"Romans admire Poland as an example of success. Regardless of who's in charge here”

His triumph in the first circular was a shock.

Both for society and for ruling elites. There was a panic in the latter. First Constitutional Court ordered a recalculation of the votes. He gave the election commissions 24 hours. The confusion started due to the fact that it was technically impossible. This trial failed to finish, but the court yet decided that this consequence was indeed what it was and approved the first round. The preparations for the second, in which Georgescu was to face Elena Lasconi — a more mainstream candidate, rather conservative, while clearly pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian.

But the second circular didn't happen.

Nope. 4 December Romanian services at the request of the president declassified their reports about the run on the Internet. It was expected to consequence that the equal opportunities of individual candidates were not guaranteed due to the fact that Georgesc's run consisted in manipulating algorithms on social media, mainly on TikTok, which yet gave him an unfair advantage over competitors. The reports show that this is akin to the methods utilized by Russia in Ukraine, and the scale "points to the participation of a state actor".

So it was just circumstantial, not evidence of Russian connections?

It's just that there was no specified evidence. Russia is mentioned in this study only once, in the context of the hacking of electoral offices. But this is simply a weak argument, due to the fact that specified attacks are carried out practically everywhere in all election.

This attack was expected to warp the vote count?

Nope. The election office itself confirmed that it had no influence on the result of the election. At most, he delayed their publication on the electoral commission.

Any another Russian threads?

The study provided information that the Telegram coordinated actions on TikTok, paid influenceroms for promoting circumstantial passwords, distributed any hashtags, or established a coherent media message – e.g. what music will be based on circumstantial posts, which words-keys will appear in them, etc. This method of action was to match 1 of the Russian propaganda campaigns conducted towards Ukraine. The problem is, it's not just typical of Russians. It's beautiful apparent methods of action.

Every politician present uses social media and influencers.

Exactly. What's more, just a minute earlier in a large country, we had a loud election where 1 of the presidential candidates supported the beginning of the owner of 1 of the largest social networks in the world.

And in the United States, nobody cancels the election.

In Romania, there was inactive this problem that Georgescu insisted that he did not spend any money on the campaign. In fact, there were no spots on TV, but his ads on TikTok and a fewer billboards on the streets besides had to produce, coordinate or pay. There was so uncertainty about the transparency of funding. And for her, I guess Georgescu got money from the Russians. These materials were transferred by Romanians to the European capitals. Their reception was alternatively weak. I think the allies were expecting something stronger.

That's a cap.

Yeah. But despite these doubts, 2 days later the Constitutional Court annulled the full election process. He ruled that everything had to be repeated from the beginning, including registration of candidates.

"Georgesc's support is growing. This could have been expected’

How did the Romanians take it?

The decision was considered highly controversial. Commentators began asking why the service had not dealt with the case earlier, since there were specified doubts around Georgesc.

What about his supporters? Did they go out on the streets?

There was 1 tiny demonstration in Bucharest. But besides, no.

Why?

I'm translating this with the specificity of Georgesc's electorate. There was no circumstantial organization behind him to organize protests. Secondly, a large part of his constituents are Romanian diaspora. By definition, they are scattered and hard to organize abroad. Thirdly, the alleged invisible electorate voted for him. So the people who made the last-minute decision. They thought they wouldn't go to the election due to the fact that they had no 1 to vote for. But they were looking at TikTok and they changed their head with a tape throw under the influence of 1 of the “rolls” or Georgesc videos. specified people are not emotionally active in the election process. If their candidate is removed, they think, "Yeah, those corrupt politicians again."

Bogdan Cristel / PAP

Supporter of Calina Georgescu in Bucharest

Their suspicions of a broken strategy are only confirmed.

But it doesn't take them to the streets. Finally, these accusations of ties to Russia, which began to appear after the first round, may have frightened any of his constituents, planted a grain of uncertainty in their heads. They didn't truly know him before. Many of those who voted for him may not have known, for example, that they spoke with sympathy about Putin. Many have previously associated him with the popular anti-mainstream statements in Romanian society, criticism of “using Western corporations” etc.

