Why Romania’s President Iohannis, PM Ciolacu, and intelligence chiefs, must step down after the november electoral debacle
The main political figure responsible for the rise of the far-right is President Klaus Iohannis, perceived by voters as the leader of a corrupt and incompetent system that includes Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu and the heads of the intelligence services. All must step down urgently because of the chaos they have caused. Nearly three weeks after the electoral disaster of November 24, no one at the top of Romania’s leadership has taken responsibility. On the contrary, they are clinging to their positions as if nothing has happened, in a desperate attempt to maintain their influence. This attitude risks further aggravating a public already outraged by the annulment of the first round of presidential elections, with the elections now set to start over.
Due to catastrophic appointments to the leadership of the intelligence services, the judiciary, and government, as well as within his own PNL (National Liberal Party), Klaus Iohannis has destroyed the Romanian people’s trust in the state. Together with Marcel Ciolacu and the PSD-PNL coalition government he supported, Iohannis has provoked unprecedented voter anger, leading them to embrace populist and extremist parties that, ironically, have also been boosted by the same system.
It is worth emphasizing that these far-right movements were unintentionally encouraged by PSD (Social Democratic Party). PSD supported AUR (Alliance for the Union of Romanians) leader George Simion in the first round of elections, naively hoping to pit him against Ciolacu in the final round to ensure the latter’s victory. Similarly, figures like Călin Georgescu (a far-right politician) have not appeared out of nowhere; his connections and CV reveal him as a product of Romania’s entrenched power structures.
The Constitutional Court extends Iohannis’s mandate amid crisis
Amid this crisis, the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) extended Klaus Iohannis’s presidential term beyond its December 21 expiration. This decision was made on December 6 in the ruling that annulled the presidential elections, citing Article 83(2) of the Constitution. The extension will remain in effect „until the oath is taken by the newly elected president.” Iohannis himself announced this extension during a press statement at Cotroceni (the presidential palace) before the CCR ruling was officially published.
Constitutional law experts consulted by G4Media.ro say that the CCR decision is legally justifiable, though barely. The court likely sought to avoid a power vacuum or political conflict between PSD, PNL, and USR (Save Romania Union) over the Senate presidency, which would have been the interim solution if Iohannis’s term ended without a successor.
The CCR had two options given the unusual circumstances: applying Article 83(2), which does not fully cover the current situation but could be interpreted to fit, or applying Article 97, which addresses vacancies in office but not this exact scenario. The court chose Article 83, likely for two reasons:
- Political Stability: On the day the decision was made, it was unclear whether parliamentary elections would also be annulled. If they had been annulled, Romania would have faced the prospect of no president, no parliament, and no government after December 21.
- Avoiding Conflict: A dispute among parliamentary parties over the Senate presidency, which would have led to an interim president, could destabilize the government further.
While legally justifiable, the mandate extension has been widely criticized as a defiance of the protest vote against Iohannis and his political allies. Nicolae Ciucă and Marcel Ciolacu, prominent figures tied to Iohannis, failed to advance to the second round of elections—a historic failure for Romania’s two largest parties.
A Presidency that eroded democracy
Why has Iohannis lost credibility? Why has public anger reached such levels? The main reasons stem from his actions during his presidency, which are seen as undermining democracy and political freedom:
- He ceded many of his presidential responsibilities, especially during his second term, becoming increasingly absent after the formation of the PSD-PNL coalition.
- He orchestrated the PSD-PNL „grand coalition,” effectively eliminating political opposition and leaving millions of citizens feeling unrepresented, thereby fueling the rise of extremist and populist parties.
- He filled PNL leadership with weak, obedient figures chosen for their loyalty rather than competence.
- He allowed intelligence agencies to expand their influence into almost all areas of governance, increasing the number of domains under “national security” jurisdiction from 4 to 18.
- He enabled cronyism and the suffocation of the economy by companies tied to political parties and intelligence agencies.
- He was complicit in weakening anti-corruption efforts, with major corruption cases now being shielded by court rulings and an ineffective National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA).
It would be a major affront to the electorate for Iohannis to remain in office for months after December 21. He has zero political legitimacy to appoint a new prime minister, as such an appointee would inherit all of Iohannis’s negative baggage as president. What public support could the next head of government have—regardless of their party affiliation—when they are nominated by a president who has lost the citizens’ trust?
It would also be an abuse of power for him to appoint a Constitutional Court (CCR) judge, especially as Livia Stanciu’s mandate expires in 2025. According to sources, Iohannis is considering Corina Corbu, the current head of the Supreme Court, who has a track record of opposing reforms.
