she said on Wednesday. 'We must go beyond parties and, as Mr Georgescu said, we must support this ultranationalist movement by giving it all the chances.'
Polls have suggested Simion would top the first round with about 30% of the national vote, but would likely be defeated in the second round runoff by the centrist mayor of Bucharest, Nicușor Dan, who is running as an independent.
Whatever the outcome, Georgescu's campaign has been 'an absolute wake-up call', said Victoria Stoiciu, a Social Democrat senator and former progressive activist. 'No one saw it coming, and he's clearly a symptom of something deeper.'
With inequalities growing, the gap between voters and politicians widening and far-right populists stoking resentment, Stoiciu said, 'It does remind me of the interwar rise of fascism. The same perceptions of a corrupt elite, the same disconnects.'
She added that there were external factors, too, including a 'long-term, sustained investment by Russia in undermining trust'. But Romania's mainstream politicians, she acknowledged, had to 'be much more open, listen more, talk more' to voters.
Above all, they had to actually make a difference to people's lives. That was a message that resonated back in Drăgănești. Ștefan, 78, a rare dissenting voice, said Georgescu 'should just have been arrested, from the start … He's clearly a shady character.'
But even if Georgescu was not the man to do it, Ștefan said, Romania still 'absolutely and desperately needs change'.
With this, Ștefan's wife, Jenica, 69, chipped in. 'We just have to hope,' she said. 'The only problem is, we don't know what to hope for.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New European
37 minutes ago
- New European
Britain enters a new nuclear age
Alongside an ambitious plan to build up to 12 new attack submarines, and to create jobs in six new ammunition factories, one of the most striking commitments is to enter discussions with the USA aimed at 'enhanced participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. This innocuous sounding sentence represents a big change in nuclear posture. Make no mistake: today's Strategic Defence Review marks the start of British rearmament. Not only does it signal the UK's commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, but to a type of spending designed to enhance the UK's strategic clout in the world. At present, only Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands host US-owned tactical nuclear bombs, with their aircraft designed to be 'dual capable' of delivering such bombs on target. The UK, which lacks tactical nuclear weapons, could now volunteer to do likewise, but would need to buy a different variant of the F-35 combat aircraft than the one that is flown from the Royal Navy's carriers. That would be a major change in nuclear policy – because the British deterrent has, since the 1990s, been strategic-only. As I've argued here before, we need a wider range of options because Putin is now making regular threats to use nukes against Nato, and tactical nukes against Ukraine – so it makes sense to place more of Nato's collective nuclear armoury closer to the front line, and distributed among a larger number of allies. Over and above deterring Russian aggression, almost everything Labour has announced today looks designed to achieve three things: to boost Britain's influence among its allies, to deliver high skilled jobs to places where they are scarce, and to get ahead of the game in the military technologies of the future. These don't only include drones – though the spectacular Ukrainian strike on Russia's strategic bomber fleet on Sunday shows that we've hardly even begun to understand their power. The technological arms race is now focused on niche areas of science – like nanotech, materials and quantum computing – and Labour, to its credit, has understood that it in any conflict with Russia it is the science labs of Oxbridge, Imperial and Edinburgh, not the 'playing fields of Eton', that might be decisive. Suggested Reading We must take a nuclear leap into the unknown Paul Mason For the armed forces, often bound by tradition and prone to inter-service rivalry, making the SDR work will be a challenge. Because in every domain of warfare – land, air, sea, space and cyberspace – they face the same problem: they are running decades-old kit designed for an era when Britain could choose which wars it fights, while at the same time moving to a completely new, digitally enabled way of fighting, in which technological change never stops. In this context, faced with a Russia that has turned itself into a war economy, and itself learned to innovate rapidly – deterrence comes down to showing Putin that our own industry, science and digital technology base could crank itself up to speed, and indeed surpass what Russia itself could achieve. For me, the most basic task of the SDR was to assess the scale of the Russian threat and offer the electorate an honest proposal of how to meet it – within our means. Though it might sound simple to achieve, it was not achieved at any point during 14 years of Conservative government, above all after 2020, when Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings declared a 'tilt' of security priorities towards Asia, while systematically underfunding the ministry of defence. Labour reversed that stance, declaring from day one that its priority is: 'Nato First'. The SDR places maritime warfare as the highest priority and designates the Atlantic and the Arctic as the UK's prime areas of interest. There's been a row today over the precise form of words Keir Starmer is using – describing the 3% target in the 2030s as an ambition. I think it's clear that Labour means to find the money to achieve that – but it stands way outside the term of UK fiscal forecasting, and no chancellor would allow it to be stated as a firm commitment outside of a budget statement. The real question with the SDR is: do the capabilities match the threats? The answer is: only if you believe Russia can be deterred through Nato remaining cohesive and the UK leading