Romania is stuck in a complex strategic status quo, and no matter the differing opinions of the Right-Wing, candidates like Georgescu and Simion, were saying something that sounded different, and it appealed to roughly half of the Romanian voter base.
Dan’s <30-Point Rise
As “Liberal Mayor” Nicuşor Dan, switched positions in the second round of the elections, from 2nd place to winner of the Romanian Presidential Elections, with 53.6% of the votes, with an astounding 32 points rise from his first-round percentage. Surpassing Simion’s 5 points rise from 41% in the first round, to 46.4% in the runoff.
“Statistically impossible”, is what some analysts called that <30 points increase in Dan’s percentage. However, others might see it as logical for a couple of reasons:
First, Simion is not Georgescu, who the polls conducted before the cancelled second round of the first Presidential Elections, were reflecting that he could win with a landslide of over 60% of the votes.
Secondly, Simion was seen as the “Meloni” of Romania, a “safe” right-wing candidate, who wouldn’t change much on the EU or NATO level, as he was outwardly calling for a “Melonisation of Europe” Agenda.
Lastly, it makes sense that Romanians who cast their votes for an “establishment-friendly”, career politician like Crin Antonescu, who came in third in the first round with about 20% of the votes, were more likely to shift their votes in the second round to Nicuşor Dan, another EU-friendly, pro-NATO, career politician than to shift towards Simion.
Voters’ Double-Edged Worries
While it is fair to point out the NATO strategic worries of Romanians, the rising anti-EU sentiments and the economic woes pointed out in part one of this article. It is also fair not to ignore the worries of a large portion of the Romanian population, about geopolitical tensions that might stir troubles in their homeland and beyond, if the Right-Wing takes the helm of power.
As some Romanians may feel safer if their country turns into the host of the biggest NATO base within 5 years, with the expansion of the “Mihail Kogalniceanu” airbase. Especially in a country neighboring Ukraine at the Eastern borders of the EU, with a brewing confrontation with Russia, over the core idea of Ukraine’s orientation towards the EU and NATO.
So, it’s fair to say, that the Romanian NATO/EU worries, are a double-edged sword. Which makes sense why the Romanian electorate would be as divided as it is, on both sides of the sword’s blade?
After all, this is serious, it’s not like a living room discussion about which is the best player in the history of Romanian Football, Gheorghe Hagi or Popescu? This discussion is about the future of Romania.
Not to mention, the voters’ worries of the Right-Wing itself, especially as Romanians, read reports about someone like Horațiu Potra. Allegedly a mercenary group leader, and an ally of Călin Georgescu, who got arrested by Romanian Police, as he was riding in a 5-car convoy, carrying armed personnel, reportedly on their way to Bucharest, to start a riot against the Court’s decision to cancel the first elections results last December.
You have to wonder what did Romanians feel as they read that Potra, said during an interview with Realitatea Plus following his indictment: “Better to break the law and live than to obey the law and die”.
Regardless of the veracity of such reports, and putting any opinions aside, one can understand what images these kinds of reports might bring up in the heads of Romanians. Probably something similar to what they saw happening in the United States on January 6th 2021 Capitol Riots. Or even worse, the violent civil unrest of 1989 in Romania itself, during the riots calling for Nicolae Ceaușescu’s ousting.
Dan’s Status-Quo Agenda
Nicușor Dan’s agenda during this election season was dubbed “Honest Romania Vision”. Focusing on the core aspects of institutional modernization following EU standards, strengthening anti-corruption measures, maintaining his political image as a fighter against corruption. And finally, leveraging innovation in Romania through partnerships with “democratic states”.
Contrasting himself, of course, to Simion’s Eurosceptic, anti-NATO, tax cuts and subsidies economic potion, which split the voters between pros and cons worries over fiscal stability, in a country still suffering from high levels of inflation since 2022.
It is very clear from this brief political agenda comparison, where Dan’s allegiances lie, and why half the voter base would have their doubts about Simion’s agenda as well. Even though, they might have agreed with his sentiments towards Brussels’s economic bureaucracy and military alliance.
The Romanians’ worries are all undoubtedly legitimate; however, they are all double-edged. What now, that Brussels got what it wants in Romania? Will Dan’s policies be the solution for Romania’s economic woes? And how is he different than the previous governing coalition, if no shift is in sight in Romania’s EU or NATO positions? Does this approach achieve Romania’s geopolitical security objectives?
Dan’s victory might be seen as a “safe” mandate for reform and renewal of Romania’s commitment to Western alliances. But, where did Romania’s economic and geostrategic problems emanate from, other than under the same umbrella?
Romania’s Déjà Vu Scenario
Important to remember here, is an example from Romania’s recent history, When Ion Iliescu was running for his second presidential term in the 2000 Romanian Elections, on the Social Democratic Pole of Romania party ticket. Iliescu won in the run-off round against Corneliu Vadim Tudor, the ultranationalist Right-Winger of the time, for the same reasons:
- An outgoing governing alliance that became very unpopular among voters due to grinding economic “reforms”.
- Volatile stability among the ruling coalition of parties and failure to earn the approval of Romanians to remain in power.
- Also, Tudor’s views, which were considered “extreme”, alienated a large portion of urban voters, whose worries about political instability pushed them to either abstain from voting in the run-off elections or vote for Iliescu, with a bitter grain of salt.
More noteworthy, the government which came to power in Iliescu’s second presidential term, under the leadership of Prime Minister, Adrian Năstase, continued the same line of reforms, considered “harsh” by Romanians, who just voted out the previous governing alliance, due to the same reform program.
And of course, during the same Iliescu term, Romania joined NATO in March 2004, and three years after Iliescu’s second term ended, Romania completed its ongoing ascension process started under Iliescu’s patronage, and joined the EU in 2007, during the presidency of his successor, Traian Băsescu.
Details might differ according to where the cursor stands on the timeline, but the Romanian Déjà vu scenario runs exactly the same course every election season, doesn’t it?
Romania is stuck in a complex strategic status quo, and no matter the differing opinions of the Right-Wing, or what some analysts like to call European “Trumpism”, candidates like Georgescu and Simion, were saying something that sounded different, and it appealed to roughly half of the Romanian voter base.
The Romanian Right Shift still stands to be considered, but will the lesson be learned?
Now that Romania voted to “remain” under the EU/NATO fold, some analysts say that there seems to be no hope for real change in sight. The Romanian political Right-Shift is a reaction to underlying problems, that are highly unlikely going to be resolved with Nicuşor Dan at Cotroceni Palace, in the “Little Paris of the Balkans”.
So, what’s new? And what’s next, Romania?
Tamer Mansour, Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher
