Looming cancellation of Romania’s first-round presidential elections: a democracy in crisis

The Constitutional Court of Romania announced on Thursday a vote recount, a move that suggests the potential cancellation of the first round of the presidential elections. The Court is set to decide on Friday at 2:00 PM whether to validate the election results or annul the first round, as contested by Cristian Terheș (a Romanian politician known for his anti-system rhetoric). However, it is unlikely a decision will be reached tomorrow. According to experts consulted by G4Media.ro, the recount process could take weeks, if not months, to complete. For a detailed explanation on why this delay is expected, click here.

In other words, the Constitutional Court is expected to postpone any decision regarding the annulment of the elections to an uncertain date. This uncertainty will overshadow the parliamentary elections set for Sunday. As previously noted, the primary beneficiaries of the current chaos—an unprecedented situation in three decades of democracy—will be anti-system parties and candidates like AUR (the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians) and SOS (a smaller anti-establishment party). Recent polls already show a sharp rise in support for AUR, which may have surpassed the Social Democratic Party (PSD).

Amid this confusion, the second round of the presidential elections is in limbo. It is unclear when it will be held or which candidates will participate. On Thursday, an obscure association from Constanța filed a request with the Bucharest Tribunal to suspend the candidacy of Călin Georgescu (a controversial figure associated with nationalist and anti-establishment movements). Adding complexity to the matter, the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT) released a statement Thursday, providing the legal basis for both a potential annulment of the first round and the removal of Călin Georgescu from the race—similar to the disqualification of Diana Șoșoacă (a populist, far-right senator). CSAT’s statement claims that one candidate benefited from preferential treatment during the campaign on TikTok. The Chinese platform allegedly boosted their visibility in violation of the Central Electoral Bureau’s requirement to label campaign materials appropriately.

Are these claims sufficient to justify voter fraud allegations and the cancellation of the first round? As explained yesterday, no. Georgescu’s questionable TikTok campaign does not equate to voter fraud as defined by law. No political party has reported irregularities during voting or the counting process. To date, no concrete legal evidence justifies annulling the first round. However, the Constitutional Court could use the recount process to gather evidence for invalidating last Sunday’s results.

It is almost inevitable that discrepancies—additional or missing votes—will emerge during the recount, especially between the two candidates ranked second and third, separated by only 2,700 votes. The recount process lacks full public oversight (observers), and some polling stations lack candidate representatives. Moreover, the technical complexity of recounting can lead to unavoidable errors, not to mention the potential for bad faith actions. This makes it highly possible for the final ranking to change. Public distrust in the results is further amplified by the Central Electoral Bureau’s refusal to allow the USR (Save Romania Union, a centrist party) to film the entire recount process.

In summary, it is plausible that after a lengthy recount—whether it takes weeks or months—Marcel Ciolacu (leader of the PSD) could secure second place, while Elena Lasconi (a popular independent candidate) might move to third. The critical question remains: when will this complex process conclude? Particularly since it will likely face challenges. Adding to the delays, some electoral commission members involved in Sunday’s parliamentary elections are also tasked with the vote-by-vote recount, making it impossible to manage both simultaneously. Logistical limitations further complicate matters, as Romania lacks the necessary manpower to handle two large-scale electoral processes concurrently.

Why does the timing of the recount matter? In December, the terms of both the current Parliament and President Klaus Iohannis will expire. If Romania lacks a newly elected president by then, Klaus Iohannis will need to appoint an interim president, likely the Senate president. Given current projections, the prospect of who might be elected Senate president is troubling, especially with a Parliament likely dominated by so-called sovereigntists and the PSD.

Another possibility is that the Constitutional Court will delay its decision on annulling the first round until after Sunday’s parliamentary elections to avoid further antagonizing the sovereigntists, who are already incensed. Still, the Court is unlikely to postpone the decision much longer. It could rule immediately after Sunday’s elections, drawing on CSAT’s arguments, even if those arguments have yet to be formally submitted to the Court.

The judges of the Constitutional Court are aware of public sentiment and may incorporate CSAT’s arguments into a potential decision to annul the first round—a scenario that now seems increasingly likely. In this case, the vote recount could be halted, as it would become irrelevant. It might even have served merely as a pretext to delay the decision to rerun the first round until after the parliamentary elections.

If the presidential elections are restarted—even with Călin Georgescu disqualified, as Diana Șoșoacă was—anti-system candidates are poised to win, not Marcel Ciolacu, Elena Lasconi, or Nicolae Ciucă (former prime minister).

An anti-system wave has already swept through Romanian society, so any attempt to engineer the election of a president through non-democratic means will face severe voter backlash. Traditional parties like PSD, PNL (National Liberal Party), and even USR are all viewed by Georgescu’s supporters as part of a corrupt system—ironically, the same system that produced TikTok’s so-called savior. But this hypocrisy does not matter to the two million voters who supported Georgescu out of frustration with weak candidate offerings, elite incompetence, the ruling PSD-PNL coalition, a media beholden to political funding, and the pervasive influence of Romania’s intelligence services.

Georgescu’s voters have channeled their anger into a demand for change, targeting what they see as a deeply corrupt system of power—even if their „messiah” is a flawed prophet. G4Media has already highlighted Georgescu’s deep ties to Romania’s old power structures, with roots in communist and fascist regimes far worse than the current imperfect system.

A final note on the immense damage inflicted on democracy by those orchestrating this rerun to benefit Marcel Ciolacu and the PSD.

For years to come, trust in democratic voting and key institutions like the Constitutional Court will plummet. By using the Court to undermine the electoral process or disqualify candidates, these reckless politicians have reinforced the Soviet-era belief that what matters is not who votes, but who counts the votes.

The darkest scenario looming ahead is a country torn apart by protests and social tensions between far-right groups, anti-system factions, and pro-European reformists. With a Parliament dominated by anti-reform forces, Romania could become ungovernable—a chaotic revolution unfolding as a war rages on its border, to Russia’s delight as another Eastern European nation sinks into instability.