A few days before the 35th anniversary of the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (December 16-25, 1989), a decisive step in the return to democracy that Romania had already practiced from 1923 to 1938, this eastern European country is found in what looks like a political crisis.
Indeed, while Roman voters were due to go to the polls on December 8 for the second round of the presidential election, the Constitutional Court finally decided to purely and simply cancel the vote in question. The reason for this unprecedented decision is reinforced by suspicions of foreign interference in the campaign which, to everyone’s surprise, gave a clear lead in the first round to the far-right candidate Calin Georgescu, who had presented himself as an independent candidate. . With 22.59% of the votes, thus placing him in first position, ahead of the candidate of the Save Romania union who totaled 19.17% of the votes, the populist leader could not be certain of winning in the second round.
It is in this context, marked by suspicions of foreign interference, that the Constitutional Court decided to” Cancel the whole » of the ballot in order to “ensure its validity and legality”while asking that “the entire electoral process” can be taken backe. In its decision, which took place on December 6 and surprised more than one observer, the Court stated “multiple irregularities and violations of the electoral law having distorted the nature of the citizens’ vote and the equality of opportunities of the candidates, thus affecting the transparency and fairness of the campaign, in defiance of the principles of democratic elections”..
Obviously, there will be no shortage of arguments to justify such an unprecedented decision or, conversely, to challenge this same decision of the Romanian constitutional body. And this is exactly the exercise that the supporters and opponents of this constitutional decision have been engaging in since its announcement last Friday. However, it is appropriate to clarify from now on that there is no question here of ruling on the validity or relevance of these arguments, but simply of raising some thoughts regarding the impact of such a decision.
Indeed, there is no doubt that this decision divides Romanians and it can only accentuate the political oppositions already marked during the first round of this aborted presidential election. Above all, and undeniably, it carries consequences whose true significance is obviously difficult to grasp for the short, medium and long term.
Certainly, Romania, which has more than three decades of democratic experience since the fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s dictatorship in 1989, will find the appropriate means to overcome this unprecedented ordeal. However, and logically, this episode will not be without consequences for Romanian democracy and undoubtedly marks a delicate turning point.
The first consequence of this situation, which already has the appearance of a political and social crisis, seems to have started just after the announcement of the decision of the Constitutional Court that the far-right leader does not did not hesitate to qualify as “coup d’état” ! Calin Georgescu had to ask his supporters again to go to the polling stations on December 8, the postponed polling day sine thedespite the decision of the Constitutional Court. It is also not impossible that, whatever the transparency and sincerity of the next election, the date of which has not yet been fixed, the Calin Georgescu camp could contest it. a priori…
For her part, the pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi, who came in second position and who was to face the Eurosceptic and pro-Russian Calin Georgescu during the aborted election, also estimated that “the vote should have taken place”. She even condemned a “illegal decision” of a “Romanian state flouting democracy”, “leading the country to anarch”. e.On the other hand, pro-European President Klaus Iohannis for his part welcomed the decision of the Constitutional Court in the face of accusations qualified as “very serious”while maintaining that “ the decision […] to cancel the presidential election must be respected. »
The second possible consequence of this incident could be a possible political exploitation of the decision of the Constitutional Court, to the advantage of the populist camp which calls itself anti-system. Indeed, it is very possible that the pure and simple cancellation of the second round of the presidential election, supposed to preserve Romanian democracy from interference and other external influences, could ifine profiterneto the populist leader Calin Georgescu whose speeches have invariably consisted of accusing the current leaders of all the ills from which Romania suffers.
Like a certain Donald Trump, Calin Georgescu will certainly not fail to accentuate his conspiratorial and anti-system speeches against a political class that he accuses of wanting to stay in power by all means. Certainly, the strategy that worked so well in the United States and which made possible the triumphant election of Donald Trump on November 5 could possibly work even in Romania. This is why, as paradoxical as it may seem, the Romanian Constitutional Court would have reluctantly created a political and electoral boulevard for Calin Georgescu who was not asking for so much to stir up popular discontent?
The third consequence that could possibly be drawn from the decision to annul the vote by the Court Romanian constitutional law is its character as a jurisprudential precedent, which could be invoked in the event of electoral disputes, in Romania itself and/or elsewhere in the European area. In truth, suspicions of foreign interference in elections have been rather recurrent in recent years and have concerned several democracies, notably the United States. It is therefore not impossible that in the future, the Romanian precedent will be easily taken out of context for the purposes of electoral protests, obviously fueled by conspiratorial and anti-system speeches.
Ultimately, Calin Georgescu’s extreme, Eurosceptic, anti-NATO, etc. positions are politically objectionable and his opponent in the second round, Elena Lasconi, who was visibly rising in voting intentions according to the polls, had to deconstruct them and at the same time inform the final choice of voters.
From all of the above, and whatever its obvious merits that we can admit in principle, the decision of the Romanian constitutional body and the timing chosen to make it undoubtedly raise questions. Likewise, this unprecedented decision will undoubtedly leave traces in the history of democracy in Romania and it is very likely that it will continue to fuel debates in the future, in this crossroads country and possibly in the rest of the country. European space…
Roger Koudé
Professor of international law at the Lyon Institute of Human Rights (Idhl) and holder of the Unesco chair “Memory, cultures and interculturality” at the Catholic University of Lyon. His latest work, entitled International criminal justice : A suitable instrument for reasoning reasons of state ?is published by Éditions L’Harmattan (Paris, 2023) and prefaced by Fatou Bensouda (Prosecutor General of the International Criminal Court, 2012-2021).
Related News :