Controversial court ruling ousts Diana Șoșoacă from presidential race, fueling anti-PSD sentiment and democracy concerns

The unprecedented and perilous decision by Romania’s Constitutional Court to disqualify Diana Șoșoacă from the presidential race has stirred a strong anti-PSD (Social Democratic Party) sentiment just two months ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections.

Political backlash has been swift, as parties across the spectrum—from the ruling PNL (National Liberal Party) to opposition groups USR (Save Romania Union) and AUR (Alliance for the Union of Romanians)—have accused the PSD of interfering in the democratic process. Four of the seven judges who voted for the decision were appointed by PSD, under the leadership of Marcel Ciolacu. The fifth judge was proposed by UDMR (Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania), PSD’s loyal ally.

The ruling also aligns neatly with PSD’s interest in securing a final runoff that would pit George Simion against Marcel Ciolacu. Any other candidate, such as Mircea Geoană, Elena Lasconi, or Nicolae Ciucă, could likely consolidate the mathematically superior anti-PSD votes.

However, the Constitutional Court’s seemingly arbitrary ruling has sparked widespread alarm. The Court did not cite solid grounds that might legitimately challenge Șoșoacă’s candidacy, such as national security issues, her pro-Russia stance, visits to the Russian Embassy, or tensions over the Ukraine conflict.

No criminal case exists against Șoșoacă for treason, and information from G4Media indicates the decision was not based on evidence from state intelligence services or other institutions that might document unconstitutional acts.

Reports suggest the Court’s decision rested on a vague criterion: commitment to the Romanian Constitution and state. To invoke such a charge to bar a candidate from the presidential race is deeply unsettling in a supposedly democratic state that is a member of the EU and NATO.

This same reasoning could easily be applied to Kelemen Hunor, George Simion, or any candidate who has, at some point, challenged the country’s administrative organization, national borders, or constitutional reforms.

We now await the Constitutional Court’s explanation regarding Șoșoacă’s alleged “lack of attachment” to the Constitution and the state. In any case, the Court has set an extremely dangerous precedent. Today, a candidate is removed from the race on these grounds; tomorrow, a TV station may be shut down, a political party disbanded, or public figures removed under the guise of “attachment to the Constitution and state.” This behavior evokes authoritarian regimes such as Russia, Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, or Erdoğan’s Turkey, with little to do with democratic practices.

How will Romania’s international partners respond to this troubling development? What will Western governments say? Will they denounce this alarming deviation from democracy, or will they look away?

The Constitutional Court’s decision recalls PSD’s approach to power when it has control: forceful, arbitrary, and dismissive of democratic principles. If PSD behaves undemocratically now, as it seeks greater power, what can we expect if it succeeds in taking the presidency?

Especially concerning is that PSD’s authority appears to be reinforced in this case by certain factions within Romania’s intelligence community, supporting Șoșoacă’s disqualification. The backgrounds of some judges reveal deep ties between PSD and shadowy power structures.

While hard to prove, it’s equally hard to believe the intelligence services played no role in aligning the Court with this alarming decision, which has an almost militaristic undertone. In recent years, intelligence influence on government operations has been virtually unchecked by democratic oversight.

Rejecting Diana Șoșoacă’s candidacy is a historically unprecedented abuse of power. Disqualifying a candidate who could significantly impact the first-round hierarchy is a grave, anti-democratic misstep. Elections become irrelevant when outcomes are decided by a system of unaccountable power that disregards voter choice, parties, and candidates alike.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court’s decision cannot be appealed, a major issue in itself. There is no recourse. Five politically appointed individuals have influenced the presidential election’s outcome, with no avenue for appeal and no opportunity for Șoșoacă to defend herself—a fundamentally undemocratic stance, unprecedented in Romania, even in the 1990s when democracy was considered far more fragile.

The five judges responsible for the decision were appointed by PSD and its close ally UDMR: Marian Enache (nominated by PSD), Bogdan Licu (former Deputy General Prosecutor, proposed by PSD), Attila Varga (proposed by UDMR), Cristian Deliorga (former judge at the Constanța Court of Appeal, proposed by PSD), and Gheorghe Stan (a former controversial head of the Special Section for the Investigation of Magistrates, nominated by PSD).

Șoșoacă’s candidacy was crucial in the calculations for the runoff election, as polls placed her support between 5% and 10%. Excluding her increases the likelihood that some of her supporters’ votes might shift to George Simion, the other candidate with a similar agenda.

Will Șoșoacă’s supporters automatically transfer their votes to George Simion? Not necessarily. Politics is not a simple numbers game. Much will depend on Șoșoacă’s actions over the next two months. If she vocally accuses Ciolacu and Simion of conspiring to steal her votes and possibly presents evidence of a political agreement between them, her supporters might instead shift toward Elena Lasconi or Mircea Geoană.

Regardless of who orchestrated and executed the removal of Diana Șoșoacă from the presidential race via the Constitutional Court to maximize Marcel Ciolacu’s chances while boosting George Simion into the second round, the decision has had a boomerang effect.

This is a decisive moment for these elections—a genuine turning point. Marcel Ciolacu now has to start almost from scratch. Everything he built has collapsed overnight.

The image of PSD as an acceptable party that no longer attacks the rule of law, no longer intervenes in judicial matters, and no longer represents a democratic threat has crumbled. Since Saturday night, the common enemy is again the grand old party.

Despite all of Marcel Ciolacu and PSD’s efforts to lull public vigilance, the Court’s decision has reawakened Romanian society. It remains to be seen whether this wave of sentiment will grow and intensify in the coming two months or if campaign funds and shadowy power will once again quell it before the elections.