Eugen Teodorovici: The government, not the president, will matter after 18 May 2025. The government must be formed by politicians with experience and expertise to be able to navigate the turbulent economic waters

Vladimir Mitev

Eugen Teodorovici is a former finance minister and former European funds minister in Victor Ponta’s government and former finance minister during Liviu Dragnea’s term. In 2019, as finance minister during Romania’s presidency of the Council of the European Union, he was president of the Council of Finance Ministers of the European Union (ECOFIN). During the same period, Teodorovici was President of the European Investment Bank Governors and Vice-President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Governors.

Mr. Teodorovici, how do you see the developments in Romanian politics and society that took place around and after the first round of the presidential elections?

First of all, I must begin by saying that last year’s elections, the elections for the President of Romania in 2024, were stopped in an abusive manner, which was practically a coup d’état at the time, on December 6, 2024, through an incorrect decision to stop the elections in Romania, the suspension of the second round, something unprecedented in the European Union.

And do you know why I say it was a coup d’état? Because, normally, no candidate, no Romanian citizen, unless restricted by a court of law, can be prevented from standing for election.

And so the decision of the Constitutional Court was one that had no basis, so to speak, as the Romanian Constitution states. Today, in 2025, in the first round of the presidential elections, the resumption of the presidential elections, so to speak, we had a slightly more complicated situation. Why?

Because, on the one hand, the candidate, let’s say, the self-proclaimed sovereignist, reached a level of 40%. This was against a backdrop of widespread discontent among the population with the way Romania has been governed in recent years, with tax increases and many other government measures that have been against the Romanian people. This has led to a wave of discontent, which has translated into a high vote for candidate George Simion, who won almost 41% in the first round.

The candidate of the ruling coalition, the National Liberal Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania, their sole candidate, Mr. Crin Antonescu, obtained just over 20% of the votes. This was essentially a significant blow, riding a wave of discontent toward those who have governed and continue to govern Romania. In second place, with a very small margin of less than one percentage point, with just over 20% of the vote, was the mayor of Bucharest, Mr. Nicușor Dan, who represents, in essence, a movement, so to speak, of the #rezist type. A movement which, unfortunately, has caused a great deal of controversy in Romania in recent years. It has basically instilled in Romanian politics and Romanian society a feeling of hatred between and towards political parties.

And here I would like to make a point. Unfortunately, in Romania, as probably in other countries, people always talk about political parties. This is a mistake, because we should be talking about people, not parties.

Parties are not to blame for one government or another. It is those who lead those parties who must be held accountable, not the parties themselves. Unfortunately, as I was saying, this “resistance” movement has brought about hatred towards parties.

Precisely in order to destroy the idea that they can lead the country, all those who were members of those parties had to be, so to speak, hated by the population. Which, I repeat, sounds and looks like a strategy from outside Romania to basically destroy unity among the political class, unity among the population, and induce this “hate” towards politicians in general. A mistake that, unfortunately, is now costing us.

In other words, today’s final is between George Simion with almost 41% and Nicușor Dan, the mayor of Bucharest, with just over 20%. Now, discussions are underway for the second round, there are two weeks of campaigning, negotiations are taking place between the two candidates and the others in order to get the other votes. Mr. Victor Ponta, the former prime minister of Romania, who had the best government in Romania, obtained just over 13%, or approximately 1.3 million votes. This is a significant number of votes that the two candidates in the final will probably “fight” for in order to win them over.

So, there is discussion, there are negotiations, but I believe that now it is about what kind of government Romania will have after 18 May 2025, less about who will be president and more about what kind of government Romania will have. Because Romania is in a disastrous financial situation, European funds are on the verge of being lost, macroeconomic indicators are all, let’s say, at historic lows, and so, even more so, it is about what kind of government Romania will have after 18 May 2025, rather than what president Romania will have.

It is important because we need specialists, people who know what governing means, who have governed before, who have achieved results, whom the European Commission and European structures know and respect and who, so to speak, can change the disastrous situation in Romania today.

Many people say that the parties are currently in crisis, given the so-called old parties, the transition parties, which have governed until now. In this sense, it seems that two rather populist currents, a technopopulist anti-corruption current represented by Nicuşor Dan and a conservative populist current represented by George Simion, are challenging what some consider to be the system. In this context, why is it so important who will form the government? Won’t policies be similar regardless of who leads and dominates the political system? What will differentiate a more sovereignist government from a more pro-European government, given that whoever leads must introduce austerity?

These two notions of sovereignist and pro-European are two false notions. Being sovereignist is, so to speak, a label that was invented, discovered recently. Why?

Because it proved to be popular with the public. Dissatisfied Romanians were looking for an alternative, and this idea of being sovereignist was invented. There is no such thing.

Being a sovereignist means respecting the Constitution in letter and spirit. Anyone who does this is, by definition, a sovereignist. Being Romanian means being a sovereignist.

If you are a Romanian citizen, as the Constitution says, you cannot be anything other than a sovereignist. So it is a notion invented to capture and collect dissatisfied voters.

On the other hand, being pro-European is also something used to manipulate the population. Romania is in the European Union, it is a member of NATO. This means, by definition, that we are a European country, we are based on European principles and European values.

Unfortunately, this is another concept that is used for electoral purposes. And unfortunately, Romanians are confused by the political class that is trying to win them over by using various labels like this. I, for example, as Minister of Finance, took all my measures for the benefit of Romanians and Romanian companies.

I acted, as they say today, the self-proclaimed sovereignists, I acted in this sense. My measures were for the country, for Romanians and for companies in Romania. In other words, I was a sovereignist, but without labeling myself as such.

I was and I am Romanian, that’s all. A Romanian who respects the Constitution and his oath to the country and to the people. And so, when I took these measures in 2018 and 2019, with the taxation of banks’ financial assets, with the price of natural gas, electricity, and so on, I did not have the support of those who today call themselves sovereignists. There was no one by my side to support me. Today, they have invented themselves and today they support the same measures that I took back then.

So I told them in Romania that anyone who wants to consider themselves a sovereignist must take the sovereignty test with Eugen Teodorovici alone. No one can take this test except with me. Because I have been an “administrator” since 1991, I have been involved in public administration in Romania, outside Romania, at European level. My measures, I repeat, have always been for Romanians and for companies in Romania. So, unfortunately, it is a notion used to attract voters. Moreover, as I said earlier, labels are being put on parties.

It is not the parties that are to blame for the way the country is governed, but those who have led these parties. Today, the Social Democratic Party and the National Liberal Party are captive parties. Since last year, and even before that, when the party leaders, former Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu, who resigned from the government a few days ago, and the former president of the National Liberal Party, handed over their parties to the former president of Romania, Klaus Iohannis.

So these parties, the two largest parties in Romania, are still captive parties of a system that Klaus Iohannis managed in the past. But that system still exists today. That is why there is this hatred towards the big parties, because they tried and succeeded with this “hate” towards them.

I repeat, it is not the parties that are to blame, but the people who led them. And governance, I was talking about governance, yes, governance is important beyond the president, because it is governance that will take measures to get Romania out of the economic crisis it is in today. Only governance.

And a government based on principles of professionalism and meritocracy is what Romania needs today. Not politicians, but experienced political figures.

I have heard from many people, and perhaps the election results confirm this, that the PSD, traditionally the largest party and a symbol of the political party system, is currently in a kind of crisis. On the other hand, for the second round, and perhaps in the coming period, at least in the near future, it seems that the political center in Romania is somehow in decline after the Iohannis period and after a rise and strengthening of populism, as I said. And the PSD will perhaps have to, with its new leadership, position itself in the second round, perhaps, if it so wishes, and, in general, with regard to these two populist currents that have strengthened in recent times.

What do you expect the PSD’s role to be in the coming period?

The PSD today, in order to continue to exist, must reform itself. And it must do so quickly, because the PSD can influence the election of Romania’s future president. If you check the percentage that each of the two candidates has and what each can bring from the other candidates, you will see that the number of voters for one or the other is not so clear.

The PSD is the party that can decide both the majority in Parliament for the government and the election of the future president of Romania. But this can only be done if the entire current leadership of the PSD leaves, if the PSD appoints, as is normal, an interim leader who sends a very clear message to social democrat voters to return to the party. Victor Ponta, as I said, the fourth candidate in the rankings, the former prime minister, must come forward, be proposed, be accepted as prime minister, and in doing so, PSD voters can go to the candidate who will take this on, and thus the balance will be tipped.

My opinion, I repeat, is that the PSD must take a decision, because a large party like the PSD, the largest party, cannot position itself in such a way as to go in no direction and leave the electorate free to vote as they see fit. Romanians need people in politics to make decisions.

You cannot say, “Look, you have gone in one direction until now, now I will let you vote for whoever you want,” because that is a clear signal to vote for a certain candidate. So, this decision by the PSD is not really a decision, it is a clear indication and a referral of its electorate to a certain candidate. Which, I repeat, is what the Social Democrats and all Romanians want: accountability.

If that is the case, then yes, take responsibility as the leadership.

Unfortunately, today, the PSD is in disarray, and if it takes, as I said, a decision to change the entire leadership, to appoint an interim leadership that sends a clear signal of openness to the electorate and Victor Ponta as prime minister, also from the PSD, then the PSD, with the votes it brings back to itself and in the direction it wants, can promote a candidate to become president of Romania.

The government will be the one that counts. Because the government will make the decisions to change the current situation in Romania. Not the president of the country.

The president of the country can play various games that the Constitution allows him to play. We have been through such periods before, Victor Ponta has been prime minister with presidents who were against him and against us as a government, both Klaus Iohannis and Traian Băsescu.

So that is, unfortunately, the solution in Romania. If we want to change socio-economically, we must impose competence at the negotiating table, at the level of party structures and especially at the level of government. Otherwise, Romania will sink deeper into the economic crisis it finds itself in today. European funds will be suspended; they will not be used anyway.

We have major problems in using European money, unfortunately, once again. Romania is getting deeper and deeper into debt, and at an increasingly high cost. The budget deficit is growing, and Romania has already committed to a public debt of 62.6% by 2029 in a government document.

This is a historic level. And if we check what this money is being borrowed for, we will see that there is no explanation from the current government. Romania needs a reset, as Klaus Iohannis, the former president, who unfortunately destroyed democracy in Romania, so to speak, said at the time, but he said something very important.

Romania needs to be reset, but it is important that the reset be done by people at the table who will reset Romania for Romanians and for Romania, and not for their own interests or those of interest groups.

I will come back to the economic situation. I had a reason to seek you out, because you are an expert in the field, but before that I would like to ask you about the period when you were minister, because the Dragnea period is considered by some to be the first “sovereignist” period. You said that the term “sovereignist” is misleading, but I think you understand why I use it.

In short, there was a conflict with Brussels in some respects during Dragnea’s period. On the other hand, you were a minister and Victor Negrescu was a minister during Dragnea’s period, which is why I want to ask you about this. At the time, I had the impression that the situation was actually more complex.

As I said, there were ministers or people who had better relations with Brussels, even if there was some disagreement between Bucharest and Brussels on certain issues. But what is different now, if you can compare the Dragnea period with the period we seem to be approaching now with this very strong sovereignist current on the rise?

I have never been pro-Brussels. I participated and was part of Romania’s negotiating team for Romania’s accession to the European Union. So I was involved in all these phases and I strongly believe in the principles and values of the European Union.

But on one condition: that the rights, freedoms, the Romanian state, and the Romanian people are respected. Our constitution and the obligations, but also the rights mentioned in Romania’s treaty of accession to the European Union, must be respected.

Unfortunately, these rights are not being respected today. This is what I am fighting for, and I have always fought for Romania’s rights.

We are being asked to respond to the challenge that the state and the people are paying high interest rates on loans because there is a country risk. There is no country risk in the European Union. It is a single market. There is no risk in the single market. Country risk must be shared among the partners of the European family.

We cannot have a bank with a branch in Romania, let’s say, headquartered in France, where interest rates are below 2%, and in Romania interest rates are 7%. That means you take from me, from the Romanians, and take it to the other side so that you can lower the cost of financing there. How competitive can a Romanian economic agent or a Romanian company be, or how can there be fair competition, when it borrows three times as much as, say, a businessperson in another European country for a similar business?

There is no such thing. Unfortunately, there is no fair competition in Europe today. These are the rights that I said Romania must demand.

They are rights guaranteed by the Treaty on European Union. Therefore, the Romanian government must be composed of competent people, people with administrative experience, with experience in relations with Brussels and other European and international institutions.

I believe that both winners of the first round are talking about the need to reduce the number of employees in the public sector. Both support and talk about business development and so on. That is in theory.

In practice, they do not know how to do these things because, I repeat, it takes experience and dialogue with Brussels on an equal footing. Unfortunately, the finance ministers, from 2019 to the present, have been people who did not even attend the meetings of the Council of Finance Ministers. That is where the leaders of Europe are.

Finance ministers are the “heavyweights” who run Europe. You have to participate and talk to them and see what the solutions are in their countries.

They have to accept you as one of their own. Because, once again, it is very important. When I was finance minister and president of the Council of Finance Ministers, I had big names sitting at my table.

Names such as the former German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who was Vice-Chancellor, the current French Finance Minister, the former Italian Prime Minister, Draghi, the former Swedish Prime Minister, my former colleague as Finance Minister, and so on.

So, everyone respected my position, everyone did exactly what I told them to do, because they respected me, they accepted me as one of their own and someone who could discuss things with them as an equal. That is why I am telling you that the formula of government is very important. What kind of people do you put at the government table?

Who are the people who will decide and what measures will be taken? These things must be understood! You can’t just take a measure, I don’t know, fire hundreds of thousands of people from the public sector without saying how this will happen.

And what do you do the next day? Send them out onto the streets? No!

Actions must be taken gradually, these measures must be taken gradually, without affecting and creating chaos in Romania. Because people have bank loans, they have bills to pay. So you do a proper analysis, you audit each institution individually to see exactly which ones will remain and which ones will not, how many people will have to leave the public sector, to see exactly which sectors are understaffed, so to speak, the staffing levels, because there are areas in education, health, and public safety where more people are needed.

But there are other areas where you have to reduce their numbers. And those who will leave the system, whether there are more or fewer of them, must leave gradually, that is, by the end of this year, they remain, but on January 1, 2026, if they leave, you can go to the market and say that you are financing half the salary of those people who will be employed in the private sector. And then, next year, I will have half of the expenditure that I currently have as a state with these people, and the following year, the expenditure will be zero, and the market will absorb them, step by step, as they say.

That’s why I’m saying that these measures cannot simply be thrown out, because you can create even greater chaos than we have today.

You say that ministers with expertise are needed. Where can they be found when the old parties, which may have experienced cadres, are rejected by the voters? Can the National Bank of Romania provide its experts?

No. The National Bank is not allowed to interfere in government. The National Bank is responsible for monetary policy and the National Bank can never be involved in a political government, and measures must be taken at the political level.

Once again, they are specialists. We should no longer be interested in the political affiliation of a person who enters the government. We must understand that a government of specialists, of experts, of people who know, is more important than the political affiliation of each of them. Good solutions have no political color.

Solutions must be implemented. If they are good solutions for Romania, they must be implemented, regardless of which politician proposes them, whether they are from the left, the right, or elsewhere. This is what good governance means for any country.

