Last week I spent respective days in Brussels with a group of Polish journalists. All my colleagues, who can be classified as mainstream media as shortly as the subject of disinformation or the political course of Europe arose, showed large concern for the situation in Romania (this was before the key decision of the Romanian court to cancel the first circular of presidential elections). However, they were not worried about whether Romanians would bargain their democratic choice, but only that they would not win “Russian misinformation”.
An unprecedented decision was made on Friday, and the silence around it continues in most of the Polish mainstream media. Cancellation of the result of democratic choice is unprecedented in the EU country, although akin situations have already occurred - to mention the repeated referendum in Ireland on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty (the first with negative results took place in 2008, the next, after intense force on Dublin, in 2009). I would remind you that as a consequence of the first circular of presidential elections, the eccentric Călin Georgescu stepped up, and the second place was the centre-right Elena Lasconi. The decision of the court was taken the day before the vote in the second circular and after the same court had not previously seen irregularities in the vote.
Contrary to what the mainstream states, if any, the Romanian court had no hard grounds for its decision. The motivations we know were two. Both equally grotesque. The first is the claim that Georgescu was overly favored on Chinese TikToku, reportedly for Russian money. This cognition was to be provided by Romanian services – attention – Ukrainians. The second reason is "information" obtained from the services to indicate that Georgesc's run of EUR million is suspected of being illegally financed, and of course the Russian way is besides stuck here.
The TikTok case sounds completely ridiculous. Even if Georgescu were actually promoted with TikTok's algorithms, it is not in itself a reason to cancel the election result. First, we would gotta prove that these videos had an overwhelming and devastating effect on the Romanian vote. I uncertainty anyone would be able to present specified evidence. Otherwise, we will conclude that the consequence of the election can always be cancelled if individual gets dubious information that any social media promoted “excessly” 1 of the candidates. This peculiar information is doubtful, as Kiev has no uncertainty an interest in the fact that the elections in Romania have not been won by a candidate openly opposed to the current highly pro-Ukrainian and pro-American course of the country. Is this not an example of an external intervention in Romanian matters? Does this mean that the Polish ultimate Court should recognise the nullity of elections if the Ukrainians provided us with “information” that TikTok promoted 1 of the candidates intensively?
The second is no little questionable. The services have no hard evidence or findings in this case. They have only “suspects”, based on any vague reports. This is simply a strong reminder of the alleged Russian influences in the European Parliament, where we have besides dealt mainly with vague suggestions and suspicions. In addition, there is information about the "hybrid attack" on electoral infrastructure, but there is no way to find any information on which this attack is specifically to trust and what will result.
The Romanian Constitutional Court is simply a completely political institution. Its 9 members are appointed 9 years after a 3rd by the President, the legislature and the Chamber of Parliament. 1 3rd (one associate per pool) is appointed all 3 years.
All 3 members of the court from the presidential nomination are now from the ruling nomination since 2014, president Iohannis, representing the proatlantic option. 3 more were appointed during the Romanian government's word of office, which ends the parliamentary elections held on 1 December (votes have already been raised to cancel their result as well). This already gives most of the circumstantial political option. Only individual completely naive could think that the decision of specified a body in this situation was not taken for strictly political reasons and under external pressure, since Romania – a country not known for political transparency or quality of structures – is crucial for the strategical agreement, right next to Poland. Its course matters both to Ukraine, with which Romania borders, and to the US, which are powerfully politically and militaryly present there.
Georgescu's competitor, Mrs Lasconi, clearly states that we are dealing with a violent intervention in a democratic process. "Extremism is combated by voting, not backroom games," she said. Unfortunately, it shows that in Romania, citizens have just been shown that much bigger players than them let only limited democracy, within the limits in which a choice is made in accordance with the expectations of Washington or Kiev. This is besides indicated by a message by the State Department, who stated that he believed in the democratic institutions of the Romanian State. Ha ha ha – you can sign.
To be clear – I do not justice here at times truly eccentric, most delicately speaking, the political views of Mr Georgesc. But I find that only the Romanians should depend on who their president is. The process of tracking down alleged Russian influences and cancelling the election consequence due to them is highly impudence, due to the fact that it is simply a direct signal besides to another countries of the region: do not effort to make phrases! possibly the attack on Robert Fica, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, who survived happily and returned to political activity, should have been likewise read.
The question is – and it sounds dramatic: do we have (we Poles, them – Romanians, as well as another residents of Central Europe) freedom of choice or have we been incapacitated by utilizing – as Mrs Lasconi said – the backstage games of large forces? Can't citizens choose, if they want, a policy that will change their country's course from a pro-Atlantic to an American-sceptic or even pro-Russian? We can justice specified a phrase critically – of course. We may consider specified a decision to be incorrect and possibly harmful to the country. But does this mean that democracy should be suspended if voters decide in a certain way?
In the case of a fundamental electoral act for democracy, a decision specified as the Romanian Constitutional Court should be based on firm, absolutely hard evidence of counterfeiting, not on critical evaluation of the result of elections. Otherwise, you can take out fundamentally any wrongful candidate. His election consequence can be obtained 100% fairly. But it would be adequate to fabricate the run to conquer algorithms for his benefit in 1 of the social networking sites, and then announce that the Russians are behind it – and the cic, we have an excuse to cancel the election. And this is truly getting highly dangerous. present it can be said that Romanian democracy is only façade. Unless Romanians in repeated elections (not known erstwhile they will be held) show the world's large mediate finger. As long as it's inactive a fair election. Today, agencies say that "it is not clear that Georgescu will be able to participate in repeated elections".
Luke Warches