an enhancement of continent-wide nuclear deterrence. If it cannot, then 3, 4 or even 5% won't be enough. In 1939, after seven years of rearmament, Britain's defence budget was 9% of GDP – and once war broke out it rose above 50%. Today's focus on the big stuff – submarines, which are the capital ships of the 21st century, and a £15bn upgrade to nuclear warheads – reflects Starmer's determination for this country to avoid any impression that it wants to be 'Little Britain'. With a cash-strapped treasury, it is a decision to spend on what's strategic, and rely on allies for that which is not. There is even the promise, thinking long term, to specify within this parliament a replacement for the Dreadnought submarines, currently being built at Barrow: and they don't even go out of service until 2050. I would like to have seen more spending and faster – above all because defence industrial investment is one of the surest ways to boost growth and social cohesion in communities that have seen too little of it. But until Labour can win the argument with the British people that they need to pay more tax, and tolerate more borrowing to fund defence, progress is going to be incremental. That, in turn, will depend on the outcome of Ukraine's peace negotiations with Russia. If they fail – and that looks likely – people may wake up to the fact that the prospect of endless war on our doorstep requires a change of attitude to defence. In that sense, the SDR was the start, not the end, of something.


NBC News
41 minutes ago
- NBC News
Covert Ukrainian drone operation strikes dozens of Russian jets
A covert Ukrainian drone operation struck 41 Russian jets on military bases inside Russia, according to Ukrainian officials. They describe the operation which included releasing drones by remote control from trucks outside the military bases. Russia is calling the operation terrorism. NBC News' Keir Simmons reports.


Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Bus powers could help TikTok-famous villages deal with problem parking
Jon Pearce praised the Government for proposing a suite of new powers which councils can use to run their own bus routes and prevent companies from pulling 'socially necessary' services. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which secured a second reading on Monday, would 'streamline' the franchising process when authorities bid to set up London-style networks, and would better secure 'lifeline routes' elsewhere. 'In part thanks to a TikTok craze to photograph sunset and sunrise over Mam Tor, communities where I live in High Peak have been plagued by illegal parking,' Labour's Mr Pearce told the Commons. The 517 metre-high hill in Derbyshire has become popular on social media, with several videos filmed at the landmark racking up more than 100,000 likes on TikTok. Mr Pearce continued: 'I'm co-ordinating a response to these issues with local stakeholders like the Peak park, police and councils, and a key tranche of what we need to do is deliver better bus services that are integrated with local train services. 'This Bill will transfer powers away from Westminster and empower local communities to take decisions necessary for our commuters to get to work, our students to get to college, our vulnerable to access the healthcare they need, and our honeypot villages to manage tourism sustainably.' Gritting crews were unable to reach a Peak District road near the hill earlier this year after more than 200 cars were double parked on it, according to Derbyshire County Council, and Mr Pearce previously wrote to authorities, when he warned that emergency services had been obstructed. The Bill would give councils the power to set up franchised bus networks to regulate routes, timetables, fares and vehicle standards, without the need for ministers' permission. Ms Alexander said the Government is 'fixing the broken' franchising process and told MPs: 'Proposed schemes need to jump through a myriad of hoops and they still require my consent to proceed, which is odd to say the least. 'The idea that I understand more what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need than their local leaders is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority and now through this Bill we will further streamline the process making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.' Ms Alexander said the franchising model 'won't work everywhere', and added: 'That's why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. 'Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their areas, this Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services – securing those lifeline routes that keep communities connected.' Pressed about funding to local authorities for the £3 bus fare cap, Ms Alexander said: 'There is a spending review under way but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of an affordable and accessible bus route.' Ms Alexander also said the Government will 'press pause' on so-called floating bus stops 'perceived to be poorly designed', amid concerns over accessibility issues and potential hazards for visually impaired people and others. Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Paul Kohler said the Bill 'rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically driven ban on municipally owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them' and added that 'it is not and must not become a one-size-fits-all approach'. He added: 'Empowering local authorities in law is one thing. Enabling them in practice is quite another. 'Whilst this Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it doesn't ensure there's fuel in the tank.' Conservative shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon earlier said improvements for passengers 'simply won't happen' without more Treasury money. He said: 'The Bill does not prioritise passengers and there is nothing in it that guarantees an improvement in service standards. 'The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.' The Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Commons at a later date.