Good solutions have no political color. Specialists should not be interpreted according to their political color. A government that brings together specialists and knowledgeable people is the solution in any government and in any country.

I believe that this is right. It is not political color that gives you the right to sit at the government table, but experience, expertise, and determination to do what is best for the country. These are the basic elements that should determine who sits at the government table.

So, what will be the most positive or least bad option for the government after the second round? You seem to be talking about a technocratic government, if I understand correctly. How would you describe the ideal government formula?

I was in the Social Democratic Party. From 2020 until today, I have not been to any party. But I have never acted at the government table as necessarily a member of the Social Democratic Party.

I have always said that I will be a social democrat because I love people. And Romania has many people who need support, unfortunately. But I am also a right-wing person because I need a strong economy that will bring in revenue to the budget so that I can help those who cannot work, not those who do not want to work.

I am against unemployment and social assistance as long as you are able to work, as long as you can work. Romania also has a labor shortage, so unemployment benefits or other forms of social assistance for those who are able to work should not exist. And then, as I was saying, the government after 18 May 2025, I repeat, must be a government formed by a parliamentary majority and composed, as I said earlier, of people who know how to get things done.

The president is less important. So, let’s now think about how we choose, and the negotiations until 18 May 2025, must be conducted with the aim of forming a government that will change Romania for the better, economically and socially. We are not interested in who will be president, but whoever wants to be president must negotiate and then hand over power to the government.

The president should do what is required of him according to his job description, but without being able to interfere with the Romanian government. Otherwise, it means that all power is in the hands of one person, which is not democratic, so to speak, and there is nothing to be gained. So now we have to discuss and negotiate to have a president who understands that the country is governed, that it must be governed and not led by a president.

The president has powers that are, so to speak, limited, right? The parliament and the parliamentary majority must be the ones to form the government, a government of competent people, of people who will change Romania for the better. So it is important, I repeat, that the negotiations take place and that the votes go to the candidate who understands this.

Right? To that candidate. So the candidate who understands that it is the government that matters and not the president, that is the person who should become president of Romania.

Okay. How great is the risk or danger of the Romanian state becoming insolvent if a president is elected who does not understand what you are saying? Or perhaps if the political crisis and political instability continue?

The risk is very high. So if one of the two presidents who does not understand that he must leave a government of specialists, a government of people who know how to do things, how to change things in Romania, and will not let the parliamentary majority decide in this regard, then the risk of ending up in a rather complicated economic situation, to say the least, is very, very, very high. Because, once again, the future president of Romania, as it happens, is the one who will appoint and can appoint the heads of the secret services, the appointment of judges, which is now due.

And so, in my opinion, all this must be negotiated now, because the president of Romania must have strictly the role that the Constitution says and nothing more. Perhaps for the first time, the winner must remain strictly within the rights conferred on him by the Constitution as head of state and not try to play games to change majorities, impose governments, and so on. So it is important that one of the two who understands this, signs and commits to it, becomes the president of Romania.

Because they must not interfere with the parliamentary majority and the way the government will be formed. Even if we say that the party of the two must be the one that understands that even his party, let’s say, may be in opposition. Anyone who wants to bring their own party to power has no place as head of state.

And do you think that the two candidates, or one of them, have the wisdom to apply and achieve what you are saying?

Wisdom, no, but political calculation may lead the two to come to this understanding. So wisdom, definitely not, but political calculation, when they realize that without doing what I am saying now, they cannot become president, then they will be determined to accept this approach. Because, I repeat, this approach is what can decide the president of Romania today.

A reformed PSD, mind you, totally reformed, so that the social democrats’ votes return to the party, because the social democrats’ voter base is over 35%. And a simple calculation shows that if this happens, it is clear that the PSD will be the one to impose the president of the country for the next five years.

Photo: Eugen Teodorovici (source: Eugen Teodorovici)

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