It's been a period and a half. Re-elections were ordered for May.

And Georgesc's support just grows. You could have expected that. All of this has built his popularity and brought his followers. Events favour his narrative, according to which the mainstream has a mouth full of cliches about the regulation of law, but is willing to violate the principles of democracy so as not to let anyone outside of the agreement rule. Meanwhile, early December Parliamentary elections were held. 3 extremist right-wing parties won a full of around 30% of the vote. Previously, their support was "just" 10%.

So Georgescu's score wasn't random.

No, these social sentiments are real. It's not a surprise. But let's go back to the parliamentary election. 2 mainstream parties formed a large coalition after themTo defy the radicals. Called practically The same government as thiswhich has functioned so far. The president is inactive Liberal Klaus Iohannis, and his word – formally expires at the end of December – was extended by six months in a very dubious way. He is besides powerfully "used", clearly associated with the elite and has no support in society. It's all pumping Georgesc's popularity. His words about the old arrangement, which holds power at all costs, in the eyes of voters only prove themselves.

I saw he scored 50 percent in 1 of the polls.

That's right. In another, it had 38 percent, but adding the support of another far-right candidates who most likely won't compete should have about 50 percent.

So he doubled the number of voters in a fewer weeks.

I think people support him in spite of his decision to cancel the election. This is besides due to the deep request for change. Romanians are truly tired of the fact that the country has ruled for 30 years – most frequently changed – the same arrangement of 2 parties: post-communists and centro-rights. Their usage is simply a natural process. They have failed and numerous, truly loud corruption scandals. People believe that these 2 parties will no longer "provide". That they're only focused on protecting their own interests. The impression that both groups were a kind of a clique sealed the establishment of a large coalition by them in 2021. So far, ideological opponents who have been accusing themselves of the worst things for years have abruptly agreed, not for the sake of the country, but for the sake of losing power. At least that's what it looked like in the eyes of voters.

ROBERT GHEMENT / PAP

Prime Minister of Romania Marcel Ciolacu

So it's like we have a coalition of POs and Law and Justice?

It is hard to compare straight the Polish and Romanian political scene. But let's effort to put ourselves in the position of a Romanian voter. 2 groups have been fighting for years, which abruptly form a large coalition and form a common government. Ba!They even agree that the Prime Minister will be a Social politician for half a term, and for another half a national-liberal. To the voters of these parties, it was a shock. He caused a sense of betrayal. This impression was especially among the centre-right electorate. Turns out they don't have a lot to vote for. Those who expected change on the Romanian political scene, “drying the swamp” – as Trump supporters say, were fundamentally only extremist parties.

Why does the diaspora elect an utmost right candidate?

This large coalition of old parties is inactive in power.

And she selected a common candidate in the re-election of the presidential election. He's Crin Antonescu, an old politician's intern and a typical typical of everything associated with these parties. Even in the beginning of the last decade, he led to the creation of a akin large coalition of the Romanian left with the Romanian right, which survived a full of 3 years. This decision gave a clear signal to voters: “If you don’t like us, we’re even more united, we’re building a wall around our arrangement.”

They didn't learn anything, they didn't realize anything.

Not at all. That's the problem. But there's more. In fresh days, in the fight against "uncontrolled political propaganda on the Internet", the government has adopted a peculiar regulation. It obliges everyone to post information on who ordered it and how much it paid for each election or post.

Does this besides apply to private people who on Facebook just compose something good about 1 of the candidates?

That's the problem. The case is unclear, but there are fears that it will. Political advertising in this regulation is defined as any kind of content that calls for a vote or not voting for a candidate and is published by the individual representing and supporting its political objectives. If you compose that “Georgescu is simply a fascist” and should not be voted for, then it may theoretically fall under specified advertising from a legal point of view. And you should mark it. Or explain that you are not a typical of a peculiar politician.

It's a beautiful unique solution.

And before a large part of society was perceived as any form of censorship. Or a kind of scarecrow. Warning: If you compose something without marking it properly, who knows, it may be considered advertising, and then you will be punished. And not just any fine, due to the fact that the fine provided for in the Act reaches PLN 43 thousand. There are besides concerns that this may be utilized to further undermine the validity of the elections. An uncomfortable candidate massively supported on social media by average citizens – who do not mark their posts as advertising – can, for example, be called upon by the authorities to prove that these posts have not been paid. It will not be easy to prove that “you are not a camel.” Right? Moreover, the government has besides changed the beginning hours of the polling stations abroad, which will be closed faster and without waiting for people standing in queues.

A Georgescu is very popular with Romanian migrants.

In Brussels, he got over 50% in the first round. So we know who these changes hit.

Why does the diaspora elect an utmost right candidate? It seems alternatively unintuitive. Poles abroad vote mostly for liberals.

It's not intuitive, even if you compare Romania with neighboring Moldova. There is besides a large diaspora that definitely chooses pro-European parties.

Recently, she even overtook the balance in the Moldovan referendum. It was thanks to the migrants that she won the pro-EU option.

And saved President Maia Sandu, ensuring her re-election. And Romania is the opposite.

So what's this all about?

Romanians working in the European Union are frequently called blue collars. So physical workers, doing little prestigious jobs. They are not peculiarly integrated into local societies, they live in their groups. Many of them feel a deficiency of a certain sense of dignity. This is simply a problem that many migrants in general are facing. erstwhile you go abroad, you are usually the poorer one, in the achievements, fighting for designation in the local society.

And sometimes due to it, local society is despised.

Even if it's not clear, it's natural that a man like that feels a certain lower class. A dignity message specified as the 1 that uses Georgesc is very comforting. Migrants like to hear that they can be arrogant of being Romanians. That Romania, or the wider central and east parts of Europe, is the actual Europe that preserves Christian values. Romanians are in general 1 of the more spiritual nations in the European Union.

More than Poles?

Yeah. They have a higher percent of those declaring themselves to be Christians. And in the vast majority of Orthodox religion. This does not mean that Romanians go to churches in bulk, but it is an crucial part of their identity. This is simply a very good message erstwhile they hear that they are representatives of a arrogant nation, heirs to the tradition of Rome, that they are de facto better than those around them. That in this Western Europe it can and is inactive making better, in general everything is falling apart.

Rotten, rotten West.

Yeah. Its social structure is falling apart, and here, please: there is simply a family, God, we are right. Secondly, among the Romanian diaspora there is simply a strong aversion to mainstream politicians. Like all economical migrants, they feel that these politicians are guilty of their fate. It was these parties that forced them to go abroad to gain bread for their family. There's a 3rd reason. Migrants are observing the reality in Western European countries and recognise that they do not want to decision any solutions to Romania. I mean, let's be in the Union, let's work there and make money, but for example, we don't want economical migrants. It sounds paradoxical in an immigrant's mouth, but it is.

Is this aversion strong?

When an emigrant from Romania works in Paris or Brussels, he most frequently lives in those poorer districts where he is surrounded by people from Africa, the mediate East, or Southeast Asia. It seems to him that it is common and that is what Europe looks like. And they don't want the same thing in Romania.

“Romans see their possibilities. They hear that they are a tiger of South-East Europe, that they have surpassed Hungary, and are about to surpass Poland"

Is that what Georgesc is promising them?

It's 1 of the accents. Georgescu doesn't have a coherent program. He says virtually everything. From privatizing universities to calling for women to wear skirts due to the fact that that's how they get energy from the ground.

ROBERT GHEMENT / PAP

Supporters of Calina Georgescu in Bucharest

What about his abroad policy?

Exactly. Let us begin by saying that Romanians are convinced that their political class is very submissive erstwhile it comes to global relations.

Are they right?

I erstwhile wrote a study for the OSH entitled “Boxing below weight”. It was about Romanian abroad policy. Romanians see their country increasing and rich, yet politicians inactive think in clientelistic terms. They are “sticked” to the United States. People in Romania gag that erstwhile a crisis occurs, Bucharest does not think about how to solve it, but waits for instructions from Washington.

It sounds acquainted again. Does this work even more in Romania than in Poland?

In principle, Bucharest does not argue the United States. If they ask for something, then the Romanian authorities—recognising Washington as the only real guarantor for Romania's safety— practically always agree. In addition, there is the European Union, especially Germany and France, which is the dominant trading partner. The Romanians, who see how their country is developing, begin to interfere. They'd like more assertive politicians. This is not about leaving the Union or NATO. The polls show that Romanians want to stay massively in the EU and the North Atlantic Pact. But they want to be more active and respected. A good example is the question of joining the Schengen area.

Romania just entered it.

Yes, the beginning of this year. 18 years after joining the EU! Earlier, the accession to Schengen was blocked, among others, by France, the Netherlands and Austria for purely political reasons. The French and Dutch feared an uncontrolled influx of Roma into their countries.

But they most likely didn't say that.

Some right-wing politicians in the Netherlands spoke. And that was a populist argument. Romanian Roma inactive have the right to live throughout the European Union. Whether there will be checks on the Romanian-Hungarian border does not change anything. But politicians in France and the Netherlands had to prosecute their electorates. And the Romanians were even more upset. They felt like second-class citizens in the Union. A nation whose right to travel freely for purely political reasons is restricted by stronger players. It was clear in the polls. And it gave fuel to radicals.

ROBERT GHEMENT / PAP

American bomber at a military base in Romania

When did this submission begin to disturb the Romanians?

It's the consequence of the last fewer years. I think that the change took place around 2015. Romanians began to request the dignity and greater importance of their country on the global stage.

They got free of the complexes.

I think they're just getting free of them. The way part of the electorate behaves is besides the consequence of complexes, a reflection the another way around. Romanians see their possibilities. They hear that they are the tiger of South-East Europe, that they have surpassed Hungary, and they are about to surpass Poland.

This improvement actually happened.

And he's been very fast in fresh years. Now it's slowed down, but Romania is absolutely a country that has the possible to grow even faster. He's already the biggest gas manufacturer In the Union, and it's about to get bigger, due to the fact that it's going to start mining from the bottom of the Black Sea. It has its atomic power plant, the construction of which began inactive in the days of communism and the regulation of Ceausescu.

They're right ahead of us.

In this respect, they were ahead of us in the 1990s. Interestingly, this power plant is built in Canadian technology, not russian technology. Ceausescu was able to afford this due to his independence, and now the country is doing well. In any case, Romanians anticipate politicians not to be grudging performers of American, French or German politics. I feel that changes in the region besides played a function here.

"Romans see Poland as a country that started out of a akin or even worse state than Romania, and advanced forward"

For example, Viktor Orban? How about PiS regulation and knee rhetoric?

First of all, Viktor Orban. At the same time, Poland is admired in Romania as an example of economical success, regardless of who is in charge. Romanians see Poland as a country that started from a akin or even worse state than Romania, and, please, it went forward, first entered NATO and the Union. In addition, Poles have a large absorption of EU funds, good roads. erstwhile Romanians hear that they will shortly scope the level of Poland, they are proud. Hungarians are besides the mention point. They're always talked about.

There are any historical animosities.

These relationships are difficult, Hungarians are kind of a rival. Romanians are watching them and they know them beautiful well. Viktor Orban is considered a threat, Because it's pro-Russian, and Romanians — contrary to what is sometimes said in the media — are not pro-Russian. At the same time, Orban is effective. And impressive. He can stand up in the global arena and fight something for Hungary. It creates itself as an independent policy. Balancing. That's what Romanians like. The leader of the extremist right-wing AUR organization George Simion He could say straight that he wanted to be a Romanian Viktor Orban. Although his group is mostly anti-Hungarian, he plays on concerns about Budapest's historical claims and Hungarian minority.

Since we are on past — during planet War II, Romania was Hitler’s ally, and the country was ruled by a fascist anti-Semitic party. Are the current radicals referring to that time? Or do they at least blink?

I'm certain they wink. Georgescu had any affirmative statements about the fascist movement. Among the characters of Romanian past he listed marshal Antonescu and Zelea Cordeanu. The erstwhile was the leader of Romania during planet War II, liable for the Holocaust in this country, killing 300-400 1000 Jews and Roma. The second is the creator of the legion movement, the Iron Guard, or Romanian fascism. specified relativising declarations are besides made by AUR organization politicians.

It resonates in society? Is there a sentiment behind those times?

Yes, but it's more complicated. A part of society looks with a favorable eye at the legion movement and the marshal Antonescu himself. Only that doesn't mean he murdered Jews. His defenders say: “These were times, the alternate was ending like Poland. We did it to fight the russian Union, which is actually bad. Hungarians and Finns did the same.” They say Antonescu had to conduct the Holocaust due to the fact that Germany demanded it. Which is completely untrue.

dpa/ PAP

Ion Antonescu in 1941.

For example, Hungarians resisted specified demands.

And to the very end. So are the Italians. And the Romanians fulfilled German expectations of their own accord. Sometimes the Germans tried to calm them down a small bit, they said there was no request to rush so much with cultural cleansing. It is hard to bleach Antonescu, but any Romanians do. In the fascist movement, they see the thought of the uniqueness of the Romanian nation that reaches them. Sometimes the crimes of that government are relativized. It is said, for example, that although 300,000 died during Antonescu's rule. Jews, the another has survived so much. That the marshal didn't execution everyone. That the Holocaust only occurred in the territories occupied by Romania, not within its borders. It's not much comfort, but that's what they say.

You mentioned the thought that Romanians are heirs to Rome. What is it?

That's very interesting! Sometimes I have the impression that Poles do not realise how comfortable we are erstwhile it comes to our historical communicative and, consequently, our identity and sense of time and space. In the case of Poland it is rather simple. Our country was created 1,000 years ago, and since then, in 1 form or another, it has actually existed continuously – if not to number cuttings, of course. And, of course, our modern national identity was created in the 19th century, just like all modern identities, we have no uncertainty where we came from.

Our past and the origin of our national identity are rather clear. With Romania, the problem is that as a state it was only born in the 19th century. Earlier, the duchyes of the Danube, of Voloch and of Moldova existed in her place. So before modern Romania could be established, the search for a common communicative began. The first 1 was based on language.

Which belongs to a Romanesque group like French, Italian or Spanish.

So, where did Romanians come from in this part of Europe, between Slavs and Hungary? And speaking vulgarized Latin. The thought that they were the heirs of the Romans came quickly. That is, erstwhile Emperor Trajan in the first century C.E. conquered Dacja, or in a simplistic way the territories of present-day Romania, with him came the legionaries who stayed there and gave birth to modern Romanians. Then the communicative was added that these legionnaires took the women of the daisy, and Romanians rose from this mixed blood.

So they are both heirs of the Romans and the Dacians, local tribes that lost in their clash with Rome, but had bravely faced the top empire of that time for years. Romanians are descendants of 2 arrogant nations and civilizations.

It seems like a beautiful attractive story.

And it allows Romanians to build a communicative that dates back to the first century C.E. And even the days before Christ was born, due to the fact that since they come half from the Romans, the legacy of the Romanum Empire is theirs. Besides, this is why in the center of Bucharest present we will find a monument to the Capitoline Wolf, and among the most popular male names we will find easy Traians, Octavians, Claudius and even Septimians! The problem is that in Romanian historiography since mentioned 1st century C.E., for another 1000 years there is small happening. It is not until the mediate Ages that the Danube principalities appear.

What's the deal?

It's the authoritative version of the story. At most, any are inclined more towards the Romans, others towards the Dakotas. On demonstrations of Georgesc supporters appear people stylized on the Daks, in white robes and furry hats. It's kind of turboslavic on steroids.

ROBERT GHEMENT / PAP

A man in a conventional outfit to show support for Calin Georgescu

Is that why we request to appreciate the world?

