The election results show Romanians’ aversion to the government

It resonates with Romanian society that retroactively, during the second round of the presidential elections, the first round was canceled on the basis of declassified materials that proved that the campaign of one of those candidates (Calina Georgescua) was somehow paid for from foreign sources and that promotion tactics were used that are not allowed.

I personally consider it one of the biggest mistakes in the whole situation. It brought chaos and caused fear that something nefarious was happening. When the annulment of the results was discussed for the first time based on the request of one of the unsuccessful candidates who received only one percent, it went relatively well.

That’s where I see the main problem. Gradually, a number of requests to cancel the first round also came from other candidates. The court did not respond to these requests and responded only to declassified materials. The consent to declassify them was given by the serving president. This is a warning signal for a relatively large part of society that the decision was in some way under the thumb of the current president or the current set.

It is also interesting that the decision to cancel the first round came even before the votes from abroad were counted. The Constitutional Court and the Electoral Commission argued that there was no violation abroad and there is therefore no need to recount the votes there.

That is one of the concerns. In the first round, the chairman of the social-democratic party PSD and Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu finished third in close behind Lasconiova by only hundreds of votes. When it was decided whether to cancel the first round, there was talk not only about Georgescu, but also about Lasconi and the possible transfer of votes for her. Already at that moment, it could be noticed that society was reacting to this as a possible attempt by the social democratic party to push its candidate to the second position. He reacted sensibly and supported Elena after the first round. Social democracy managed it relatively well.

Of the almost twenty million inhabitants of Romania, about nine million have an active account on Tiktok, i.e. roughly half of the population. His influence is enormous. It is important to mention that it is not only the youngest generation, but it is common for other generations to use TikTok as a network for information or entertainment. They say that in the case of Georgescu, tiktok influenced the youngest generation, but I don’t think so. It was the young generation that took to the streets and demonstrated against the results. And I also don’t think that TikTok is the most important network.

Instagram is the standard channel for all candidates. Elena Lasconiová is very active on it and works well with it. They try to focus on all parts of the population, including the Hungarian minority, which plays a big role. The videos are therefore subtitled in Hungarian. Social networks are one of the main channels used by male and female candidates and the most important for Georgescu, since he does not participate in public debates or appear on television.

Of course, but he knows very well what to say. He claimed that he had not spent a single crown. Based on the declassified material, we were able to track the financial flows that led to him or his campaign from abroad. There was also manipulation with Romanian influencers, about which many of them subsequently commented. It is questionable whether it is true here or if they did it out of fear, but many warned that their accounts were stolen or their content modified. As you said, he should not participate in the election campaign if he did not mark the contributions as electoral.

We can talk about that. A number of media talked about the fact that it is a success that Social Democracy has now won the parliamentary elections and that it shows that some ultra-right opinion is not gaining ground in society. I, on the other hand, think that the results are alarming if we look at the numbers, how AUR was doing in the past. The increase in its voters is huge. And it is interesting that AUR supported the diaspora that lives in Western Europe.

That is also a topic, but I do not think that it is an idealization of these times. Rather, it is a manifestation of aversion to the current set, which she is unable to act on. Romania falls very low in terms of any statistics. The level of corruption is huge, so is inflation.

That is also possible. I am primarily researching the period of Ceaușescu, and a parallel could also be sought here. For the generation that did not experience that time, it is an idealization that they have someone at the head with a firm hand, who will stand up for the country and who will take care of them.

It is not a new name, he was once a candidate for prime minister for the AUR party. She then took her hands off him and he stood as an independent candidate in the current presidential elections. There is talk that it might have helped him. Nevertheless, the result of the first round was a bit of a surprise for many Romanians. Although they knew him, they did not count on the fact that he would make it to the second round. He is a rather controversial figure.

He graduated from the agricultural university, podology. One would expect that green topics would be relatively important to him, but only to a certain extent. He is a big opponent of the green deal, he is solving how to clean water, but he does not want to join international agreements, etc. These topics also appeared in political campaigns, but they were not the most important.

He uses Ukraine as an argument when he points out that Romania should take care of Romania and should not take care of external issues, let alone contribute to it financially.

I do not think that Romanian society is pro-Russian, its ideal is certainly not to be attached to Russia. But the Romanians have a huge fear of the proximity of Ukraine and what it could mean for them if the conflict worsens. What this can mean for them in the future, if they continue to support Ukraine, is one of the main topics for them in the current presidential and parliamentary elections. They are well aware that this is something that Romania will deal with in the coming years. Georgescu draws attention to this in his speeches.

It’s like when Hurvínek imagines war. His ideas are very unrealistic, but frankly speaking, I think that his electoral program did not reach the voters. The community that voted for Georgescua adheres to the main slogans that are written in the usual media pieces that are available to them. And I don’t know if reading the program is more fundamental for Elena Lasconi’s voters. I think that for both of them it is about those big slogans that appeared in their posts on social networks.