Most importantly, Iohannis must step down and take responsibility for failing, as head of state, to prevent “foreign state support” for Călin Georgescu’s campaign, as he himself admitted in his last statement. At this moment, there appears to be no task force at Cotroceni (the presidential palace) coordinating investigations into alleged foreign attacks on Romanian democracy, if they indeed occurred.
Who is currently investigating the grave allegations presented in the secret service reports declassified by the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT)? Are individual institutions—such as the police and prosecutors—conducting their investigations independently? Is there a command center centralizing this information? How is it possible, in the midst of a propaganda war and a flood of fake news about Romania potentially entering a war against Russia, for the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SIE) to leave the country and relax in Abu Dhabi at a Formula 1 race?
The president’s disinterest in the country is evident, even in critical moments.
PSD leader Marcel Ciolacu must also face political accountability for the electoral debacle. Initially, he took the correct step by resigning as PSD leader, but he later reversed this decision and now, shockingly, appears at the negotiation table for the future government. What political legitimacy does a PSD leader have who failed to qualify for the presidential runoff and achieved the lowest parliamentary score in the party’s history? Ciolacu has completely exhausted his credibility after a year and a half as prime minister. He lost the trust of his voters following G4Media.ro’s revelations about his luxury private jet trips to exclusive destinations, paid for by Nordis (a luxury real estate developer). His image as a modest politician has been utterly destroyed.
Failures of the Intelligence Chiefs
The heads of the main intelligence services, Răzvan Ionescu (Romanian Intelligence Service, SRI) and Gabriel Vlase (Foreign Intelligence Service, SIE), must also bear responsibility for the electoral failures. They were unable to prevent alleged foreign interference in the elections, which they only identified after the fact in declassified documents from Cotroceni. Legitimate suspicions persist that the extremist elements in society were fueled by leaders nurtured in the shadows of Romania’s power structures. These behind-the-scenes players have used figures like George Simion, Călin Georgescu, and Diana Șoșoacă to interfere in the political landscape over time.
Ionescu and Vlase have completely failed in their primary mission. Even worse, Vlase showed arrogance by flying to Abu Dhabi for a Formula 1 race on December 8, as previously mentioned, amid a crisis involving potential Russian interference in the elections. To cap off the image of incompetence, SIE compromised the identities of two active officers in an attempt to deter G4Media.ro from publishing any information about the flight, threatening that doing so would violate the law.
A Lack of Accountability at the Top
It is astonishing that the heads of the intelligence services have not resigned. Some might argue that they shouldn’t resign during a crisis, but this is not the case. The institutions would not collapse without them. On the contrary, every day they remain in office deepens suspicions that they are trying to cover up possible complicity with certain candidates or extremist parties. There is no guarantee that the intelligence services genuinely want to shed light on the events of the presidential election campaign while credible suspicions remain that these very institutions are among the major culprits for the electoral disaster.
To date, no one at the highest levels of Romanian leadership has taken even the slightest responsibility. The only resignation has been that of Nicolae Ciucă as head of the PNL, following his disgraceful fifth-place finish in the presidential elections. However, this was far from an honorable resignation, given the humiliating result.
Romania seems to have become a leaderless nation. The main figures in the state are deeply illegitimate, and every day they remain in office fuels voter anger further. President Klaus Iohannis should complete his term but resign the day after the new Parliament elects its leadership and the new Senate president can be appointed interim president. This interim president should appoint a prime minister with a limited mandate until a new president is elected.
The resulting interim government would not be able to undertake major reforms but would manage current affairs. It would lack legitimacy to enact significant measures, as the prime minister would not have been nominated by a president elected by the people.
Only a newly elected president would have full legitimacy to appoint a prime minister with a strong mandate to build a majority coalition. A prime minister appointed by a future president chosen by the electorate would be in a position to form a government capable of implementing in 2025 the reforms outlined in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), cutting budget expenditures, and urgently dismissing the army of political appointees embedded in ministries and state-owned companies to prevent administrative bankruptcy.
The longer current political leaders and key institutional heads cling to power, the stronger the protest vote will grow. Klaus Iohannis, Marcel Ciolacu, Răzvan Ionescu, and Gabriel Vlase need to resign urgently to begin restoring even a semblance of public trust in the state.
Urmărește mai jos producțiile video ale G4Media:
Donează lunar pentru susținerea proiectului G4Media
Donează suma dorită pentru susținerea proiectului G4Media
CONT LEI: RO89RZBR0000060019874867
Deschis la Raiffeisen BankCitește și...
Pentru a posta un comentariu, trebuie să te Înregistrezi sau să te Autentifici.
