Monica Varbanova
On December 3, 2024, Bulgarian newspaper Capital conducted an interview with Vladimir Mitev, trying to find out what is happening in Romania during the elections, what are the reasons for discontent in the country, given that it has achieved so much success in recent times, and what Bucharest’s foreign policy might be if sovereignist Călin Georgescu wins the presidential election. In the days following Vladimir’s interview, pro-European parties announced that they would cooperate, and Romanian President Klaus Iohannis declassified secret service documents showing the intervention of an external “state actor” and the underworld in support of Călin Georgescu’s campaign. In this context, on December 6, 2024, Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of the Romanian presidential elections and decided that the procedure for holding the elections should be restarted from the beginning. On the evening of December 6, 2024, President Klaus Iohannis announced that he will remain in power until the next president is sworn in. The decision to organize new elections will be taken by the next government and Iohannis.
The current interview reflects the situation on December 3, 2024. The interview was used for the article “What went wrong in Romania?” by Monika Vârbanova and Kiril Kirchev, published on the website of Capital on December 6, 2024.
Romania looks good from the outside – Schengen, lower US visa requirements, growing economy, but it seems that people in the country are dissatisfied? What are they saying, what are they saying, what are they voting against?
In relation to the first round of the elections, I noted that there was shock at Georgescu’s victory, but also satisfaction that neither Ciuca, nor Ciolacu made it to the second round. The intervention in the elections by the Constitutional Court, which forced a recount of the votes cast in the country and threatened to annul the first round of the presidential elections, as well as the decision to hold three elections on three consecutive Sundays, one of which was a national holiday, were seen by liberal Romanians as yet another demonstration of the mediocrity and inadequacy of the political elites who have been making the decisions so far.
From the sidelines, we see some general macro-economic data about Romania and we think that things are very good there. But Romanians argue among themselves that 80% of the country’s GDP is produced in 12 big cities. I mean, large parts of the country are similar to northern Bulgaria – an economic desert. People in these areas have less access to corridors of power and are trapped in a more backward socio-economic model.
When we travel in Romania, we are more likely to see the development of big Romanian cities – such as Bucharest, Brasov, Cluj-Napoca, Timisoara etc. But less often do we see the so-called “deep Romania”, the Romania of small towns, with their inhabitants who are more religious, more conservative, have a stronger connection with the Romanian Orthodox Church or are neo-Protestant, have their own sense of justice and honor, etc. It was this deep-rooted Romania, as well as the diaspora, that voted in no small measure anti-system in the first round of the presidential elections for Călin Georgescu.
Some of Georgescu’s supporters stress that they do not want to go to war with Russia in the name of the West and have reservations about the Western corporations that have colonized Romania and exploited its resources. They also believe that the two major parties of the transition, the Social Democratic Party and the National Liberal Party, “have done nothing” for them. From their statements it can be inferred that they don’t understand exactly what Georgescu stands for or can’t indicate what they stand for in his ideas, but he seems different, confident and solid in his messages and has apparently convinced his voters that he is against the system (even if his links with the old elites in it are well known).
Talking to many Romanians in recent years, I get the impression that they don’t feel they have succeeded as a society. On the contrary, they find Bulgarians’ optimism and positivism about their country something they find hard to fully agree with. Romanians are usually critical of their realities. They note that some things are going well, but they also say that there is still much to be done. There is also the thought that, being one of the EU countries with a larger population and surface area, Romanian foreign policy elites believe that Romania should play a more important role in its region.
But some news simply doesn’t reach us. For example, in 2024, for eight consecutive months, Romania has the highest inflation in the EU. We also don’t see the inequality in Romanian society. There is also a discourse in Romania that foreign corporations control the economy and Western Europe has turned it into a colony. The efficiency of the tax service is not high – especially in terms of VAT. Romania is also one of the countries with the lowest budget revenues as a percentage of GDP in the EU.
In Bulgaria, we are used to the narrative that Romanians are excellent and do everything well. However, this narrative shows that we know little about Romania and see only the facade.
What will the country’s next government look like – what are the opportunities and will it lead Romania in the ‘right’ direction?
The key party to form the next government is the Social Democratic Party, which has 22% in the elections. The other two political “blocs” – the pro-European (National Liberal Party, Save Romania Union, Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania), which supports Elena Lasconi, and the sovereignist (AUR Party, SOS Romania and Youth Party) have equal political influence – over 30%. It depends on the Social Democratic Party where the balance will tip. But to find out, they have to get through the second round of the presidential election.
On Monday night, the party decided to make Marcel Ciolacu, who resigned a week before because of his failure in the first round of the presidential election, its new president. Initially, Ciolacu said the party would not support either of the two candidates in the second round of the presidential elections and would let Romanians decide for themselves who to vote for. Regarding the formation of a government, the party would seek a formula with the National Liberal Party and the party of ethnic Hungarians, without Union Save Romania.
In fact, Union Save Romania leader and presidential candidate Elena Lasconi was harsh during the campaign in her attacks on Ciolacu because of investigations linking him to the owner of the construction company Nordis, which has a notorious reputation and has been linked to large-scale fraud. The fact that Ciolacu remains at the helm of the Social Democratic Party and does not seek to collaborate with Union Save Romania and Lasconi means, according to some commentators, that Georgescu will win the presidential election and there will be a joint government between the Social Democrats and the sovereignist bloc. But even this is not so certain, as there are disputes among leaders within the sovereignist “bloc”. In addition, until ten days ago, Ciolacu was part of the grand coalition linked to the resigning President Iohannis, with whom the sovereignists were constantly dissatisfied.
On Tuesday, however, Ciolacu felt compelled to declare that “Romania has no future next to Russia”, after an account X, which identifies itself with the personality of Russian conservative ideologue Alexander Dugin, but cannot confirm that it is really his, posted that soon the Republic of Moldova will be part of Romania and Romania will be part of Russia. The deputy chair of the Social Democratic Party, Victoria Stoicu, made similar statements dissociating herself from the Russian and fascist currents in world politics. Remus Pricopie, the rector of the SNSPA University, the Romanian equivalent of the New Bulgarian University, close to the Social Democrats, also declared his support for Elena Lasconi in the second round.
However, it should also be borne in mind that there is a sovereignist tendency even within the Social Democratic Party. Marius Ghincea, a leading Romanian foreign policy expert, wrote on Facebook on Tuesday night something that everyone is talking about – that there is a struggle of two tendencies within the Social Democratic Party – pro-European and sovereignist. Ghincea links the second wing to former prime minister Victor Ponta, known for his affinity for China and Turkey.
This heterogeneity and contradiction of the Social Democratic Party does not allow us at this stage to see the future governing formula. We will not know which direction the party is taking until the second round of the presidential elections and after that.
In Romania, they fear the Bulgarianization of their politics – i.e. the combination of fragmentation and polarization that would block the political process. But it is known that Romania is entering a difficult period, when the next government will probably have to cut public spending, when there will be discontent in the streets and when political stability is also important, because uncertainty lowers the country’s credit rating and raises the interest rates at which it borrows on international markets.
“The ‘right’ direction in Trump’s second term should not only be sought in geopolitics, but also in economic terms – how Romania can realize its reforms and adjustments to current policies at a lower social cost and while continuing to develop its economic potential – including in ‘deep Romania’, not just in the big cities.
How will the results of the elections – parliamentary and presidential – affect Romania’s geopolitical positioning on relations with the US and the EU?
For Romania, relations with the US, no matter who is in the White House, are vital from a security perspective. When Trump is the master of the White House, it means that the stigma on the sovereignist tendency weakens. And that’s what we’re seeing now – sovereigntist parties have three times more support in this election than they had in 2020.
On the other hand, Romania has attracted significant investment from Western Europe. For example, the Romanian car industry – which is very developed – is closely linked to the German and French industries. Romania’s cultural and academic elites are strongly Eurocentric. Romania is particularly important for NATO in the security field, and Romanian security elites have enduring ties with the West.
The combination of these factors suggests that a significant proportion of Romanians are also oriented towards Western Europe. I cannot imagine that after all these years of working to integrate Romania into the West, the country has suddenly decided to leave NATO and the EU. There is no economic logic. Membership of these integration communities guarantees the country’s security and economic dynamism.
Hardly anyone in Romania would want to turn the country into a new Belarus or a new Ukraine. But it seems to me there are some who want it to go the Hungarian way. Diversify foreign investors – for example, through cooperation with China (there are traditionally pro-Chinese attitudes among Romanians). Try, through fiscal policy or otherwise, to strengthen Romanian capital, small and medium-sized enterprises – which, for example, the Polish sovereignists did when they were in power. To try to be more influential in terms of foreign policy in its own region, rather than sitting like an island in it.
It has ambitions in this direction, and which date not from yesterday or today. But they are also about changing the balances in Romanian society itself. A presidential candidate who professed a desire for a more ambitious Romania, including on the basis of a link with the sovereignist sector of his society – Mircea Geoană – was discredited during the campaign in various ways (including on the basis of his own gaffes and mistakes). He was the favorite at the start of the presidential race and ended up with only 5% support in the first round. I wonder whether, seemingly paradoxically, the votes of Geoană, who backed Lasconi for the second round, spilled over to Georgescu. After all, at the turn of the century, it was Ioana who appointed Georgescu to the Romanian Foreign Ministry.
Now we see Georgescu, who suggested some change from the previous line, being demonized and canardized once again. And again, as in Ioana’s case, he himself is the author of many strange, in his case “esoteric”, statements that make him look inadequate or dangerous if he becomes president. It remains to be seen whether Georgescu will really play a role in Romanian politics or whether he will remain the eternal candidate for the leadership of the country who is not taken seriously (interviews in the national press in which Georgescu announces his willingness to be prime minister have been going on for 10 years or more).
Whoever becomes president, Romania will face the economic and social challenges I am talking about in this interview. These must be addressed if society and its elites have the ambition to develop their country. However, passions are so high at the moment that the real issues and discussions about how to solve them have given way to agitation for and against one policy option or another. If the rhetoric, fragmentation and polarization continue after the elections, as seems to be the case so far, even if there will be change in Romania, geopolitical or otherwise, it is unlikely to be particularly rapid and will be mitigated by resistance to it.
Photo: Buzău – the city of Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu, is one of Romania’s deepest cities (source: Andrei Stroe via Wikipedia Commons, CC BY 3.0)
Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and Twitter. Its Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.
About Author
Discover more from The Bridge of Friendship
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
