Summary
Romania’s electoral commission barred far-right candidate Calin Georgescu from the presidential election without explanation.
Georgescu, who led polls with 40%, called the move “a direct blow to democracy” and plans to appeal. His supporters protested in Bucharest.
The constitutional court annulled his prior election win over alleged Russian interference, which he denies. He faces legal issues, including accusations of financing violations and extremist ties.
A vocal Trump supporter, Georgescu received backing from Trump officials, including Elon Musk and JD Vance, who condemned Romania’s actions.
Why does this use 40% instead of the percentage of votes he got in the last election: 23%
They did release an official statement later in the day to explain the rejection: https://adevarul.ro/stiri-interne/evenimente/de-ce-a-respins-bec-candidatura-lui-georgescu-2427400.html
And the full document: https://www.realitatea.net/stiri/politica/cum-explica-bec-respingerea-candidaturii-lui-calin-georgescu-document-oficial_67cdfbf3430c6b3d205eb226
Unfortunately, it’s still kind of abstract and legalese, with not further proof of interference. And it’s mostly self referencing the previous annulment as the cause.
Călin Georgescu’s candidacy does not meet the conditions of legality, as he “by failing to respect the rules of the electoral procedure, violated the very obligation to defend democracy”, which is based on “fair, honest and impartial” elections.
While it’s good avoid another Putin lapdog, the way in which this was done might come back to bite them in the ass.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, this pretty much confirms that the leading parties have been colluding to manipulate elections. The ideal situation would have been him getting his ass whoopped by being voted out. On the other, there was a non-zero chance that he might actually have won.
Either way, the shitshow is not even close to being over. These parties make up 32% of our current parliament, and they’re likely to grow after this stunt, so we’ll have to deal with this crap again during the next election cycle, or sooner.
As a Romanian I’m on the same page as you. While I completely despise this guy for his ties to the fascist movement in Romania, his corrupted political allies, and his closeness to dictators like Trump and Putin, barring him from running for office is a big mistake if no concrete evidence against him is actually laid out. A democracy should be transparent. This entire ordeal wasn’t.
The guy said that if he becomes president, he’ll dismantle all political parties. In a democratic system you cannot let someone run for president if they openly vow to dismantle democracy itself.
If you allow foreign dictatorships to influence your democracy then are you really a democracy at all? Better to nip people like this in the bud.
Also the legal grounds for their removal was their ties to the Iron Guard, which is illegal.
damn. they should do the sort of thing in other countries
A vocal Trump supporter, Georgescu received backing from Trump officials, including Elon Musk and JD Vance,
Romania, good job.
Why doesn’t Romania want their political system and economy destabilized because of morons?
fascists deserve to be barred from oxygen
Well, on one hand, I like the far-right getting some institutional push-back. On the other hand, I’m a little concerned with both the state of democracy — that such a candidate could get so many votes — and the disregard for the people’s vote — while there may have been significant Russian interference, to what extent should the courts intervene with what seems to be a genuinely popular candidate?
Paradox of tolerance. Don’t fall for it. Fascists do not now, and will never, get the benefit of the doubt.
He was talking more about the will of the people, but okay.
Your feelings are more important.
There hasn’t been any will of the people expressed yet. The guy is a Russian asset with zero spine and he’s been eliminated from the race. The people will get to express their will with the other candidates, of which they’ll have many.
There hasn’t been any will of the people expressed yet.
Georgescu, who led polls with 40%
More lies from the left.
Left or right has nothing to do with it. The guy is a spineless corrupt Russian agent and the justice system is doing its’ job unlike recent examples of other countries.
In the last election, 11.77% of people voted for him(23% of voters). That is more than any other candidate though
Fascist apologist says what?
There is strong legal backing to this. Romania bars anyone with ties to or rhetoric similar to the Iron Guard (Romanian fascists) from running. Georgescu has strong ties to them, and he’s not even the only politician barred from running due to this for this election (Sosoaca).
Georgescu has strong ties to them
I see he’s praised the Iron Guard before. Makes sense.
Not to mention, their open ties to the fascist party running the USA is also quite problematic. Very very high chance of foreign interference.
It’s a tough call to make, isn’t it? Baring a candidate is inherently undemocratic, surely in a perfect democracy any candidate who is receiving votes should be considered. However given the current state of global politics, it’s also equally true that any candidate who is being manipulated by an outside government (such as allegedly Russia/USA in this example) should be restricted for the very same reasoning of allowing the voters to have their say without interference or manipulation by people who have an interest in the election being decided undemocraticly.
Ultimately, the decision to prevent any candidate, popular or not, is one that should not be taken lightly. And yet must also be a decision that can and should be made under the right conditions to protect the democratic nature of elections.
I sincerely hope that the people who made the decision in this case explain their reasoning publicly, and have a very good justification for doing so.
to what extent should the courts intervene with what seems to be a genuinely popular candidate?
It all depends on who you ask.
If you ask the average leftist on English-speaking internet forums, they will say the will of the people should always be disregarded in favor of the will of the leftist. They really are that childish.
If you ask the average leftist on English-speaking internet forums
Seems pretty obvious you haven’t actually interacted with an average leftist, let me tell you, because that is not true…
I’ll say though, I’m torn, but leaning towards thinking this really wasn’t that bad. There’s a difference between allowing right-wing policy and opening the door to fascism. Should poison be allowed to run for main course?
Călin Georgescu seems to be a pretty clear-cut fascist, to be honest.
Seems pretty obvious you haven’t actually interacted with an average leftist, let me tell you, because that is not true…
No, it most certainly is true. The left has decided that it’s acceptable and encouraged to stoop to the level of their enemies. You probably disagree with this because it’s a hard truth you don’t want to acknowledge; don’t worry, I see it all the time.
There’s a difference between allowing right-wing policy and opening the door to fascism. Should poison be allowed to run for main course?
Now that’s an actual discussion to be had. I, personally, think representative democracies need to go the way of the dodo and we should move to direct voting. I try not to reason about a broken system that is rotten to the core. It’s a waste of time and an effective distraction from what we should be doing instead.
No, it most certainly is true. The left has decided that it’s acceptable and encouraged to stoop to the level of their enemies. You probably disagree with this because it’s a hard truth you don’t want to acknowledge; don’t worry, I see it all the time.
Sigh, there’s no stats on this, so I’ll refrain from further discussion…
It’s a waste of time and an effective distraction from what we should be doing instead.
Well.
It’s a tough question but I don’t think it’s hypocritical.
A good government serves two roles: (a) to protect the rights of its citizens, and (b) to enact policy that is representative of its citizens (as shown by popular vote and opinion, usually). But no policy should be allowed to supersede a real right, no matter how popular.
So if a candidate is going to subjugate rights as a matter of policy, that government is right to bar them, even if that is undemocratic. Minds can differ on what rights have primacy, and how nuanced those rights are, but I think it’s coherent.
