Romania faces chaos: Will the Constitutional Court annul the first round and remove Călin Georgescu from the presidential race?

The Constitutional Court of Romania will debate on Thursday at 11 AM the two appeals filed by Christian Terheș (MEP and presidential candidate) and Sebastian Popescu (journalist and candidate in the first round). Both are requesting the annulment of the first round of the presidential elections. Meanwhile, President Klaus Iohannis has convened the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT) for the same day.

“The Council’s agenda includes analyzing potential national security risks posed by state and non-state cyber actors targeting IT&C infrastructure supporting the electoral process,” stated the Presidential Administration.

If the Constitutional Court (CCR) decides to annul the first round, Romania could spiral into catastrophe. The situation would worsen if Călin Georgescu (controversial presidential candidate supported by nationalist forces) is removed from the race altogether. Such a move could martyr him, turning him into a Christ-like figure, and risks sparking widespread protests. Georgescu’s supporters have already announced their readiness to mobilize.

Annulment of the elections and potentially excluding Georgescu would fuel conspiracy theories among „sovereignist” and „anti-system” parties just three days before parliamentary elections. This scenario could destabilize Romania, with dramatic consequences at the polls. Major parties risk facing a massive backlash. Furthermore, expect street protests organized by both pro-European and nationalist factions, heightening the real risk of confrontations and severe social unrest, leading to significant political and social instability.

A potential decision by the CCR to annul the elections would confirm suspicions that „the system” opposes so-called „sovereignists.” It would grant undue legitimacy to political impostors like Georgescu, Diana Șoșoacă (former senator known for nationalist rhetoric), and even George Simion (leader of AUR, Alliance for the Union of Romanians), painting them as “anti-system” heroes despite their ties to political networks.

In effect, nationalist parties like AUR, backing Georgescu, and Șoșoacă’s SOS party could become the main beneficiaries. Just days before parliamentary elections, eliminating Georgescu would bolster AUR’s momentum and likely redirect some “anti-system” votes to SOS.

Could a sovereignist bloc of 30-40%—or even more—enter Parliament? The grim possibility is that they could reach 50%. In contrast, the PNL-USR bloc (center-right parties) hovers around 30%, while PSD (center-left but ideologically fluid) could manage at best 25-30%.

Such a fragmented Parliament, dominated by anti-reform forces, risks rendering Romania ungovernable, akin to Bulgaria’s three-year struggle to form a government or France’s current gridlock. Forget any vital reforms under a Parliament controlled by sovereignists, potentially aligned with PSD.

The bigger concern is the potential fallout if Georgescu is excluded, leading to increased support for George Simion, the remaining nationalist candidate. Simion has already aligned himself with Georgescu’s victory, despite having expelled him from AUR just a year ago over controversial statements.

Removing Georgescu would mark a second intrusive intervention by the state and major parties—via CCR—into the electoral process, following the exclusion of Diana Șoșoacă. Democracy is not served by a series of arbitrary decisions. Candidates must be defeated at the ballot box, not removed through covert maneuvers. Only this approach ensures legitimacy for the next president and avoids perceptions of undue manipulation.

There is nothing democratic, European, or lawful about such constitutional overreach, which could trigger severe political and social consequences, including the possibility of civil conflict.

These are the potential repercussions of a hasty CCR decision under pressure. Legally, such a decision would also be difficult to justify.

Legal Context: Article 52 of the Presidential Election Law

Article 52 stipulates that:

1. The Constitutional Court shall annul elections if voting or result determination involved fraud altering the mandate allocation or the ranking of candidates advancing to the second round. In this case, the Court shall order a new round of voting on the second Sunday following the annulment.
2. Requests to annul the elections may be made by political parties, alliances, or participating candidates within three days after the vote concludes, accompanied by supporting evidence.
3. The Court must decide before the legally stipulated date for publicizing election results.

Key Issues

Under Article 52, what evidence is there that „voting and result determination involved fraud altering the mandate”? Allegations of campaign manipulation on TikTok by Georgescu relate to fraudulent campaigning, not fraudulent voting. Such accusations could apply to any candidate using deceptive campaign tactics.

The article specifically addresses fraud proven to have occurred during voting or result determination—technical aspects of the process—not campaign methods like TikTok bots or algorithms.

Potential CCR Scenarios:

1. Reject the Appeals: This would leave the outcome to voters in Sunday’s parliamentary elections and the second presidential round in two weeks. This is the logical course of action.
2. Postpone a Decision: The CCR could defer its verdict, but the law is unclear on how long such a delay could extend. Any postponement could heighten tensions and bolster sovereignist narratives.
3. Annul the First Round: Annuling after the second round would be absurd but technically possible under ambiguous interpretations of deadlines.

Conclusion

The CCR should reject the appeals on Thursday and promptly announce its decision to preempt protests or victimization campaigns among Georgescu’s supporters. The Court must act independently of CSAT’s findings. Addressing “potential national security risks” during elections is the responsibility of other state institutions, which so far have failed their mission.

Anything less than decisive rejection is akin to playing with fire in a gasoline station.