Absolutely. The name “Romania” itself originates from Rome and virtually means as much as “from Rome” or “Romania” – in guess, the Roman country. Romanians consider themselves a Latin island surrounded by the sea of historically semi-wild Slavs and Hungarians. They say, “in this part of Europe we are the only guardians of classical civilization.” Interestingly, the Slavs are mainly associated with Russians and Ukrainians. Sometimes they are amazed that Poles as Roman Catholics and “Latins” are besides Slavs.

"Romans respect Russia as the biggest evil in the region"

What about their attitude towards the Ukrainians? In Poland we can see that their disliked moods are growing, and politicians from both sides of the barricades are playing on this sentiment. In Romania, which is besides neighbouring Ukraine, is it similar?

It's the another way around. The starting point was completely different. Romanians never felt close to Ukrainians. Before 2014, the opinion that Ukrainians were fundamentally Russians was nothing peculiar among them. I have heard arguments that Ukrainians and Russians talk the same language, that it was a single empire before, and all of this is “one Russian”. There were practically no cultural links between Romania and Ukraine, and trade was not circumstantial either. If Ukraine appeared in the media, it was alternatively negative, for example in the context of the Romanian number in this country. Kiev was regularly accused of being mistreated.

Additionally, any part of Romanians have a sentiment to the lands lost to Ukraine after planet War II, e.g. Chernivtsi. All of this made the Romanians know small about Ukraine, and if it was already associated with it negatively. So we cannot talk about the increase in dislike for Ukraine or Ukrainians, simply due to the fact that the starting point was rather low. But that painting began to change.

When?

After 2014 The news came from Majdan, then Donbas and Romanians began to wonder why Ukrainians were fighting the Russians. Today, especially after the invasion of 2022, this image of the Ukrainian as individual separate from the Russian has already established itself. There was even any admiration for the Ukrainians that they were resisting Russia.

What about Ukrainian refugees?

There aren't many in Romania. possibly 200,000 of them are permanently there. Above all, they are women and children, which inspires pity and alternatively warm feelings in Romanians.

So before the war, there was no specified economical immigration of Ukrainians as in Poland?

Actually, no. This is due to cultural and linguistic issues. Besides, Romania was not an attractive place to work in the eyes of Ukrainians. There was a akin stereotype to Poland, according to which Romania is simply a mediocre country. Ice cream started melting only after 2022. Of course, in the communicative of politicians, including Georgesc there are tons to take aid from Ukrainians, due to the fact that the state should primarily support its own citizens. But this is not a key point of political narrative. If anything, the image of this nation in Romanian eyes has improved. It's more like a communicative against Zelensk.

What does that mean?

Radical politicians say that Zelenski drags the war, and it has to end, the weaker should step down. But I emphasize — that does not mean that Romanians are pro-Russian. On the contrary, they consider Russia the top evil in the region. Only that many of them are inactive equally reluctant to look at Ukraine. In quoting the classic, they claim that “this is not our war.” If the Slavs are fighting each other, let them fight each other.

The electoral calendar in Romania is very akin to Polish. If there is simply a second circular in the re-presidential election, the vote will take place on 18 May, precisely erstwhile we have the first circular in Poland. Will these campaigns be similar?

I don't think so. The Romanian run is special, completely fresh and unpredictable. The favourite is yet a candidate from a hat with a very circumstantial program. Although I object, it is not known if he will be allowed to re-election at all. The Constitutional Court must decide this.

Which, as we know, Georgesc doesn't like.

The problem is, technically there's no reason not to let him. He wasn't convicted for anything, there's no conviction on him that would take distant his election rights. And this time blocking his engagement would surely trigger demonstrations. Even in specified a scenario, there will be others who will take over the electorate of Georgescu.

When does the court decide?

She should be back in February.

Do you think if Georgescu is allowed, he has the best chance of winning?

I have no doubt. At this point, he's a favorite. We'll see how the run goes and who's gonna be his opponent. But at the moment, outside the Constitutional Court, Georgescu has no 1 to lose to.

You want to talk to the author of the interview? Write: [email protected]